195 réponses à ce sujet

[thats1evildude]

I should note that, while kevlar vests may prevent bullets from entering your body, getting shot still really hurts and will likely result in nasty bruises and broken ribs.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 08 avril 2013 - 02:37 .

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

RPG rules are abstractions and trying to equate them to our physical world is always going to run into snags.

In an RPG, a player that is "immune to critical hits" can still die in combat, so any assertion that a player that is "immune to critical hits cannot be killed in combat" is easily shown to be false.

Stating that Kevlar Armor makes you immune to deadly hits on your torso isn't actually correct either (and is easily shown to be false in reality as well), but then it goes back to the idea that RPG game rules are just an abstract model.

Getting caught up in the semantics of it will just lead to continued talking in circles.

If a character is has 100 percent protection on all his vital organs, he is imune to critical hits. Meaning he can`****** shouldn`t be possible to kill him in combat. If he can still be killed in combat, despite being immune, it makes no sense whatsoever.

A lot of non-critical hits on his non-vital areas would still cause him to eventually bleed to death.

But as was already said, combat is just an abstraction. An immunity to critical hits does not in any way reflect the state of the character's vital organs.

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

RPG rules are abstractions and trying to equate them to our physical world is always going to run into snags.

In an RPG, a player that is "immune to critical hits" can still die in combat, so any assertion that a player that is "immune to critical hits cannot be killed in combat" is easily shown to be false.

Stating that Kevlar Armor makes you immune to deadly hits on your torso isn't actually correct either (and is easily shown to be false in reality as well), but then it goes back to the idea that RPG game rules are just an abstract model.

Getting caught up in the semantics of it will just lead to continued talking in circles.

If a character is has 100 percent protection on all his vital organs, he is imune to critical hits. Meaning he can`****** shouldn`t be possible to kill him in combat. If he can still be killed in combat, despite being immune, it makes no sense whatsoever.

A lot of non-critical hits on his non-vital areas would still cause him to eventually bleed to death.

But as was already said, combat is just an abstraction. An immunity to critical hits does not in any way reflect the state of the character's vital organs.

I belive the game-rules say that a critical hit is a hit to a vital area of the body. Hence the extra damage.

[thats1evildude]

I've never seen it said anywhere that a critical hit is an injury to the vital area of the body.

[Renmiri1]

Rawgrim wrote...


If a character is has 100 percent protection on all his vital organs, he is imune to critical hits. Meaning he can`****** shouldn`t be possible to kill him in combat. If he can still be killed in combat, despite being immune, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Dying from blood loss ? Hypotermia ? Hunger ? Thirst ? Dehydration ?

Hits to vital organs aren't the only deadly things around grim

Modifié par Renmiri1, 08 avril 2013 - 03:12 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Rawgrim wrote...

I belive the game-rules say that a critical hit is a hit to a vital area of the body. Hence the extra damage.

Getting slashed across the arm is different than getting slashed across the throat.  But then, how does one quantify in terms of "Hit points" what it means to get slashed across the arm compared to the throat?  Again, it's a semantics argument.  Immunity to criticals implies some level of protection to the attacks that are typically more vulnerable.

It's a reflection of the abstraction of RPG rules, of which there is a lot more things than this that could really make us go "Hmmmmm" if we want to try to apply real life experiences to it.

[Rawgrim]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...


If a character is has 100 percent protection on all his vital organs, he is imune to critical hits. Meaning he can`****** shouldn`t be possible to kill him in combat. If he can still be killed in combat, despite being immune, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Dying from blood loss ? Hypotermia ? Hunger ? Thirst ? Dehydration ?

Hits to vital organs aren't the only deadly things around grim

I was talking about during combat. Unless you make your enemies starve to death by smacking them with an axe? Or making them thirst to death because of your sword slashes to their torso?

[bEVEsthda]

(Rifle bullets typically goes straight through most kevlar vests. And so do some handgun bullets. It's always a case of armor offerering a degree of protection, never absolute.)

I see that Renmiri1 reacted rather strongly to my dissing of that ridiculous bow. 

