143 réponses à ce sujet

[Iosev]

I personally enjoy a variety of role-playing video games and can easily adjust from playing a well-defined, story-driven RPG, to a less-defined, environment-driven RPG. I always try to adjust to a game's design, setting, and story and role-play within that framework, rather than approach each game with the same type of role-playing.

I know some people enjoy a particular approach to role-playing and want every game to accommodate to that approach, but I very much prefer the variety that the different developers utilize with their respective games.

[MichaelStuart]

I prefer to play my own story.
I don't feel character creation adds much to my experience.
Story choices is most important to me.

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 30 novembre 2012 - 06:43 .

[Chaos Lord Malek]

It is always THEIR story, its never yours. You have yours story - it is called life, whether you like it or not.

[Pedrak]

Character creation / custom PC = better. This said, a solid story can make even a fixed protagonist bearable.

[PsychaDurmont]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Just wondering if you preffer to play a game which is somene else's story, or one which you feel is your own? Also, how much of a difference you think character creation makes to that and your Fantasy RPG experience overall?

For me character creation is such a core element in D&D style games, that I'm quite frankly gobsmacked by the amount of dumbing down we're now seeing in games based on D&D foundations.

I'm playing through BG2 currently, and such a large part of the charm is the vast array of races/classes etc. available to me. It will be a big shame if Bioware continue to go down this route IMO.

Character Creation is what make me do various playthroughs.  It helps the immersion of story if I have a character that matches im my head what I thing he/she should look like.  

5 types of hair 4 types of eyes, 4 types of mouth 5 skin tones, and maybe if your'e lucky something to change the shape of the face is the lazy MMORPGs way of railroading creativity and keeping things cheep for the production.  And dont get me started on plastic hair and god awful Tammy Fay Baker makeup.  If it wasnt for those lovely MODDERS out there I'd have quit many games before I ever started.

As for playing a game that is someone elses story... well all games are someone elses story.  If they weren't we'd have written them ourselves.  I think you mean options to make them more personalized in the characters responses to situations.  

Honestly, I'd love to have a game that eventually allows me to respond who I'd like to every situation but I know at this point it just isnt feasable in game design.  The man hrs alone would cause the programmers brains to melt.  Id be happy with a game that allows all possible general options.  

As an example:  "SPOILERS"  do not look further unless finished DA2 or DAO





1. My grey warden is presented with the choice to help the Father.  She helps him per game but in the end allows him to leave as it was the only choice that I was given.  My character at that point fully believed in what he was doing and would have liked the option to have gone with him to help his cause further.   

2. Or, Having the option once my character realized that Orsino was directly responsible for my mothers death, because he funded the blood mage responsible, to have killed that bastard right in front of Merideth.  

Things like the above aren't a stretch and the endings of both would have still been possible without too much hassle and would have felt more fulfilling.

Modifié par PsychaDurmont, 30 novembre 2012 - 07:04 .

[Rawgrim]

My character. Its a roleplaying game, not a movie.

[Novate]

i have to bring artist integrity into this. Its Bioware's art, therefore its always their story, it will never be your story. Even if the illusion is that its your story, it still isn't. Therefore the question is invalid.

[nightscrawl]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I prefer to play my own story.
I don't feel character creation adds much to my experience.
Story choices is most important to me.

Are you happy to pick among the choices the writers have provided, or do you feel a frustration since there might not be the option of what you would ideally want to say?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I like how when the OP mentions "character creation", everybody interprets that exclusively as "choosing hair colour, facial features, etc".

Modifié par CrustyBot, 01 décembre 2012 - 04:26 .

[Heimdall]

PurebredCorn wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

All single-player cRPGs are collaborations.

They differ in how much input you are allowed to provide, how much they respond to your choices, and how much they actively impede your imagination in favor of their own narrative.

Ultimately a given player's preferences as to how much of any of these they want in a game is something of a Goldilocks problem.

This is how I see it.

