245 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Personally, I feel the player must never feel comfort in their choice, always doubt.

Mostly good ideas, but this is impossible.

if I do something because I believe in it, I will not doubt it. I will have "comfort" in it.

I will always let Barak go to save the lives of the scientists. I will always save the council. I will always destroy the CB. And so on. I'm not doing these things because I'm trying to "win," which you might argue a pragmatist does. I'm doing them because I believe they are right. The "pragmatist" should have doubt, not necessarily the idealist. Outside of, of course, like something introduced in KotOR II, where your helping someone or doing the "right thing" is actually a hindrance--as long as it isn't as silly and contrived as that game was.

Be mindful of what you are saying, EA. If Sylvius hears you say you are doing things because they are how YOU feel, he'll admonish you as not roleplaying the choices your CHARACTER would make, not you. 

[Dave of Canada]

EntropicAngel wrote...

if I do something because I believe in it, I will not doubt it. I will have "comfort" in it.

Unless you start questioning your belief that you really are doing the "right thing".

[Xilizhra]

Personally, I feel the player must never feel comfort in their choice, always doubt. What if I had done X? What if Y was different? Could Z have been saved? It doesn't even have to be rubbed in your face either, a few throw-away lines by random mages mentioning the state of the war effort could go a long-way to make the player feel horrible ("Saw my mother the other day, she wanted to believe I wasn't with >Protagonist<. She tried to pretend otherwise after hearing the things he's done."). Mass Effect 3 should've done this.

What I'm comfortable with, personally, is that which leads to victory with a minimum of people hating us. Once I figure out how to reach that stage, I'll be comfortable and content.

I can handle darkness equitably, so long as there's an element of choice involved and I'm not wholly screwed. Also, since this seems to be more of a concluding sort of game than DA2, I'd prefer a more decisive victory here.

[iOnlySignIn]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Personally, I feel the player must never feel comfort in their choice, always doubt. What if I had done X? What if Y was different? Could Z have been saved?

You will never feel any doubt in your choices if you follow The Path of Bayes.

Because you will have made the best choices based on the information available to you.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 30 janvier 2013 - 03:10 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Be mindful of what you are saying, EA. If Sylvius hears you say you are doing things because they are how YOU feel, he'll admonish you as not roleplaying the choices your CHARACTER would make, not you.

That's not entirely true.  How the player feels can impact what sorts of characters he is willing to play.

This is, in fact, the primiary reason I oppose the voiced protagonist.  While I oppose the obfuscatory paraphrases because they prevent players from choosing how their characters will behave, the voice limits the range of chracters that it is possible to play at all (regardless of how informative the presented options are).  The more the range of possible characters is limited, the more some players who have particularly narrow or idiosyncratic ranges of characters they enjoy will be excluded.

[Sylvius the Mad]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Personally, I feel the player must never feel comfort in their choice, always doubt. What if I had done X? What if Y was different? Could Z have been saved?

You will never feel any doubt in your choices if you follow The Path of Bayes.

Because you will have made the best choices based on the information available to you.

This is certainly true.  I don't really understand Dave's point at all.

[eroeru]

I think what Dave means has something to do with the enjoyment of the fact in itself that there are multiple unforseen ways the (game-)universe will branch.

Though I think it just comes down to the "doubt-inducing" as somewhat defined or replaceable by "not boring".

Modifié par eroeru, 30 janvier 2013 - 11:14 .

[Fast Jimmy]

One point in DA ][ I liked very much, that has stayed with me fairly strongly, is when Bethany is captured and taken to the Wounded Coast. One dialog line in particular, spoken by Aggressive Hawke: "Touch my sisster and you die," or something like that. It had a punch that a silent protagonist never could, and I liked it a lot.

Without a doubt, the VO adds impact to the scenes they are in. When they coincide with my exact intent, tone and behavior, it is a remarkable addition to the story-telling process.