Non-realism and unrealistic are not the same thing. That's just a play with words. The mind concepts are two different things. Any random nonsense cannot always be justified and defended by protesting that our fantasy world is not "real". That argument is false, and tired to the degree that it's almost offensive.

But that doesn't mean that spikes cannot be defended, or can't fit into a fantasy world. That's quite possible I believe. Bioware artists have used spikes and jaggies (and horns) since BG and through DA:Origins as well. But then it was done selectively, and tastefully, and to suggest something ominous and/or otherwordly.

In DA2, otoh, it's all over the place, just a 14y Transformers and FF fan's superficial perception of "kewl and awesome". Totally ridiculous. And once one have reacted, it's pretty hard not to become oversensitive. And develop an almost allergic reaction, becomes the natural thing.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 08 avril 2013 - 09:27 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Silent protagonist kill the immersion for me. The fact that everybody except me can talk, makes me feel like I'm just playing a mute whose only way of talking is to nod his head yes or no. It just doesn't feel like I'm actually having a conversation with an NPC unless I hear my character actually have a conversation.

[Fiacre]

Rawgrim wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...


If a character is has 100 percent protection on all his vital organs, he is imune to critical hits. Meaning he can`****** shouldn`t be possible to kill him in combat. If he can still be killed in combat, despite being immune, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Dying from blood loss ? Hypotermia ? Hunger ? Thirst ? Dehydration ?

Hits to vital organs aren't the only deadly things around grim

I was talking about during combat. Unless you make your enemies starve to death by smacking them with an axe? Or making them thirst to death because of your sword slashes to their torso?

Lots of hits to non vital areas can still cause wounds that end in the characters death e.g. through bleeding, breaking a rip that punctures the lungs, breaking the sternum, causing the character to trip and sustain a grievous head wound...

Critical hits I've always understood as hits that simply hurt a lot more. Having a blade shoved through your arm rather than a light cut across it or a particularly painful hit with a blunt weapon. In which case a critical hit would mean that the character's protection/ability to dodge is good enough to avoid the enemy getting such hits in, but that doesn't stop them from succumbing to the damage of normal hits.

And since I don't remember the game saying anywhere that critical hits are hits to viatal organs, I don't see how that's "in the rules". I'm not even sure how that makes sense any more than being immune to them, considering that one can reveive critical hits and still continue to happily fight back and run around, say, the Wounded Coast to fight some more bandits afterwards.

[Sutekh]

bEVEsthda wrote...

In DA2, otoh, it's all over the place, just a 14y Transformers and FF fan's superficial perception of "kewl and awesome". Totally ridiculous. And once one have reacted, it's pretty hard not to become oversensitive. And develop an almost allergic reaction, becomes the natural thing.

Nothing to do with immersion, though. You might dislike something, or the overuse of something, without it pulling you out of the game. You're just immersed in something you're not happy with (or wasn't immersed at all ever to start with, which I assume would be your case).

I loathe exploding bodies (though it was hilarious at first), but it doesn't have any effect immersion-wise. I still am in the story and action. It's just something I could really do without.

(Also, I first read "FF" as "Fantastic Four", and was puzzled there for a sec.)

[bEVEsthda]

Sutekh wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

In DA2, otoh, it's all over the place, just a 14y Transformers and FF fan's superficial perception of "kewl and awesome". Totally ridiculous. And once one have reacted, it's pretty hard not to become oversensitive. And develop an almost allergic reaction, becomes the natural thing.

Nothing to do with immersion, though. You might dislike something, or the overuse of something, without it pulling you out of the game. You're just immersed in something you're not happy with (or wasn't immersed at all ever to start with, which I assume would be your case).

I loathe exploding bodies (though it was hilarious at first), but it doesn't have any effect immersion-wise. I still am in the story and action. It's just something I could really do without.

(Also, I first read "FF" as "Fantastic Four", and was puzzled there for a sec.)

I beg to differ. It does have to do with immersion. It's very hard to be immersed when you constantly react to the culture and style of the game. "- This is NOT the DA I signed up to play!"

It would in theory have been more possible, had one not expected a sequel, more of the goodness from DA:O.
But it's impossible to make that assumption general, since the two games also differ very significantly in gameplay.