Bingo

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

In Mass Effect, the Story I have repeatedly played through (Starting-at first- with ME2) for more than 2 Years I call My Own.

[FaeQueenCory]

I enjoy both.
But I don't enjoy them both equally.

I prefer the escapist, silent-protagonist-style stories where I am the will of the world... because it gives rise to the freedom to shape the character I enjoy.
The overall story of the game can be weaker when I am given more freedom of the individual character. Skyrim's giant success is just that: a rather... sad excuse of a storyline... but with all the personal character building with all the sidequests and other things... the lackluster plot is allowed to be slightly overlooked, such in that it doesn't hamper gameplay.

And while I do not enjoy it more than the self-insert, games where there is a focus on narrative and a relinquished control over the player's character rank quite highly in my collection (.Hack//, FFVI/VII/X, Folklore/Folksoul, Catherine... etc).
But here, due to the restrictions on the player character's character, the narrative is the MAJOR driving force in the quality of the game.

And then there's the third style, the combination of the two. Ironically the best examples I have of this being done successfully/correctly imo only involve silent protagonists... but they could easily have been voiced and the quality would not have suffered in the least bit.
The third style is wherein you combine the two: having a defined player character with a heavy focus on the narrative... while still giving some player agency to the plot to the player.
Megami Ibunroku Personas 3&4, SMT1-3, and Digital Devil Saga: Avatar Tuner 1&2 all do this fairly well, giving you the back story but letting you shape the character as you please.
But I think Shin Megami Tensi: Devil Summoner (2): Raidou Kuzunoha vs King Abaddon did it best. You take control of the predefined, legendary devil summoner heir: Raidou Kuzunoha XIV... but the role he plays in the story is up to you. Even though you can only get one of 3 different outcomes during any of the various scenes (Law/Neutral/Chaos). That's still better than DA2's... lack of player influence.
Namely due to how different many of those scenes play out.
Which is where I think DA2 fails at what it tried to do. Even though there's three different personalities Hawke can have (kissass/douchebag/jackass) all the scenes play out EXACTLY the same regardless of which personality for Hawke you, the player, have built.
Both of these games have you fighting the same final boss... but what happens when you defeat the final boss... is what was the problem that I hope was fixed in DA3.
In SMT:DS(2):RKvKA, after beating Shinado, there is a huge difference between the way the Law, Chaos, and Neutral endings play out... yet they still maintain the same various key points.. but they achieve those narrative points in different ways.
In DA2... Hawke runs away... or Hawke... gets bowed to and walks away...?? I dunno. It wasn't very well defined of a CS. But there is 0 difference in the endings... of any act... other than superficial nonsense... and that's what annoyed so many people and made them feel as though they had no influence on the narrative... because they didn't.
This was addressed to satisfactory levels in Legacy... so I imagine that they will follow that for DA3.

that was longer than I thought.... :-/

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

I'm playing through BG2 currently, and such a large part of the charm is the vast array of races/classes etc. available to me. It will be a big shame if Bioware continue to go down this route IMO.

I get the feeling that BioWare believes that multiple races would somehow get in the way of the current kind of Player Characters their games feature, namely the Voiced Protagonist. I've inferred that they don't think that a character who could be a human, a dwarf, or an elf (in the case of Dragon Age, at any rate) could or should have the same voice-actor and accent. I realize full well that the different races have established accents: humans have several different accents associated with different nations, dwarves sound American (except for Bodhan, strangely enough), elves all sounded American in DA:O and the Dalish were given Welsh and Irish accents in DA II.

I don't see any reason, story-wise that we couldn't have a Dragon Age game where the main character comes from the same background (e.g. were orphaned and raised by an organization, say the Antivan Crows, for example) and could therefore have the same accent for all three character races; one per gender. That way there would be no need to waste resources on hiring six different voice-actors (or less,  with some doing double or triple duty) when two would do just fine. The writers would just have to account for a few instances where the character's race is plot-important and makes for some small or major variations and of course write different dialogue for characters interacting with the PC. Also some dialogue wheel options could be provided which are unique not only to the character's class or gender, but also to their race, as were some of the options made available from the dialogue tree in Dragon Age: Origins.