The problem comes in when you try and leave the cleared out path that Bioware makes for you.

For instance, what if you were playing a timid, spineless character? You may try and sound intimidating in defense of your sister, but your voice may be shaky or even crack. With a silent character, you can play into this sense of possibility, but it is just not possible with a VO with only here tones.

Would I want Bioware to have sixteen different tones for each line? It would be cool, but it seems like quite a bit of an expense to try and accommodate a play style that is non-traditional... and, in addition, sixteen might STILL not cover all the character types someone could come up. Tied in with the paraphrase, where aren't entirely sure what our character is going to be saying or how they will say it ("slightly veiled threat with a menacing tone" and "YOU WILL DIE A PEASANT'S DEATH!" are both "aggresive, but are wildly different in their implications), it becomes very difficult to try and play a character outside the normal paths.

Playing all aggressive/diplomatic/sarcastic without too many ideological stances isn't hard and pretty enjoyable in some cases. But if you try and play a more defined role, the VO and the system DA2 uses quickly becomes equal parts narrative land mines and a futile guessing game of what he character I'm trying to control will actually do.

But that is a little outside the scope of this conversation.

[Xilizhra]

For instance, what if you were playing a timid, spineless character? You may try and sound intimidating in defense of your sister, but your voice may be shaky or even crack. With a silent character, you can play into this sense of possibility, but it is just not possible with a VO with only here tones.

Um, there's no reasonable way that you'd have a timid, spineless character by Act 3. You're a walking engine of destruction who's already crushed dragons, ancient eldritch underground monsters, and a qunari invasion. Also, if you want to be that way, why are you choosing aggressive dialogue options to begin with?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xilizhra wrote...

Um, there's no reasonable way that you'd have a timid, spineless character by Act 3. You're a walking engine of
destruction who's already crushed dragons, ancient eldritch underground monsters, and a qunari invasion.

Or you hid in the back while Varric and Anders did that for you.

EntropicAngel wrote...

I agree with you, Sylvius, but I would like to point out that the VO is a double-edged sword: it may inhibit certain characters, but it also...enhances, others. It can give power, "punch" if you will, to dialog lines that may lack it, at least in a world where the PC is silent but everyone else speaks.

One point in DA ][ I liked very much, that has stayed with me fairly strongly, is when Bethany is captured and taken to the Wounded Coast. One dialog line in particular, spoken by Aggressive Hawke: "Touch my sisster and you die," or something like that. It had a punch that a silent protagonist never could, and I liked it a lot.

I can imagine that possibly beging true (though I never perceived DAO as a world in which the PC was silent) if ever I actually got to choose the line.

If I chose a line, and then it was voiced exactly as I wanted it to be voiced, that would be pretty cool.  But since the line itself was almost never what I wanted, I didn't even get to the tone.  Hawke wasn't saying what I wanted him to say; how he said it didn't matter.  In the example you gave, Hawke defends Bethany by uttering an explicit threat.  Is that what you wanted?  If I selected the paraphrase expecting to make a more implicit threat (like "You will not touch her."), that different alone would be sufficient to prevent the tone from improving the moment.  Instead of the strong stance I took (making a declarative sentence about someone else's actions), I'm making what I think is a weaker statement (uttering threats merely to influence someone's actions).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 30 janvier 2013 - 06:37 .

[esper]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Personally, I feel the player must never feel comfort in their choice, always doubt.

Mostly good ideas, but this is impossible.

if I do something because I believe in it, I will not doubt it. I will have "comfort" in it.

I will always let Barak go to save the lives of the scientists. I will always save the council. I will always destroy the CB. And so on. I'm not doing these things because I'm trying to "win," which you might argue a pragmatist does. I'm doing them because I believe they are right. The "pragmatist" should have doubt, not necessarily the idealist. Outside of, of course, like something introduced in KotOR II, where your helping someone or doing the "right thing" is actually a hindrance--as long as it isn't as silly and contrived as that game was.

