195 réponses à ce sujet

[Renmiri1]

How odd... To me when I roleplay id like reading a book - where I can decide where to go -  but still, a book, not me. I'm reading about a noble Cousland gal who has her parents killed by another noble, or reading about an Amel mage gal that has had her friend get into trouble with a templar gal...

So while I do put myself and my emotions on the characters to some extent, I do the same in books. I was on Captain Nemo's submarine and I was getting accepted to Hogwarts while everyone looked at the crooked little scar in my forehead in awe... At the same time it wasn't me that turned into a whinny little beatch by book 5 or who liked Cho while Ginny was there in all her red headed glory. But it made sense for Harry.

In games is the same, my PC is me and it isn't, it is a bit like "if i was born in a family where we had to protect my sister and dad from Templars, and my mom was such hard work, how would I react ? This way ? Ya makes sense (goes for it on dialog wheel)". Then oops, that option made me sound like a jerk, reload save! But not me in other areas, as I would never have stayed on Kirkwall and would have dragged Ma Amel and Anders by the hair back to Ferelden or to somewhere far far away from the Gallows!

Modifié par Renmiri1, 06 avril 2013 - 08:42 .

[LolaLei]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think it's interesting how different people "roleplay."

I usually try to put "myself" in the role with whatever traits I have decided. I feel a need to imagine that it's myself with those traits (those traits may not be traits I actually possess. In fact, rarely have I been able to manipulate the Force in real life!), and I try to imagine what the emotional context of what "I" am feeling when events happen.

I draw upon my personal experiences to try to understand how that emotion must feel, sometimes I can come up with something fine (it's not hard for me to feel sorrow for the loss of my sibling in DA2, for example), and other times I just need to make my best guess.

It works for me as it helps my emotional connection to the game, and any game that can illicit genuine emotional responses out of me (for in game reasons) are typically games I hold in high regard (looking at you The Walking Dead).

That's also how I like to play, especially with RPG games.

There's something really interesting about playing a game "as myself" for the first ever play-through. I enjoy seeing and experiencing things as if the protagonist was me and discovering what consequences my own actions would cause if I was put in that situation.

[TCBC_Freak]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think it's interesting how different people "roleplay."

I usually try to put "myself" in the role with whatever traits I have decided. I feel a need to imagine that it's myself with those traits (those traits may not be traits I actually possess. In fact, rarely have I been able to manipulate the Force in real life!), and I try to imagine what the emotional context of what "I" am feeling when events happen.

I draw upon my personal experiences to try to understand how that emotion must feel, sometimes I can come up with something fine (it's not hard for me to feel sorrow for the loss of my sibling in DA2, for example), and other times I just need to make my best guess.

It works for me as it helps my emotional connection to the game, and any game that can illicit genuine emotional responses out of me (for in game reasons) are typically games I hold in high regard (looking at you The Walking Dead).

I'm the same, I've always played RPG's like this, PnP or video games. And I loved the Walking Dead because by the end I was like, I did it all the only way I could. It felt right.... if that makes sense, I didn't feel regret I guess.

And does that force comment mean you played the Old Republic, or did you play the PnP Star Wars RPG??

Dabrikishaw wrote...

I'm not into roleplaying, but I have tried it out when bored. I can accept these things as a necessary weasel because I have no problem reminding myself this is a game.

It's funny cause DA is an RPG, It's like going into Burger King every Saturday and saying, I come here all the time but I'm not into Burgers, lol

[Allan Schumacher]

And does that force comment mean you played the Old Republic, or did you play the PnP Star Wars RPG??

A nod to when I started playing this way, which was with KOTOR. (I have played TOR, though)

[Allan Schumacher]

Being a writer, I don't exactly put myself in the place of my character as I'm crafting them and their dialog and the world around them.

As a writer, how do you determine an appropriate reaction for a character that you are writing?

[LolaLei]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

That's also how I like to play, especially with RPG games.

There's something really interesting about playing a game "as myself" for the first ever play-through. I enjoy seeing and experiencing things as if the protagonist was me and discovering what consequences my own actions would cause if I was put in that situation.

I would see that as self-insertion, not roleplaying, personally. But I typically do the same on the first playthrough as well.

I'm not sure what I'd call it, lol. I'll always do the "me" playthrough first and then all subsquent playthroughs I'll roleplay as different types of characters to experience all the different possible outcomes and personality traits etc.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think it's interesting how different people "roleplay."