I'd rather resources be used on what I'm suggesting than on multiplayer or weather effects or even some trivial customization options that aren't absolutely necessary. This is something BioWare should consider for future titles, since we're already stuck with a human protagonist and what I fear are hollow promises about non-human PCs for future games.

[NasreddinHodja]

It depends on my mood. No, really, sometimes I want the "my story, my decisions" gameplay, but sometimes I just want to enjoy a good story that happens to be interactive. Or sometimes something in between. So I'll try to explain what I expect from the two extremes.

An open-ended character creation is important in the first option, of course. In the context of Dragon Age, maybe you want to be a human commoner. Or heck, an Orlesian elf servant. Games that cater to this would be the Elder Scrolls and Icewind Dale series. They're good series, but more often than not, I get that "being-farted-from-the-primordial-soup" feeling about the character. They just suddenly come into existence. There's nothing from their backstory you can interact with, nor the game acknowledging that you have said backstory. In contrast, I've played PnP games where as part of the campaign, the DM would craft a character-specific sidequest for each PC and his/her background. This, in part, simply comes from the limitation of the medium. A pre-written, pre-programmed CRPG simply cannot handle the infinite possibilities of different character concepts, which is why I won't fault them for failing to meet these expectations.

So we have to accept that it is in the nature of CRPG to either have limitations over your character's background (Dragon Age and Mass Effect) or simply skirt around mentioning anything about it (Elder Scrolls). Which one you prefer would obviously be a matter of preference.

Now the other extreme. This one is easier to implement in video games. We have seen the Origin stories in Dragon Age, which is a form of limitation (although perhaps more akin to Choose Your Own Adventure book genre). We have also seen it being pushed more in Dragon Age II, where we're always going to be Hawke. Mass Effect takes the middle approach where your origin isn't playable, but is acknowledged in-game. For me, I can dig all options equally, with the main caveat that the story itself is well-written.

So what about Hawke, essentially the extreme of extremes? I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I'll compare Hawke to Bella from Twilight. Both characters have preset, with some guidelines to their personalities and backgrounds, but both are still vague enough so that players/readers can inject themselves into these characters. In Bella's case, her personality is tailored to be bland for this specific purpose. In Hawke's case, Bioware opted that we can pursue three archetypal characteristics rather than generic blandness (and here I suggest is why I don't like the Elder Scrolls series all that much, the characters are simply too bland). Namely: goody-two-shoes, deadpan snarker, and jerkass. This decision, of course, is probably informed because they wanted Hawke to be voiced. In my opinion, this suffices; I can roleplay within these confines to create "my" Hawke. Rogue!Hawke got the snarky personality and generally wants to protect his sister. He sided with the mages. In contrast, Warrior!Hawke is a jerkass and actually resents having a non-life to protect a mage sister who's more of a burden. He sided with the Templars.

I like Dragon Age II. The story is excellent and the characters are interesting (even more so than Origins; I never thought that would be possible). The pacing does get uneven in the middle, but I get all the foreshadowing so I thought all acts are important and fascinating.

So, moving on to Inquisition. I personally love the way the main character is handled in Mass Effect. Not only does it provide sufficiently diverse character backgrounds to choose from, it also allows voice-overs in an economic manner. Taking into account that this is a computer game, and thus everything has to be pre-crafted, I don't mind not having many choices in character creation as long as I can be enraptured in the narrative. All that needs to happen for that is that my in-game choices (that is, ones made *once* I have that pre-crafted character) to matter in some way. It doesn't even have to be major; we can't all be Forrest Gump, after all, but simply an acknowledgment from the game that yes, we know you made that choice.

After all, if I truly want to create my own story, I'd rather write a novel or go play PnP with a cooperative DM.