That is because you are ultimately an idealist. I understand. I will always be pro-mage. Because to me the pro-mage stance boils down to several real life moral stances that I cannot and will not bow out off. So no matter how many 'exploding kittens' Gaider writes, he will never bring me to consider the Pro-templar as the right option. So I always feel comfort in that decision and cannot be brought out of it.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't try. As long as it doesn't get contrived as said.

That doesn't mean that I cannot take decision that are not pro-mage in da2. I just don't pick what I as a player think it the right choice.


In da:o I simply could not roleplay because the 'save almost everybody involved' were so obvious (thanks to coersion) that a player I couldn't distance myself from the character and simply couldn't come up with plausible reasons to NOT take that option. So yeah, I felt secure in da:o that I had chosen the 'optimal choice' each time. Which I suspect is what Dave of Canada meant.

[esper]

EntropicAngel wrote...

In da:o I simply could not roleplay because the 'save almost everybody involved' were so obvious (thanks to coersion) that a player I couldn't distance myself from the character and simply couldn't come up with plausible reasons to NOT take that option. So yeah, I felt secure in da:o that I had chosen the 'optimal choice' each time. Which I suspect is what Dave of Canada meant.

I personally WAS able to. I don't know if I've mentioned very much, but I always lose Conner's mother ("Teeeeeeeegan, whoooo izzzz zeeees wooooman!") during Redcliffe. At least for any fairly conscientious Warden. The reason is: Alistair mentions, more than once I believe, that Arl Eamon can help you fight Loghain. Because of your status (three people against the country's general and his armies), it doesn't make sense to me (or any of my more intelligent characters) to go anywhere without first getting his support. Thus, the Circle quest is never done when I find out about Conner, and the thought of doing the Circle quest while the demon has hold on Conner is simply unrealistic.


Now, there is a minor caveat to this: namely that the PC may not know that the Circle has imploded. I cannot recall offhand if there's any mention of the unleashed demons in the Tower before you go there. If there is NOT, that could definitely provide an interesting point--PC goes to the tower to secure lyrium, finds out about the demons and the impending Right of Annulment, and has to decide whether to try to save the tower or Conner.

I only just thought that up as I was writing this, so don't grill me too harshly on it.



Also, I don't think Dave was talking about role-playing at all. Personally. I could be wrong.

edit for quote mess up.

But I love grilling entropic angels, they taste so good and I have only eaten 3 today.

The problem for me is that I mostly play mage and even when I don't always play Redcliff last (well second last, I play the whole ashes thing last, because I have a hard time justifing that quest), so my Warden knows the circle is avaible.

I like the principle of your idea though.That if the Circle quest wasn't done Conner the option doesn't show up or Conner kills the town while you do sovle the quest because it unexpedtily draws out.

My guess is that Dave meant what he wrote. That we as players should never feel comfortable even when picking the a choice.
What he overlooks is that some of us are idealist in real life, which means we will always be comfortable in picking the (percieved) right choice because, well it is what we percieve as the right choice and even if it turns out bad we will say to ourself. Well, I chose right and did my best and draw comfort from that.

What I want is that the player is never comfortable that they have pick the 'optimal choice' from a gaming perspective. That means the choice which leads to the Golden outcome with least dead, most experience or leading to the golden ending.

There is a difference in 'Right from the players moral point of view', 'Right from the character point of view' and 'leading to all the golden outcomes in a gameplay point of view'.

The last one should not be too easy to observe.

The other two... well, I like dark, but I do not like it contrived so as long as the game does not tell me the player (As mass effect did) what is right, or what is right for my character I am satisfied.

Modifié par esper, 30 janvier 2013 - 08:21 .

[Dave of Canada]

Quick post, can't really quote as I'm about to be late to class.

