245 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

^

In fact, this is what I'd challenge. A game where if you (using the Mass Effect Morality) did a 100% Paragon or 100% Renegade playthrough, you'd never receive the "best" outcomes. That making the "moral" choice every time cost you in the long run, just like doing the "jerk" choice every time cost you in the long run.

That knowing when to do one or the other, in the context of accomplishing your goals and thinking about the long-term greater good, would be the only way to have the outcomes with the least amount of people dead, the most amount of things "happy."

That's the challenge I'd put to Bioware (or any other developer). Letting players cruise on through a story without ever needing to think about selecting the Blue or Red choice, regardless of context, is a unsatisfying way to deal with choice and consequence.

[Siegdrifa]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


The Mage/Templar conflict in DA2 tried to make this hard by giving us crazy blood mages and sadistic Templars, so that no one was right, but all this did is make me hate both groups and wish I could just cut my losses and leave, not try and make a stand for one insane group over another.

Just quoting this, because this is exactly how i felt too and what i wrote today in another thread, at that point of the game, i just wanted the city to burn with all her insanity and walk away; i sided with the mage only for Hawk sister, and my Hawke only wanted to protect what remain of her family and close friends.

To be honest, i won't say it was a bad experience because DA2 (even with it's serious flaws) felt somewhat fresh as a Bioware games (going away from the usual : open your map, visit each of the 4 / 5 location then finish the game in a final mission once you have collected all needed crew member / artefact), but i wouldn't tolerate it as a new Bioware RPG standard.
So, i did partialy liked the situation getting out of hand, and the feeling that my Hawke wanted naturaly to stick for what was really important for her / him; and the epic battle against Meredith was pretty good in that sens.

But anyway.... i hope DA3 will not do it when it really will matter.

[Fast Jimmy]

What's interesting is that if Bioware had tried this story with a normal development cycle, I think it could have been a really cool concept. Similarly, I think if they went with their more standard story-telling model, they could have put out a good, well-received game (if maybe not as well-received as Origins) in the short dev cycle they had.

But the two decisions, coupled together, resulted in a product that, while functional, was not satisfying.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So Loghain was doing the right thing by retreating at Ostagar, so he can protect his soldiers and Ferelden on the whole?

He probably thought so.  And his perception of what was right is the only perception that matters to his decision-making.

Doing ones duty can be noble, but also deceptively damaging as well. Even if you role-play as that character, what, then, is the point of enjoyment when it becomes a job?

That's what roleplaying is: In-character decision-making.

To his decision-making yes. To our decision-making, no.  That is why we are on opposite sides of the conflict. What we discuss when we talk about Loghain, whenever he tries to use his reach on us to get us out of the way, is almost always negative until the last second when we can spare his life at the Landsmeet. 

Is that really in character for us then, when most of the time it was hatred and implied vengance over respect for him?

And on that note, since role-playing has no formal definition, how you can say it is all about in-character decision making? 

[Fast Jimmy]

My minions are everywhere! LOL

I am actually in agreement with you, EA. I would like lots of reactivity to choices within game, even if I would prefer a disregarding of those choices from game-to-game. I wouldn't say choices that don't result in consequences are tied to the Save Import for good or bad, but I think what is wrong is when a game foreshadows consequence, but does not deliver it on multiple choices (having one or two "bait and switch" situations where doom and gloom is forecast but nothing happens is okay, but repeating it multiple times leads to things falling flat).

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

To his decision-making yes. To our decision-making, no.  That is why we are on opposite sides of the conflict. What we discuss when we talk about Loghain, whenever he tries to use his reach on us to get us out of the way, is almost always negative until the last second when we can spare his life at the Landsmeet. 

Is that really in character for us then, when most of the time it was hatred and implied vengance over respect for him?

If it's not in character, then don't do it.

That said, all of the Warden's information about Loghain prior to the Landsmeet  is second-hand.  Morrigan tells the Warden that Loghain abandoned the field at Ostagar.  Zevran tells the Warden that Loghain hired him.  The Warden doesn't necessarily have to believe these accounts.  The player knows they are true because the player saw the relevant cutscenes, but that information isn't available to the Warden except indirectly.

And on that note, since role-playing has no formal definition, how you can say it is all about in-character decision making?

I am trying to formalise a definition to facilitate more productive discussion.

[brushyourteeth]

I believe that sometimes choice without consequences DO matter.

The Dark Ritual, for instance. Were Morrigan to get herself an OGB regardless of my Warden's actions, that wouldn't bother me in the least bit. My choice to participate or not participate is still important in that it established something vital about my character and her place in Thedas' history.

There are bound to be some things that are outside of my protagonist's control, but my choice to support, support-and-fail, tolerate, oppose, or oppose-and-fail is still significant to me, and probably to the NPC's I interact with who are affected.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I am trying to formalise a definition to facilitate more productive discussion.