I usually try to put "myself" in the role with whatever traits I have decided. I feel a need to imagine that it's myself with those traits (those traits may not be traits I actually possess. In fact, rarely have I been able to manipulate the Force in real life!), and I try to imagine what the emotional context of what "I" am feeling when events happen.

I draw upon my personal experiences to try to understand how that emotion must feel, sometimes I can come up with something fine (it's not hard for me to feel sorrow for the loss of my sibling in DA2, for example), and other times I just need to make my best guess.

It works for me as it helps my emotional connection to the game, and any game that can illicit genuine emotional responses out of me (for in game reasons) are typically games I hold in high regard (looking at you The Walking Dead).

I am in the middle of the road. The first time I play a truly open RPG with RP capabilities, I always play a similar character type. This has been the case since I was younger and so this character type, while reflective of a lot of my ideals, isn't ever really "me." 

Usually, I play a wizard who always tries to do right... but places a huge, paramount emphasis on learning, knowledge and new techniques to do said "right." This means on my first playthrough, I leaped at the chance to cure the werewolves and defend Redcliffe... but I also saved the Anvil without a second thought (preserving ancient knowledge) and also sacrificed Connor to learn Blood Magic. Which was a shame, since I didn't know at the time that you could find a blood magic tome at Bodahn's if you wait long enough, nor did I know that blood magic was highly overrated in terms of useful skills, but... ce la vie. I also preserved the Ashes, since regardless of if it was a religious artifact or a result of magic, it had immense powers and abilities that would foolish to waste or destroy. Similarly, I did the Dark Ritual, because destroying the soul of a diety versus keeping one alive in a new body was a no-brainer for my character.

Upon experiencing the story a first time and figuring out where most of the choices are, I try and craft a character that would make different choices. This is very much a meta-game approach to role-playing (the completionist in me always wants to see all possible outcomes), but it often leads to some interesting surprises, like the one EA talked about. Sometimes my character just winds up taking a road I had not expected and makes changes to themselves that were highly unanticipated. 

All of this aside, what kills my immesion most is realizing that choices result in the same outcomes, likely because this is what drives me to replay games (replay variability). While there is a lot of worth in offering different ways to roleplay a character, if the outcomes are too similar, then it all becomes worth nothing, to me personally. The way DA2 offered lots of variability, through differing responses of the dominant tone, was mostly unnoticeable to me. Not because my character said different thigns (good), but because I didn't realize they were even SAYING different things, and that the people my character was saying them to still wind up acting and doing the same things (companions aside). 

So just like ME3's endings were initially just "not good" but then progressed to soul-crushing to some by finding out that the exact same thing happened with just different colors, the same can be applied to me with replaying games. A game that doesn't get me jazzed is one thing. A game that I find out was only making me think I had a choice, but then upon second replay, everything is the same is downright disappointing. Its an immersion breaker to find out that I was a mouse walkign the maze and just heading towards the cheese, never finding out that the other turns were just short dead ends, leading me back to the same corridor heading towards the cheese.

[Fast Jimmy]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

It's funny cause DA is an RPG, It's like going into Burger King every Saturday and saying, I come here all the time but I'm not into Burgers, lol

DA actually has some pretty decent chicekn sandwiches. And while their onion rings are subpar, their onion ring SAUCE is the miggity-miggity-mac.

[Dave of Canada]

Mini-rant:

I've never been a fan of self-inserts, I prefer creating various characters with a wide variety of in-character beliefs and opinions on the conflicts presented in the universe. It's why my Shepard was pro-human and military, it's why my Hawke is pro-Chantry and hates heathens, it's why my Lee Everett was about survival.

I take dialogue options, attach undertones to them and it fits the character. The Hawke who sides with Petrice could support her fully or support her believing she's the lesser evil, vague dialogue allows me to mold the protagonist clay into anything which I want.

It's when protagonist intentions and dialogue conflicts with the mold that I've decided to create that it gets annoying and irritates me, things like my anti-Qunari Hawke being forced to stand there as Tallis walks away with the list or pro-Humanity Shepard forced to say that Cerberus is evil, everything they do is bad and I'm a stupid monster for even having trusted them in ME2.