Say you're trying to free mages, how far do you want to go to achieve that? Would you be willing to resort to blood magic? Would you summon demons? Say a village filled with civilians is harboring Templar and shows Templar sympathy, how would you deal with them? Violence? Peace? Intimidation? What if peace only offers a temporary solution and costs you the lives of your men, do you take vengeance or leave them be?

The player shouldn't just say "I'm a pro-mage player who will always strive for good!" and ultimately end up with the best ending, they should be confronted with a choice where their intention to free the mages conflicts with their intention to do good and they either risk a crucial battle for the lives of innocents/friends.

Same thing with my camp of players who say "I'm a pro-templar player who will always strive for the mages to be imprisoned!", we shouldn't always feel comfortable with our decisions. Perhaps we're brutal and distant enough in our endeavors that we're well-appreciated as a man who gets results by the higher-ups but our own LI/companions/friends confront us that they fear we're worst than the worst blood mage and whether or not our goal is really worth so much death.

There's no true "THE" choice, you're being confronted both on a idealogical and moral level and never certain what is the "right thing" because they conflict. Maybe the mages get conquered by the Templar but you're happy you stuck to your morals to the very end or the mages are freed but everyone hates and fears them, that'd be a consequence of your own choices. 

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 janvier 2013 - 08:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I can imagine that possibly beging true (though I never perceived DAO as a world in which the PC was silent) if ever I actually got to choose the line.

If I chose a line, and then it was voiced exactly as I wanted it to be voiced, that would be pretty cool.  But since the line itself was almost never what I wanted, I didn't even get to the tone.  Hawke wasn't saying what I wanted him to say; how he said it didn't matter.  In the example you gave, Hawke defends Bethany by uttering an explicit threat.  Is that what you wanted?  If I selected the paraphrase expecting to make a more implicit threat (like "You will not touch her."), that different alone would be sufficient to prevent the tone from improving the moment.  Instead of the strong stance I took (making a declarative sentence about someone else's actions), I'm making what I think is a weaker statement (uttering threats merely to influence someone's actions).

I believe the paraphrase was a threat, yes.

Edit: Right here.

The paraphrase is, "Don't mess with me." The line is, "You hurt my sister, you die."

It could be argued that they are different, but I think most would say that they mean the same things.

My supposed paraphrase, which I deemed inadequate, was at least the same kind of sentence as the spoken line (both were declarative).

That the actual paraphrase was imperative rather than declarative makes it even worse.  Moreover, the paraphrase is hawke-centric, while the spoken line is Bethany-centric.  Those are fundamental differences.

"Don't mess with me" could be a purely welf-interested statement.  Hawke could intend there that Bethany was fair game, as long as Hawke was left alone.  If Hawke wants to draw a firm line in the sand, that his person is off-limits, but still willingly surrender Bethany, the player would probably choose that option, and then be horribly disappointed.

I do understand what you're saying, though, and that happened to me many times. This however was a time when it DIDN'T pull me out of the character but rather drew me further in.

Again, I concede this is possible as long as the player gets a line that conveys the same information as the paraphrase he selected.

[esper]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Quick post, can't really quote as I'm about to be late to class.

Say you're trying to free mages, how far do you want to go to achieve that? Would you be willing to resort to blood magic? Would you summon demons? Say a village filled with civilians is harboring Templar and shows Templar sympathy, how would you deal with them? Violence? Peace? Intimidation? What if peace only offers a temporary solution and costs you the lives of your men, do you take vengeance or leave them be?

To answer real quickly:
Yes, I see no problem with blood magic. Only as a last resort (which gameplay wise means Summon demon or join templars).
For the village: Properly ignore them, they are civilians they can be sympathetic as they like. I don't see the need to kill over sympathi. If they game does not give me that option or they are doing something to actively stop me, the game option that leads to the least direct violence. If the game only gives me the option between violence or join the templars, violence it is.
I would not support such a peace unless the game forced me to (which again to me take this peace or join the templars or in this case chantry since they would properly be involved in such a peace).
War cost lives, revenge is only relevant if it is the only way to calm my side. Again it depens on the option the game forces on me. Is it revenge or 'side with templars'? Because if it that choice presented, then 'revenge it is'. If I can get a pro-mage victory without revenge then I will take that.