Forgive me for a moment Sylvius while I indulge myself:

How imprecise.

In all seriousness, though, you're not likely to find such a formal definition anywhere. Much less get most of BSN, heck half of BSN, or even half of the people willing to actively discuss this, to agree with your definition. It's subjective.

It is. 

It SHOULDN'T be.

But it definitely is. 

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

To his decision-making yes. To our decision-making, no.  That is why we are on opposite sides of the conflict. What we discuss when we talk about Loghain, whenever he tries to use his reach on us to get us out of the way, is almost always negative until the last second when we can spare his life at the Landsmeet. 

Is that really in character for us then, when most of the time it was hatred and implied vengance over respect for him?

If it's not in character, then don't do it.

That said, all of the Warden's information about Loghain prior to the Landsmeet  is second-hand.  Morrigan tells the Warden that Loghain abandoned the field at Ostagar.  Zevran tells the Warden that Loghain hired him.  The Warden doesn't necessarily have to believe these accounts.  The player knows they are true because the player saw the relevant cutscenes, but that information isn't available to the Warden except indirectly.

And on that note, since role-playing has no formal definition, how you can say it is all about in-character decision making?

I am trying to formalise a definition to facilitate more productive discussion.

1. You can't formalize any definition because it doesn't exist. And trying to create a productive discussion by doing this is a fools errand, since a formal definition will never exist as this is a subjective thought exercise in a subjective medium. 

2.  How does one define whats "in character?" Is a character rigid and follows a set of rules? Do they change over time? What makes a character full of such convicitions other than the choices made by the player playing them, and what dictates their rigidness when that is not even a requirement to make them a rich character.  Does my combative abilites, stats, realtionships, history, current situation, alignment, all of these little tidbits that can be attached to a role-playing game define the character? Does half of them? Or just one? 

3. Even if the information is second-hand, why would a character not believe it when, by all accounts when the evidence piled up, essentially stacks Loghain against them regardless of what we see or hear? It is not just circumstantial either, we get evidence that Loghain is selling elves into slavery by the end of it! Or holding nobles hostage and torturing them. And lets not forget he did poison Eamon, or had it arranged so he was poisoned. 

It is hard to rationalize any warden all of a sudden shirking revenge when that is all we see them pine for in a number of ways. 

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I am trying to formalise a definition to facilitate more productive discussion.

Forgive me for a moment Sylvius while I indulge myself:

How imprecise.

In all seriousness, though, you're not likely to find such a formal definition anywhere. Much less get most of BSN, heck half of BSN, or even half of the people willing to actively discuss this, to agree with your definition. It's subjective.

It is. 

It SHOULDN'T be.

But it definitely is. 

No.

If it isen't subjective, then everything would focus on the same mechanical aspects of what role-playing is.

Then we would have no diversity in the role-playing field. And this goes for tabletops as well. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 02 février 2013 - 07:07 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

No.

If it isen't subjective, then everything would focus on the same mechanical aspects of what role-playing is.

Then we would have no diversity in the role-playing field. And this goes for tabletops as well.

There's no reason we couldn't still have diversity.  But every game in the field would allow roleplaying, which they don't currently.

It would allow us to look at any game and determine, without controversy, whether it was a roleplaying game.  A clear definition would empower consumers by allowing them to make informed decisions about what games they wanted to play.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There's no reason we couldn't still have diversity.  But every game in the field would allow roleplaying, which they don't currently.

It would allow us to look at any game and determine, without controversy, whether it was a roleplaying game.  A clear definition would empower consumers by allowing them to make informed decisions about what games they wanted to play.

The problem with a singular definition is that it depends on the definition of role-playing, which in and of itself is rather vague.

Is being permitted to go where you want and largely do what you want in the game world but not being able to express yourself (through things like dialog)? Not necessarily, for someone who feels the need to express themselves through speech. However, another who felt that these actions, not words, determine role-playing, it would be correct.
Is a game with strictly regulated paths for you to go down, but allows dialog and verbal [not necessarily actually audible (VO for the PC)] exchange, an RPG? For some, yes. For others, no.

Role-playing in and of itself is based upon subjective factors.

Similarly, one could argue that playing a role is a situation where you don't get any say whatsoever in your character - that being 100% set and uncontrolled is playing that role to its full extent. An actor roleplays when they read lines from a script, after all. The quality of their acting is what is determined if they are good or not, but they aren't allowed to make up the script as they go along.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Role-playing in and of itself is based upon subjective factors.

Yes, it is.  But if we describe those factors clearly, then we can label all the different kinds of roleplaying in ways people will understand.

Right now we have a single term that people use in a wide variety of contradictory ways.  That's not helpful.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The quality of their acting is what is determined if they are good or not

I don't think anyone but the roleplayer himself is qualified to assess the quality of the roleplaying.