[In Exile]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Is it? I'd say Fallout 3, DA:O, BG2, Morrowind etc. all felt like my story. In a different time/place/dimension/whatever, but it felt like me living out my fantasy life there - unlike ME, DA:2, The Witcher etc. which felt like someone elses tale.

See ? None of those games (except DA:O, and very rarely BG2) felt like "my" story, because the game refused to react to my protagonist as an actual person. None of the qualities I imagined a character had were things the game responded to.

I'm a social person. What makes the relate to a game world, and to the game, is the human interaction that the game portrays. And none of these sandbox games do that.

You might as well actually be a mute with amensia for all the difference it makes.

[In Exile]

nightscrawl wrote...
If you need to have the reinforcement of your chosen roleplay through the dialog options, I think that is another matter entirely. I agree that this can be an issue for the more stringent roleplayers. Generic dialog is generic, and since dialog is the only way we can express our character in the game, the character can start to feel generic as well.

Or you can believe that a state of affairs that is consistent with everything isn't satisfying because it's make believe. 

From my perspective there are a couple of roleplay elements at work here that haven't been defined. First, there is the personality and motivation you have chosen for your character's behavior, whether that is revenge, a desire for power, because you just want to help Thedas, or whathaveyou. This is done in your head, either before, during, or while playing the game. Second, there is the expression of your character's personality and motivation. This is done through direct action and dialog within the game, inherently limited because the game is pre-written by Bioware.

The in your head part is what some of us are really, really against. If I wanted to write fan-fiction, I'd get a pen and some paper. I want to play a game because I want an interactive experience where I can express such concepts, and that's what the role is for the dialogue and game. That's what I play it for - this kind of collaborative experience.

[MichaelStuart]

nightscrawl wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I prefer to play my own story.
I don't feel character creation adds much to my experience.
Story choices is most important to me.

Are you happy to pick among the choices the writers have provided, or do you feel a frustration since there might not be the option of what you would ideally want to say?

I'm happy with the options the writers provided.
I will say that the actual words the writers use, is not what I would have said, but thats unavoidable.

[Kajagoogoo3]

 Always my story. That is what makes the Dragon Age series great and fun. As well as something that not many games do. It's also what gives the game replay value.
 

[upsettingshorts]

To echo what In Exile says, I do not care about the choices made solely in my head.

The expression of that choice and the reaction to it are all that matters to me in a game.

If the expression doesn't exist, it isn't a valid option.

If the game does not react to a choice, it isn't a valid decision.

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

To echo what In Exile says, I do not care about the choices made solely in my head.

The expression of that choice and the reaction to it are all that matters to me in a game.

If the expression doesn't exist, it isn't a valid option.

If the game does not react to a choice, it isn't a valid decision.

The funny thing is, Bioware's not even that good at this (even though they're trying hard).

[jillabender]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

To echo what In Exile says, I do not care about the choices made solely in my head.

The expression of that choice and the reaction to it are all that matters to me in a game.

If the expression doesn't exist, it isn't a valid option.

If the game does not react to a choice, it isn't a valid decision.

Personally, I feel the opposite – to me, the exact same story choice or piece of dialogue can feel different depending on what I imagine about my character, even if what I imagine isn't direcly and unambiguously acknowledged by the game – and that adds something to my experience of the game.

I've said enough about that elsewhere, though, so I won't get into too much detail here.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

To echo what In Exile says, I do not care about the choices made solely in my head.

The expression of that choice and the reaction to it are all that matters to me in a game.

If the expression doesn't exist, it isn't a valid option.

If the game does not react to a choice, it isn't a valid decision.

The funny thing is, Bioware's not even that good at this (even though they're trying hard).

That's weird, I never thought I could agree with you on this.

[Sol Downer]

This...is my story. And YOU'RE NOT A PART OF IT!

[In Exile]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

That's weird, I never thought I could agree with you on this.

I don't think we actually really disagree on what Bioware games are like very much (aside from the DA2 thing). We just disagree on what a good RPG is like, and what Bioware should do about their games.