82 réponses à ce sujet

[DreGregoire]

So you want Bioware to tell you how to play their game? I would be insulted if Bioware tried to tell me I should be playing their game in a certain way or manner or mindset. I will not be taken by the hand and shown the way! Head down, eyes straight ahead, and plow forward into the unknown!

RAWR!

Modifié par DreGregoire, 16 novembre 2012 - 12:06 .

[Foolsfolly]

I think we're expected to play it with our hands. I could be wrong here but... yes, hands.

[berelinde]

Tancred Of The Chantry wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...
I don't know how Bioware expects me to play, but I expect to play moderately buzzed and in my underdraws and slippers.

/thread

I plan on getting an early start on a drinking game once more details are out.

Every time Leliana makes an appearance, take a shot...

Every time the word "cheese" is mentioned, take a sip. Not a whole shot. We don't want anyone to die of alcohol poisoning. 

[FaWa]

Every time a Female Dwarf doesn't appear, take a shot

[The Six Path of Pain]

FaWa wrote...

Every time a Female Dwarf doesn't appear, take a shot

Sounds like a challenge >

[Foolsfolly]

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

FaWa wrote...

Every time a Female Dwarf doesn't appear, take a shot

Sounds like a challenge >

And potentially suicide via alcohol poisoning.

[Shadow Fox]

I don't understand what the thread's asking.

[Kidd]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Or is it BioWare's intention that a DA3 player will be able to design his character's personality himself, and then be able to (mostly) play that character in a manner that is consistent with that design?

I'm guessing that. It's been how I've seen their games, consistently, since BG1 after all.

[fchopin]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

I don't understand what the thread's asking.

Sylvius is asking Bioware how he is supposed to play DA3 as apparently he has been playing Bioware games the last 10 years in the wrong way and did not know this.
 
If you could show Sylvius how to play Bioware games he would be grateful.

[Lintanis]

I am sure there will be plenty of "how to play" videos on Youtube than will show you what to do 

[Nattfare]

fchopin wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

I don't understand what the thread's asking.

Sylvius is asking Bioware how he is supposed to play DA3 as apparently he has been playing Bioware games the last 10 years in the wrong way and did not know this.
 
If you could show Sylvius how to play Bioware games he would be grateful.

Has he tried reading the manuals? I always skip them though.

[fchopin]

Nattfare wrote...

Has he tried reading the manuals? I always skip them though.

The manuals do not explain how to guess what your character is going to say so they do not help.

[Nattfare]

Well I knew I was skipping them for a reason.

Don't think I've ever wondered how I am supposed to play a game. I just play until it doesn't work anymore and then I try some other way to play it.

[fchopin]

Nattfare wrote...

Well I knew I was skipping them for a reason.

Don't think I've ever wondered how I am supposed to play a game. I just play until it doesn't work anymore and then I try some other way to play it.

That’s good advice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Or is it BioWare's intention that a DA3 player will be able to design his character's personality himself, and then be able to (mostly) play that character in a manner that is consistent with that design?

I'm guessing that. It's been how I've seen their games, consistently, since BG1 after all.

Lacking any other guidance, this is how I try to play BioWare's games, as well.

But it didn't work in DA2 or the ME games.  So I'm now looking for guidance.

I'll raise the issue again once they start making content announcements.  I asked early in the hopes of being able to abandon the forum before they start releasing spoilers (and my definition of spoiler includes character names), but since they don't seem to want to talk about anything now I'll have to stick around.

[Fast Jimmy]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I think we're expected to play it with our hands. I could be wrong here but... yes, hands.

With Kinnect interactivity, hands won't be needed.

[KNIGHTMARE170]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Better with kinect.

I can't stop laughing!

[KNIGHTMARE170]

berelinde wrote...

How does knowing how the game is intended to be played matter? You go through, choose the dialogue options that appeal to you, exactly the same way we did back in BG2. Unlike BG2 with its timered dialogues, we now know when conversation is going to happen, so we can save first and reload if the conversation if it the results are less than satisfactory.

And really, it's a video game, not a command performance before the monarch of your choice. We aren't creating theatrical masterpieces to be remembered years after we are gone, nor will anyone know or care if something gets really screwed up and we have to do it again.

That's a really bad way of looking at it. In DA:O, BG2, and even Mass Effect, I felt like i was given the tools and options to alter the story the way I wanted to. If i wanted the main character be a racest ******, i could be a racist ******. If I wanted him/her to be a scoundrel, wihite knight of justice, money horder or even a ****, I could do it. I think the OP is referring to how in DA:2, you really couldn't do that.

[CaptainBlackGold]

I think Slyvius makes an important point that is danger of getting lost amongst all the witticisms; what is the design philosophy Bioware is using to make their games? While I do not expect an answer, I do hope that someone, somewhere who has decision making ability, carefully considers what Slyvius is asking.

The last few games have had a heavy, cinematic emphasis and now with a voiced character becoming "standard" one can only assume that this is now the preferred direction. I am not arguing whether said "standard" is good or bad - just that it lends itself to creating a game where the main character is more and more Bioware's and less the player's.

I fail to see how it could not be. The actor has only a few lines, and only a limited way to say them. With the paraphrase, we the player no longer even know what the character is going to say until he says it. Even if we did, we still would know how the actor is going to deliver them.

While this allows the writers/developers to make a far more dramatic story, it also takes something away from the player. Furthermore, it comes with other prices as well - e.g., we don't even get the possibility of a dwarf romance anymore because apparently, it is too difficult to make the models interact properly on screen (and that apart from the "ick" factor some developers have mentioned).