[OdanUrr]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

I've come to the conclusion that "immersion" is ultimately a cinematic term.

And being cinematic, as well as by it's definition, it's unrelated to role-playing (if not the antithesis).

Thus, I really don't care about "immersion" all that much in a series I'm looking to for role-playing.

I find immersion to be that rather vagueish feeling that isn't really well defined, by which people will fall back on if something seems off but they can't quite put their finger on it.

My definition of immersion or, rather, of something that breaks my immersion in a game is anything that takes me out of the story. When I start thinking as the player rather than as the character, when I laugh when I should really be crying, when the script dictates events and not the other way around, those kinds of things. And, you're right, it is rather vague because more often than not it's entirely subjective.

But, basically, if you manage to tell an interesting story with believable characters and a series of events that flow naturally, I might be able to forgive a lot.

[Renmiri1]

bEVEsthda wrote...

I beg to differ. It does have to do with immersion. It's very hard to be immersed when you constantly react to the culture and style of the game. "- This is NOT the DA I signed up to play!"

It would in theory have been more possible, had one not expected a sequel, more of the goodness from DA:O.
But it's impossible to make that assumption general, since the two games also differ very significantly in gameplay.

And here you equate immersion with "suspension of disbelief" 

TL;DR version of what supension of disbelief is: Black and White movies. No one sees the world in black and white. But every person who watches a B&W movie agrees to "suspend their disbelief" that b&W is not realistic. Or in other words, viewers, pretend B&W is not unreal, to be able to enjoy the movie. They do that willingly because they thing is worth doing it to be entertained

When you get "This is NOT the DA I signed up to play", you are refusing to "suspend your disbelief" because you are pissed off at the game authors for not giving you what you expected. A perfectly understandable human reaction.

I suggest you return the game and get something else to play and relax

But don't  proceed to nitpick anything that isn't real, plenty in any game, movie, book or performance is unreal. Every work of art requires the viewer to engage in "suspension of disbelief". You are not doing your part, that is the problem, not the game.

Complain that there is no DAO goodness, that you were expecting DAO II that this isn't the style you like. But do not say "it breaks my immersion". There is no one breaking your immersion but yourself.

And it looks as silly as someone complaining "B&W isn't realistic", just because they didn't like the B&W movie 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 09 avril 2013 - 12:45 .

[Allan Schumacher]

And here you equate immersion with "suspension of disbelief"

I also typically equate immersion with suspension of disbelief.

Complain that there is no DAO goodness, that you were expecting DAO II that this isn't the style you like. But do not say "it breaks my immersion". There is no one breaking your immersion but yourself.

Eh, we facilitate the immersion breakage by providing an experience he wasn't expecting. If someone isn't enjoying things, they're less likely to get immersed in it.

Like I said, I consider immersion to be a rather nebulous term. What it means to an individual may very well be specific to that individual.

[Rawgrim]

Suspension of disbelief can only be pushed so far before it becomes immersion breaking, though.

[Renmiri1]

Rawgrim wrote...

Suspension of disbelief can only be pushed so far before it becomes immersion breaking, though.

Well the way I see it, you enter on a "pact" with the game / book / movie writers: They provide you a fun time and you provide them with less nitpicking and more believing. When you feel you are NOT having a fun time, you feel the writers are not delivering their part of the deal, so it is more than natural for you to shorten your part of the deal too. As I said before, perfectly normal human reaction and very understandable.

But if people who didn't like a B&W western movie only complained about it being B&W odds are they would have never gotten better writen westerns, or movies more aimed at their favorite genre - for instance sci-fi. 

I'm just trying to make people more aware of the real reason they like / dislike a game. Just bashing it "it s***ks" or saying "it's not realistic" is not helpful to anyone. Not to the writers, not to people who like the game, not to people who dislike the game. Because no one will know what needs to be done to make the people complaining happy.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 09 avril 2013 - 02:06 .

[Rawgrim]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Suspension of disbelief can only be pushed so far before it becomes immersion breaking, though.

