245 réponses à ce sujet

[Sutekh]

A fixed background, such as in Origins, is never fixed to the point of defining each and every events you might have experienced, so I don't see how it precludes defining a personality. In Jimmy's example of losing wife and kids to a crime lord, what's important, personality-wise is the loss, not the crime lord. The exact circumstances are irrelevant to the impact. What would count is the brutality, the suddeness, the foul play involved.

On the same note, being driven by revenge isn't a personality-trait, it's a motivation. It's born from a trait (vindictive) and an event (loss of a loved one), but it's isn't a part of the personality proper.

Nothing prevents [general] you from imagining a context that could be personality-defining within the constraints of the fixed background. Even motivations could be freely imagined, even though it would admittedly require more adaptation work in some cases.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Yet you cannot be a man who has lost his wife and child to a crime lord who you have wreaked your vengeance on, but must now run away, hoping to be lost in the shuffle at Ostagar... and maybe find a noble death so that you can be with your family in the afterlife.

Such a character is impossible with the Origins, but may exist in a game without a clear background. This character could be found by Duncan at Ostagar and follow the same path. They could have a profound sense of duty and may take the Ultimate Sacrifice willingly, and it would be a truly great arc to their character. And, if Bioware didn't tell you anything different, this character could exist, even if only in your head and not in the game proper.

I loved the Origins. But to say any character is possible with them is a bit of a misnomer. A lot of character permutations are possible. But not all characters are.

You're talking about a history, Jimmy, not a personality. Any personality is possible, but not any history.

Having a set personaltiy is not that much different than having a set history. It defines key characteristics about the person's past. This isn't a matter of nature vs. nurture, but one of experience as it pertains to world view.

No Cousland would hate nobles unless he had seen someone of the lower class being treated horribly. If every noble you met was altruistic, wise and kind, there would be no need to ever introduce the concept of hating nobility. If every noble you met (including your parents) had been cruel to all servants and those of the "lower" class, then you would likely have a character that hates all nobles. Your history affects your world view. And Origins do establish a history. 

As a Human Noble, you are a noble who minds and respects your parents (to some degree, not enough to want to murder them or their friends, aparently). You care (again, at least to some degree) about your brother Fergus and his wife and child. Or, at the very least, there is enough of a relationship there for them to like you. 

Point being, history and past experience affects (while not controls) nearly every aspect of our personality. Merril has no problem with blood magic, as her mentor used it and she was taught it was just one of many magical tools. Anders hates blood magic, because his experience with the Templars makes him hate any Mages who fuel the stereotypes that condone the Templars actions - essentially, his punishment is due to their greed, ignorance or lack of responsibility. 

Again, I'd like to preface that I did love the Origins. I thought they offered lots of great opportunities for replayability. And your history did come back into play in the game in small ways. However, as when the game/developer establishes personality in more constrictive ways and it loses ambiguity that can harm roleplaying, the same could be said of establishing history.

I would love to see a return to Origins, but with a "blank slate" Origin, as Sylvius has requested in the past. This person, for example, could arrive at Ostagar and have a set series of events happen there to them that winds up attracting the attention of Duncan for recruitment. It would leave the character to assume anything about the character's past they wanted and roleplay it accordingly. 


Just like with the what I stated in a conversation yesterday about personality and The Wheel, barring ambiguity, the next best option for histories would be more options and clarity. I would love for the Background options seen in a game to be insanely detailed. In addition to the obvious picking of class, race and gender, it would have many more questions that you could define your character with. Where was your homeland (pick a country)? Who were your parents (pick a background)? Did you have siblings (yes/no, brothers/sisters)? What happened to them? Do you have a mentor? Did you have any friends? Any rivals? What happened to them? If you are a rogue, it may ask you what the biggest score you ever did was. If you were a mage, it may ask if you've ever visited the Fade or spoken with a spirit/demon. If you are a warrior, it may ask if you've ever been in a large battle.  Etc. Etc. 

These would all feed into different flags that could be raised that would result in certain random things happening that would be specific to your character. Certain dialogue choices, certain NPCs reacting to you, certain quests arising, certain opportunites to react in various ways, etc. Instead of bundling all these details together in an Origin or standard background, you could instead have dozens, if not hundreds, of tiny little permutations to the game. Each choice would result in likely very little content (although some might result in more, just to keep things interesting). But altogether, it would seem like you are building your own experience, that the game is developing itself around you. 

It would be the most tremendous undertaking I'd ever seen in a story-telling RPG. But I think it would be one of the coolest things in video game history.