Basically you could sum it up, non-violent/destructive path when it is an option where it is an option and where it isn't the least destructive path avaible. But pascifism is not an ideal of mine, neither is comfortism, nor survivalism at any cost.

Dave of Canada wrote...

The player shouldn't just say "I'm a pro-mage player who will always strive for good!" and ultimately end up with the best ending, they should be confronted with a choice where their intention to free the mages conflicts with their intention to do good and they either risk a crucial battle for the lives of innocents/friends.

Same thing with my camp of players who say "I'm a pro-templar player who will always strive for the mages to be imprisoned!", we shouldn't always feel comfortable with our decisions. Perhaps we're brutal and distant enough in our endeavors that we're well-appreciated as a man who gets results by the higher-ups but our own LI/companions/friends confront us that they fear we're worst than the worst blood mage and whether or not our goal is really worth so much death.

There's no true "THE" choice, you're being confronted both on a idealogical and moral level and never certain what is the "right thing".

And here is what you don't understand. I am an idealist. I believe in an IDEAL. I am fully aware of what that ideal entails and it does not entail good and evil.

I believe in the ideal that the rights of a minority must not be sacrificed for the sense of false security of the majority.

This is an ideal I in real life have come to bear do to the way my country''s anti-terror laws (which I think is wrong) are being formed. I am aware that not having these laws could lead to the death of innocents, but it is a sacrifice I am willing to pay.

I also believe that you cannot punish people on a 'might'. Luckely my country have yet to show me a real life example of this, but Thedas does.

That has bad and good consequences, but no matter the consequence you cannot make me, the player, feel uncomfortable or wrong with the choice chosen, because when it comes to moral/ideoligist choices THE  choice as you call does exist for an idealist of any ideal and it is very clear cut. 

If it is not clear cut, you are not an idealist.

My two highlighted ideals are so important to me that frankly the consequences that Gaider throws at me are irrellevant to the fact of choosing to follow the path. So you cannot make me feel uncomfortable with the choice, you can only make me wish that there was better endings.

If you read my post I did say that Gaider was welcome to try. As long as it does not feel contrived Gaider give me any bad consequence as well as good. I will still feel comfortable that I chose as right as the game allowed me to do.

Modifié par esper, 30 janvier 2013 - 09:26 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Quick post, can't really quote as I'm about to be late to class.

Say you're trying to free mages, how far do you want to go to achieve that? Would you be willing to resort to blood magic? Would you summon demons? Say a village filled with civilians is harboring Templar and shows Templar sympathy, how would you deal with them? Violence? Peace? Intimidation? What if peace only offers a temporary solution and costs you the lives of your men, do you take vengeance or leave them be?

The player shouldn't just say "I'm a pro-mage player who will always strive for good!" and ultimately end up with the best ending, they should be confronted with a choice where their intention to free the mages conflicts with their intention to do good and they either risk a crucial battle for the lives of innocents/friends.

Same thing with my camp of players who say "I'm a pro-templar player who will always strive for the mages to be imprisoned!", we shouldn't always feel comfortable with our decisions. Perhaps we're brutal and distant enough in our endeavors that we're well-appreciated as a man who gets results by the higher-ups but our own LI/companions/friends confront us that they fear we're worst than the worst blood mage and whether or not our goal is really worth so much death.

There's no true "THE" choice, you're being confronted both on a idealogical and moral level and never certain what is the "right thing" because they conflict. Maybe the mages get conquered by the Templar but you're happy you stuck to your morals to the very end or the mages are freed but everyone hates and fears them, that'd be a consequence of your own choices. 