Not only is technology pushing game design in a certain direction, so is the culture itself; i.e., how many threads/comments on these boards have been asking for a more "action" twitch based game play? How many people have complained about "reading" all that text? There are many demands on peoples' time today, and a lot of interesting ways to spend it - a lot of players seem to want an interactive movie experience.

The limitations of previous technology, almost inadvertently at times, allowed more player freedom, and therefore more classic "role playing" just because the developers could not do certain things - unvoiced dialogue allowed the player to read any tone, intent, etc. wanted, sometimes (often) despite what the writers may have intended. But it had the serendipitous effect of allowing the character to "belong" to the player.

So it seems inevitable that we are in danger of losing something, that some of us regard as important; while also getting something that simply could not be done before. Everything has a price, you get something by giving something else up.

But I would like to know that what I am getting is something I really want; and that's why the question is a valid one. I didn't quite with DA2, but hope that I might with DA3.

Modifié par CaptainBlackGold, 16 novembre 2012 - 07:28 .

[Fredward]

However you want to... within the framework provided.

[J.C. Blade]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

I think Slyvius makes an important point that is danger of getting lost amongst all the witticisms; what is the design philosophy Bioware is using to make their games? While I do not expect an answer, I do hope that someone, somewhere who has decision making ability, carefully considers what Slyvius is asking.

The last few games have had a heavy, cinematic emphasis and now with a voiced character becoming "standard" one can only assume that this is now the preferred direction. I am not arguing whether said "standard" is good or bad - just that it lends itself to creating a game where the main character is more and more Bioware's and less the player's.

I fail to see how it could not be. The actor has only a few lines, and only a limited way to say them. With the paraphrase, we the player no longer even know what the character is going to say until he says it. Even if we did, we still would know how the actor is going to deliver them.

While this allows the writers/developers to make a far more dramatic story, it also takes something away from the player. Furthermore, it comes with other prices as well - e.g., we don't even get the possibility of a dwarf romance anymore because apparently, it is too difficult to make the models interact properly on screen (and that apart from the "ick" factor some developers have mentioned).

Not only is technology pushing game design in a certain direction, so is the culture itself; i.e., how many threads/comments on these boards have been asking for a more "action" twitch based game play? How many people have complained about "reading" all that text? There are many demands on peoples' time today, and a lot of interesting ways to spend it - a lot of players seem to want an interactive movie experience.

The limitations of previous technology, almost inadvertently at times, allowed more player freedom, and therefore more classic "role playing" just because the developers could not do certain things - unvoiced dialogue allowed the player to read any tone, intent, etc. wanted, sometimes (often) despite what the writers may have intended. But it had the serendipitous effect of allowing the character to "belong" to the player.

So it seems inevitable that we are in danger of losing something, that some of us regard as important; while also getting something that simply could not be done before. Everything has a price, you get something by giving something else up.

But I would like to know that what I am getting is something I really want; and that's why the question is a valid one. I didn't quite with DA2, but hope that I might with DA3.

I agree with this. With a voice set in place, the range of who the PC can be (by what the game design allowed rather than what the writers had in mind) as a person is at least halved. In DA2 for example, Hawke could never be this person who always speaks in calm, even tones be it a joke, a threat or a statement, leaving their companions slightly baffled at each turn. I'd love to have been able to play a Hawke like that.

Modifié par J.C. Blade, 16 novembre 2012 - 07:49 .

[Shadow Fox]

You are never able to create your character's appearance,backstory,motivation and personality exactly the way you want in a video game period.


If that's a serious issue for you I highly suggest you start writing your own fiction  otherwise we'll see posts like this everytime Bioware annouces a game.

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 16 novembre 2012 - 08:03 .

[CaptainBlackGold]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

You are never able to create your character's appearance,backstory,motivation and personality exactly the way you want in a video game period.


If that's a serious issue for you I highly suggest you start writing your own fiction  otherwise we'll see posts like this everytime Bioware annouces a game.

Pertinent quote bolded; agreed that one of the main differences between a computer game and pen and paper RPG is that the technology itself limits what your character can be. You can make up any character's personality you want in a P&P but it all exists in your head. If you have actual figurines to represent your ideas and move them around on some graph paper, you lose some of that, because it is hard to find the "perfect" image. It is a limit of the "technology" but does not itself ruin the experience.

The only aspect with which I would take issue is the word "exactly." I cannot speak for others, but I am not sure where anyone has ever requested this other than as an ideal that maybe technology might provide in the future.

The issue though, seems more about how much of player agency is lost and wanting to maximize it as much as possible, within the limits of present technological capabilities.

For example, in earlier Bioware games, when the characters were mere "sprites," the only way you had to visualize your character was a preselected portrait. Clever people soon found a way to import other portraits that more closely resembled what they imagined their character to look like. Even though seldom were we able to find exactly the right picture, it did not ruin the game - we were willing to live within the limits because those same limits also opened up other avenues.

Really, the heart of Sylvius's question seems to me to be that the more defined the character, the more it belongs to Bioware and the less it does to the player. As mentioned above, this has both strengths and weaknesses. I understand him to be simply asking, what their design intentions are because it has a direct affect on how that character is played, and how easy it is to get "into their heads."

But if one does not want to role-play a character, if you just want a story where interesting things happen to likeable people, and you sort of participate in directing them, then of course all of this is irrelevant. I played ME just this way, and apart from the ending to #3, enjoyed it. You knew going in that Shepherd had a certain personality range and could play the character accordingly. But it was a different kind of experience than what I wanted from and expected with DA.

So I do not think anyone is demanding perfect control over every aspect of a character. Sylvius (and I may be misunderstanding him here) simply wants to know "how much comtrol are we being given?" That question has a direct effect on how to approach the character in-game, with the limits already established.