[jillabender]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I would love for the Background options seen in a game to be insanely detailed. In addition to the obvious picking of class, race and gender, it would have many more questions that you could define your character with. Where was your homeland (pick a country)? Who were your parents (pick a background)? Did you have siblings (yes/no, brothers/sisters)? What happened to them? Do you have a mentor? Did you have any friends? Any rivals? What happened to them? If you are a rogue, it may ask you what the biggest score you ever did was. If you were a mage, it may ask if you've ever visited the Fade or spoken with a spirit/demon. If you are a warrior, it may ask if you've ever been in a large battle. Etc. Etc.

These would all feed into different flags that could be raised that would result in certain random things happening that would be specific to your character. Certain dialogue choices, certain NPCs reacting to you, certain quests arising, certain opportunites to react in various ways, etc. Instead of bundling all these details together in an Origin or standard background, you could instead have dozens, if not hundreds, of tiny little permutations to the game. Each choice would result in likely very little content (although some might result in more, just to keep things interesting). But altogether, it would seem like you are building your own experience, that the game is developing itself around you.

It would be the most tremendous undertaking I'd ever seen in a story-telling RPG. But I think it would be one of the coolest things in video game history.

That would be exceptionally cool!

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

If you're talking about the very concept of loss (i.e. accepting your point), well, that's not a personality. That's simply ignorance.

Any personality informed by that ignorance, though, wouldn't work.

You're only looking at a narrow range of personalities.  And you're willing to allow similar personalities to stand in where the original design doesn't work.

I am less so willing.

Wherever the origin contains pre-existing relationships, any personality that is inconsistent with those relationships simply isn't allowed.  I'm not suggesting that any pre-existing relationship is particularly rigid, but that each is at least somewhat rigid.  And, taken together, that combination of pre-existing relationships is incompatible with some character designs.

DAO's only saving grace (in this respect) was that it offered a choice among the six different origins, but being able to choose which circumstances constrain you is not the same as being free of those constraints.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 février 2013 - 09:23 .

[andrew252]

i would not mind only if they keep the snarky options,those made my day

[Fredward]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Like I've said oh so many times this seems to be one of the core differences in RPG players. Some people want to put themselves in the game other people want to play/direct a character. I hate playing with myself (haha).

Wanting to play a character concept of my own design =/= wanting to play a self-insert.

Wanting to play a cohesive, consistent character whose motivations are fully known and understood by me =/= wanting to play a self-insert.

For some of us, the difference is as simple as wanting to actively role-play rather than watch a fully pre-programmed toon go through the motions.  For me and my playstyle, the difference is so striking that I may as well be watching a movie, because ithe experience is nearly identical.

I'd like gaming to be an entirely different entertainment experience than watching a movie.  Melding these technologies in this way diminishes much of what makes gaming uniquely rewarding imho.

Eh. Still breaks down to wanting to direct vs wanting to play something tailor made. I like the "directing" approach because it gives enough background for the game to react nicely to my character but it always leaves enough space for me to still fill in a lot of blanks. In Bioware games at least. There are games where a character is just there and there is no room for interpretation at all, I don't really like those games, but luckily Bioware has yet to produce something like that imho. Then you get games that are completely blank, like Skyrim. Now see here I can still construct a backstory for my character, but the game doesn't provide me any kind of way to substantiate it. The backstory has to be completely settled before the game or I have to do some really creative dancing (I had this one Breton that I pretended ran away from a marriage to the emperor because he's a dick and she wound up killing him for the DB but ANYWAY) to get it to mesh. And even then it still doesn't really. I could never walk up to the emperor and go "WATTUP HUBBY?!?!?!" So yeah. I'd rather have a semi-solid background that is still malleable than a completely blank one. Or a completely rigid one.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Any personality informed by that ignorance, though, wouldn't work.

You're only looking at a narrow range of personalities.  And you're willing to allow similar personalities to stand in where the original design doesn't work.

I am less so willing.

Wherever the origin contains pre-existing relationships, any personality that is inconsistent with those relationships simply isn't allowed.  I'm not suggesting that any pre-existing relationship is particularly rigid, but that each is at least somewhat rigid.  And, taken together, that combination of pre-existing relationships is incompatible with some character designs.

DAO's only saving grace (in this respect) was that it offered a choice among the six different origins, but being able to choose which circumstances constrain you is not the same as being free of those constraints.

I understand what you're saying. I can't agree that it's as restrictive as you say, though.

I believe Sylvius is just saying it is restrictive. That alone means it can be improved on. 

[AlanC9]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I believe Sylvius is just saying it is restrictive. That alone means it can be improved on. 

That's understandable.

For me, though, the restriction allows me to roleplay. I find it very very difficult to roleplay in KotOR from the start (rdisegarding my set history and personality). I have no base from which to start. The origins provided this marvelously.

So restrictive != bad for you; it's the restrictions that give you something to play from?

I preferred the set backgrounds of BG and Fallout to the wide-open background of, say, NWN.