Writers rubbing it in my face isn't that bad provided I'm allowed to still support everything that's occuring, I was fine with dismissing every companion telling me I was stupid after giving the Collector Base to Cerberus provided I could hold the same stance I had in ME2 in Mass Effect 3.

It's the main reason I loved The Walking Dead, almost every one of my decisions ended up being in the minority but I'm always able to get Lee to justify them to the people who confront me about them and there's never a point where the game tells me "SHAME ON YOU" for picking it. Hell, sometimes my character changes because of how I feel he would evolve after a particular choice (such as Lee becoming more caring after Crawford).

When roleplay feels more like a popularity contest and I have to follow the mold of everyone else, I get upset. It's one of the main reasons I've never bothered getting Mass Effect 3, almost the entire game tells me I'm wrong and then prevents me from choosing dialogue which allows me to voice my previous opinions.

Had my Shepard been able to voice his love of Cerberus and pro-human stance despite having to put it aside because of circumstances, had Hawke tried to stop Tallis and still failed as she got away, etc. I wouldn't mind that, I'm still in-control of my character.

When that is taken away, I don't see the purpose in playing the game because I'm disassociated with everything.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 06 avril 2013 - 09:22 .

[TCBC_Freak]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

As a writer, how do you determine an appropriate reaction for a character that you are writing?

I examine the personality that I've created and determine it from that.

That sounds a little dry. i think in optimal situations, it can become similar to what you've described--I get a sense of flow, I get in tune with my character--but I never become my character. I never put myself in the place of my character. That's a step I've never taken.

I'm the same when I'm writing, but I fully put myself as characters in the games I play.

[Fishy]

Immersion breaking it's when the limitations of the game become the game play of the game.

Modifié par Suprez30, 06 avril 2013 - 09:28 .

[jillabender]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

As a writer, how do you determine an appropriate reaction for a character that you are writing?

I examine the personality that I've created and determine it from that.

That sounds a little dry. i think in optimal situations, it can become similar to what you've described--I get a sense of flow, I get in tune with my character--but I never become my character. I never put myself in the place of my character. That's a step I've never taken.

I can understand that distinction.

I've sometimes compared my preferred approach to role-playing to method acting. That said, although I love giving a character a vivid personality and inhabiting that role, I'm not always rigid about staying in character at all times.

For example, I do the side-quest "The Last Request" in every playthrough of DA:O - even with characters who wouldn't, logically speaking, be particularly interested in hunting blood mages - simply because that side-quest has some of my favourite combat encounters in the game. After all, it's a single-player game, and I'm not performing the role of the character for anyone else, so it's not as though anyone's there to criticize me for not staying in character.

Modifié par jillabender, 06 avril 2013 - 09:38 .

[Dave of Canada]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I have to ask, Dave: have you ever created a character (Shepard) that was ANTI-Humanity? ANTI-Cerberus? A Hawke or Warden that was ANTI-Circle and PRO-mage?

I've created a Shepard who was pro-unity, he still sacrifices the Council but gets furious when humanity decides to step in. I don't oppose Cerberus but I don't support them, ultimately deciding to avoid the Alliance and Cerberus altogether because he didn't know who he could trust after he learned the Alliance and Cerberus were basically one and the same.

Ultimately ended up being 50/50 on the P/R scale, I didn't trust the Rachni Queen and sacrificed the Council but blew up the Collector Base and stuff.

I've got a pro-Mage Warden who's entire goal is self-power and believes that over-throwing the Circles could allow a society similar to Tevinter to form, he opposes the Templar at every point and even destroys Andraste's ashes. He ultimately ends up becoming Chancellor to the Throne with a romanced Morrigan who'll give birth to the Old God Baby (an option he took because he didn't work that much only to die or allow his King Alistair the Puppet to die).

I've done pro-Mage Hawkes but they tend to side with the Templar by Act 3 because everywhere you go, there's blood mages and I usually take the grief-route with them after All That Remains.

Edit: Hell, I'm the furthest thing from religious but all my protagonists in the Dragon Age universe are almost zealots except for the rare few (dwarves, mages).

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 06 avril 2013 - 09:40 .

[jillabender]

EntropicAngel wrote...

jillabender wrote...

I can understand that distinction.

I've sometimes compared my preferred approach to role-playing to method acting. That said, although I love giving a character a vivid personality and inhabiting that role, I'm not always rigid about staying in character at all times.