Well the way I see it, you enter on a "pact" with the game / book / movie writers: They provide you a fun time and you provide them with less nitpicking and more believing. When you feel you are NOT having a fun time, you feel the writers are not delivering their part of the deal, so it is more than natural for you to shorten your part of the deal too. As I said before, perfectly normal human reaction and very understandable.

But if people who didn't like a B&W western movie only complained about it being B&W odds are they would have never gotten better writen westerns, or movies more aimed at their favorite genre - for instance sci-fi. 

I'm just trying to make people more aware of the real reason they like / dislike a game. Just bashing it "it s***ks" or saying "it's not realistic" is not helpful to anyone. Not to the writers, not to people who like the game, not to people who dislike the game. Because no one will know what needs to be done to make the people complaining happy.

Its not nitpicking when the writer explains to the reader how things work. And then go a 180 on his own words just because it might look kewl. Its up to the storyteller to make the story feel as real as possible. Not the reader. If it was the readers job, a writer could just give him a bunch of blank pages.

Yes it is indeed helpful to a writer or a game producer to get feedback. Positive AND negative.

[Renmiri1]

PS: Back to the OP, on the subject of immersion, I myself have varying levels of immersion, depending on the "media"

Writing / Acting: Deeper immersion
Done both back in the day. My immersion when writing or when acting on a rehearsal / play is very deep. So deep that I pushed away someone stepping on "my roses" on an empty stage with no roses. But In my head we were at my garden and the other actor stepped on my prize roses. It wasn't on the script, it wasn't planned, it just came from deep immersion. Little details like that make a play much more convincing, more "realistic" to people in the audience and actors try to let them "flow". Same for writing, I let the character flow and write non-stop for 1-2 hours deeply immersed in the fictional story. Then I start spell checking and grammar checking and cutting and pasting paragraphs to make the text easier to read.

This deep immersion demands a lot of focus though. I can not do it for 15 minutes, stop to make hot chocolate to my kids, then get back to that fictional world. I need to have "alone time" uninterrupted for several hours to write anything good. And while acting you are with a team of people who are also deeply immersed and acting, no interruptions, no recess bells, etc.. If you stop for any reason, it takes the entire team some time to get back into their roles.

Movies: Deep immersion
I'm sure anyone here knows how much more immersive a darkened movie theater is than just watching the same movie on TV at home. I almost peed my pants watching Alien on a movie theater. Wathching a sequel or the same movie at home ? LOL worthy.

TV / Videogames: "Light" immersion
Watching something on TV you can have a phone call . someone texting you, your mom (or my kids in my case) asking you to do stuff, someone at the door, your dogs, etc.. interrupting you every 15 minutes and you still can get back to the movie / game without a lot of effort. Heck, both TV and videogames are designed to handle interruptions easily. TV forces you to watch commercials, Videogames have "boss battles" and cinematics and big decisions that make you save the game and then get into a different mood. When I'm trying to kill that Rock monster on the Primal Thaig, I'm not immersed on the story and I'm very aware of what Fenris, Merril Ander and myself are wearing, our hp, the mana, etc.. I save before (or forget) get my butt kicked, go back to redo the same fight. A scene repeating until you get it right ? Very immersion breaking, unless you are watching "Groundhog Day" Yet on videogames we barely bat an eye at it. Because interrupting role play and then going into combat then getting back to roleplay is an intrinsic part of the game. But that - to me - makes videogames less immersive or what i call "light immersion". Because you are immersed in the game just as much as you need to be to remember to save before a boss battle. Or as much as you need to win that battle.

Immersion in videogames is full of starts and stops and frequent interruptions - even if you are playing alone, in a quiet house. You "change modes" often between combat and story, heck some people even have the game AUTO PAUSE before you engage into any combat. So my videogame immersion isn't very deep to me, because I can't get into it as deep as I get on a movie theater, due to all interruptions.

But it is still oodles of fun and I welcome the opportunity to relax with a videogame ^^

Modifié par Renmiri1, 09 avril 2013 - 02:38 .

[Rawgrim]

I like to immerse myself as much as possible into books, movies and video games. Full focus and immersion. I suspect it comes from growing up playing those old rpgs, that hadn`t great graphics and stuff like that. Needed to picture alot of it in my mind.