If you understand your own (or your character's, depending how you play) moral positions sufficiently well, then these decisions should be a matter of simple arithmetic.

If my character is pro-mage, then I need to know why he's pro-mage.  What underlying principle, applied universally, produces that pro-mage outlook?  Then I just need to apply that principle to each situation as it arises.

I don't think most moral questions are terribly interesting, because I also don't think they're terribly difficult.

[esper]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Quick post, can't really quote as I'm about to be late to class.

Say you're trying to free mages, how far do you want to go to achieve that? Would you be willing to resort to blood magic? Would you summon demons? Say a village filled with civilians is harboring Templar and shows Templar sympathy, how would you deal with them? Violence? Peace? Intimidation? What if peace only offers a temporary solution and costs you the lives of your men, do you take vengeance or leave them be?

The player shouldn't just say "I'm a pro-mage player who will always strive for good!" and ultimately end up with the best ending, they should be confronted with a choice where their intention to free the mages conflicts with their intention to do good and they either risk a crucial battle for the lives of innocents/friends.

Same thing with my camp of players who say "I'm a pro-templar player who will always strive for the mages to be imprisoned!", we shouldn't always feel comfortable with our decisions. Perhaps we're brutal and distant enough in our endeavors that we're well-appreciated as a man who gets results by the higher-ups but our own LI/companions/friends confront us that they fear we're worst than the worst blood mage and whether or not our goal is really worth so much death.

There's no true "THE" choice, you're being confronted both on a idealogical and moral level and never certain what is the "right thing" because they conflict. Maybe the mages get conquered by the Templar but you're happy you stuck to your morals to the very end or the mages are freed but everyone hates and fears them, that'd be a consequence of your own choices. 

If you understand your own (or your character's, depending how you play) moral positions sufficiently well, then these decisions should be a matter of simple arithmetic.

If my character is pro-mage, then I need to know why he's pro-mage.  What underlying principle, applied universally, produces that pro-mage outlook?  Then I just need to apply that principle to each situation as it arises.

I don't think most moral questions are terribly interesting, because I also don't think they're terribly difficult.

I love moral choice and discussing ethics, and they offer great roleplaying oppertunites.

Ultimately I still thinks that Dane of Canada fails to discern between 'making the player uncomfortable' or 'making the character uncomfortable'. You cannot force 'making the player uncomfortable' because some off us are idealist in real life and honestly do believe that there is a right choice.

That does mean I am bound to roleplay as myself I still love my rival Hawke who I morally cannot agree with on, well, anything. But she was funny to play. And while I did have to think about how she would react to moral choice more than a character more in line with my self. It was because the minor aspect of her character was not instantly as clear to me as one in tune with myself so I had to think more on what the 'arthimethics' are.

What I have a problem with is when there in a game is an 'optimal outcome' that offer the clearly best solution to everyone. Like I felt that da:o had thanks to coercion. I know that you, Sylvius, is a strong enough roleplayer that you can ignore these option being there if they are out off character, but for me the option of the games exist and I feel forced to take them simply because the mental hoops I have to jump through to justify my charater not taking them is too great.

No matter how much I think I have yet to come up with a plausible reason to not make peace between the Dalish and the Werewolf no matter which warden I play.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

In regards to the Dalish, the idea someone mentions earlier in this thread, where they would have been more ineffective if they had just lost their Keeper, might have been a good ramification. The best possible moral outcome, but the worst possible war asset (Dalish with a leader and the Werewolves themselves would be better fighters). Especially if the assets weren't just random support units like in DA:O, but actually did affect how things like the safety of Denerim or the number of soldiers lost were. Something to say "was it better to let the Alienage burn to cure the Wolves? Was it better to let Zathrien sacrifice himself rather than have the Chantry be destroyed?"

THOSE would be good questions. Where the consequences are not asking "what is morally right" but rather "which set of morals takes precedence over the other?"