[Pyce]

I miss the dialogue lists of DA:O. The problem with the voiced protagonist dialogue wheel the way it is in DA2.It doesn't let me role play. It takes away the ability to have lawful good, chaotic good, or lawful evil, chaotic evil character. More options like DA:O gave me somewhat a more nod to those. The wheel makes for a movie/game/adventure not a ROLE Playing Game. Just saying something evil doesn't cover your perception of your evil PC. Your PC may be lawful evil but the only option you have is snarky, mean, or nice?
A lot of times it's same line but they get you to think it is different because of the icon you chose. Which makes the game cheaper to make, but the dialog lists are much much MUCH more in depth (even cheaper and leaves the money saved to be spent on more responses to your selections.or just plain lower production costs).

[jillabender]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I believe Sylvius is just saying it is restrictive. That alone means it can be improved on. 

That's understandable.

For me, though, the restriction allows me to roleplay. I find it very very difficult to roleplay in KotOR from the start (rdisegarding my set history and personality). I have no base from which to start. The origins provided this marvelously.

I feel the same way about the Origins - they make it easier for me to role-play by giving me a starting point and inspiration, and by making my character feel more a part of the world around them.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I agree, wholeheartedly. I loved the Origins and thought they breathed life into the story.

I would only petition the option for a "Mysterious Stranger" Origin always be added as well, to allow those who want to fill in their own blanks to do so.

[Pasquale1234]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Eh. Still breaks down to wanting to direct vs wanting to play something tailor made. I like the "directing" approach because it gives enough background for the game to react nicely to my character but it always leaves enough space for me to still fill in a lot of blanks. In Bioware games at least. There are games where a character is just there and there is no room for interpretation at all, I don't really like those games, but luckily Bioware has yet to produce something like that imho.

To that, I would say that you've been pretty darned lucky that nothing that happened later in game stepped on your character composition in any way, shape, or form.

Hawke did and said a lot of things that I didn't instruct her to say or do, many of which came as a complete surprise to me.  Can I be said to be directing (let alone role-playing) a character that does things that surprise me?  That makes statements that are entirely contrary to his/her actual thought process?

Through multiple attempts and re-starts, I tried several times to get through a playthrough without any major disconnects, and ended up feeling like I would need to learn way too much about the game content in order to do so successfully.  Getting through a game with a cohesive character should not be a struggle for the player.

It was never, ever a matter of me expressing who Hawke was, but Hawke showing me her pre-programmed self through different playthrough attempts.  My only task was to choose which of those pre-programmed selves she would display at any given time... just like any other choose an adventure movie.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I understand what you're saying. I can't agree that it's as restrictive as you say, though.

I still think DAO was a brilliant game.  I just think that it would have been stronger with the addition of a mysterious stranger origin.

That seems like the best of both worlds.  Moreover, a mysterious stranger origin was actually considered for the game, but BioWare didn't implement it for fear that players would think they'd been shortchanged for having selected it (as it would necessarily have less content, lacking an origin-specific quest).

I don't like that justification - protecting players from themselves always seems patronising, to me - but at least its consistent with other aspects of the game's design.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

So restrictive != bad for you; it's the restrictions that give you something to play from?

This is certainly true.  This is the answer I give to people who ask why I don't just write my own story rather than playing a game at all.

But there is some optimal level of restriction, and I think the Origins are a step too far.

I preferred the set backgrounds of BG and Fallout to the wide-open background of, say, NWN.

I love the wide-open background on NWN.  Thogugh, it worked even better in KotOR given that there was a bunch of personal content but without the background limitation.  But I don't see how to do both without relying on an amnesia device again.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 février 2013 - 03:26 .

[sarakirrer]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

I understand what you're saying. I can't agree that it's as restrictive as you say, though.

I still think DAO was a brilliant game.  I just think that it would have been stronger with the addition of a mysterious stranger origin.

That seems like the best of both worlds.  Moreover, a mysterious stranger origin was actually considered for the game, but BioWare didn't implement it for fear that players would think they'd been shortchanged for having selected it (as it would necessarily have less content, lacking an origin-specific quest).

I don't like that justification - protecting players from themselves always seems patronising, to me - but at least its consistent with other aspects of the game's design.

That would've been a brilliant inclusion; how bizarre that it didn't make final release! I find it patronising too--if a player wants the extra content, it's still there.

I really like Jimmy's suggestion of selection background elements (hometown, siblings, parents, etc). It reminds me of the way text-based RPGs sometimes operate with regard to selecting your character's background.

[Todd23]

The auto dialogue is a source of great pain for me. Magnified by the fact that your options are: 1. a **** 2. an **** and 3. a sarcastic ****.

[-TC1989-]

I agree with what Pyce is saying. While I do enjoy having a voiced character to play with, sometimes the lack of options hurts the immersion of a true "rpg". On top of that sometimes the things Hawke would say was not what I meant to say.