For example, I do the quest "The Last Request" in every playthrough - even with characters who wouldn't, logically speaking be particularly interested in hunting blood mages - simply because that side-quest has some of my favourite combat encounters in the game. After all, it's a single-player game, and I'm not performing the role of the character for anyone else, so it's not as though anyone is to criticize me for not staying in character.

I understand that--I've actually though a lot about Method acting, and if I ever acted I'd attempt to use it.

I'm also intrigued by what actors do. I wouldn't say that I have much talent when it comes to acting for an audience, but I think it would be interesting to take acting classes.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
All of this aside, what kills my immesion most is realizing that choices result in the same outcomes, likely because this is what drives me to replay games (replay variability). 

I think this is a very important consideration, one that doesn't get discussed very much: Why or why not you're replaying a game.


When I first found ME, with ME2, in the first month after I got it I played for over 168 in-game hours. I spent one-fourth of every day playing it. I did several (5, 6 ,7) playthroughs.

Thing is, though, most of those were with the same type of character: To this day, I've only ever played an Infiltrator. Just always been the perfect class. And most of my characters, say 8/10, are Paragon. And they followed either a similar romance path or none at all.

So why was I replaying? I was replaying to enjoy the world and the mechanics. That whole concept (RPGs) was completely foreign to me. The idea of a character actually getting more powerful, changing, as the game wore on was revolutionary. it wasn't something I was looking to change up, with different choices, but it was a novel experience that I simply wanted more of.

Same for DA:O. The mechanics were, to me, completely revolutionary and delightful. I do enjoy role-playing, but role-playing alone is not the reason for me replaying the game four or five times so far. It's the mechanics, it's the world, it's the characters.

It is different things for different games. But I imagine that this--one's reason for playing and for replaying--is definitely related to the issues we're discussing.

Heh. I alwasy, 100% of the time, played as an Infilatrator as well. That's interesting.

Anyway, I do also replay games I enjoy just to enjoy them. Betrayal at Krondor is a game that never changes, regardless of what choices you make (story wise). But it is still a great, old game (as is Return to Krondor and Betrayal at Antara). Conversely, I could barely get through one playthrough of Dishonored, even though there are different outcomes to the game if you are a peaceful player versus a violent one. It was a good enough game, but nothing really brought me coming back for more in it. 

So good mechanics are the foundation to keeping a player engaged enough to care to replay your game, that is true. But, at the same time, a game that I feel offered me a choice, but then the curtain is pulled back and there was never any choice at all, of any sort, feels downright insulting. Like I have been tricked, where before I had believed in the magic.

If that makes sense.

[Fast Jimmy]

Dave of Canada wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

I have to ask, Dave: have you ever created a character (Shepard) that was ANTI-Humanity? ANTI-Cerberus? A Hawke or Warden that was ANTI-Circle and PRO-mage?

I've created a Shepard who was pro-unity, he still sacrifices the Council but gets furious when humanity decides to step in. I don't oppose Cerberus but I don't support them, ultimately deciding to avoid the Alliance and Cerberus altogether because he didn't know who he could trust after he learned the Alliance and Cerberus were basically one and the same.

Ultimately ended up being 50/50 on the P/R scale, I didn't trust the Rachni Queen and sacrificed the Council but blew up the Collector Base and stuff.

I've got a pro-Mage Warden who's entire goal is self-power and believes that over-throwing the Circles could allow a society similar to Tevinter to form, he opposes the Templar at every point and even destroys Andraste's ashes. He ultimately ends up becoming Chancellor to the Throne with a romanced Morrigan who'll give birth to the Old God Baby (an option he took because he didn't work that much only to die or allow his King Alistair the Puppet to die).

I've done pro-Mage Hawkes but they tend to side with the Templar by Act 3 because everywhere you go, there's blood mages and I usually take the grief-route with them after All That Remains.

Edit: Hell, I'm the furthest thing from religious but all my protagonists in the Dragon Age universe are almost zealots except for the rare few (dwarves, mages).

For what it is worth, I loved playing the dwarves, because they were most likely to have non-religious view points of any of the origins.

[MichaelStuart]

The only two things that ever really broke my immersion is the dice rolling combat and the disappearing helmets during conversions.
But really, I'm just nit picking the helmet thing.