318 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I, personally, have no interesting in playing a game that doesn't let me control my character's behaviour.

One of the many differences between Sylvius and myself.

If it were anyone but StM I'd argue that he means just RPGs, but it IS Sylvius so... yeah, nevermind.

I loved Alan Wake.  I can totally play a character whom I have almost no control over them.

When it comes to an RPG, I'd rather create my own character, though.  And if I created the character, I want as much control as possible.

Again - I prefer one thing, but I can like more than one thing.  Apples over oranges, still like oranges well enough.

[Fast Jimmy]

MerinTB wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I, personally, have no interesting in playing a game that doesn't let me control my character's behaviour.

One of the many differences between Sylvius and myself.

If it were anyone but StM I'd argue that he means just RPGs, but it IS Sylvius so... yeah, nevermind.

I loved Alan Wake.  I can totally play a character whom I have almost no control over them.

When it comes to an RPG, I'd rather create my own character, though.  And if I created the character, I want as much control as possible.

Again - I prefer one thing, but I can like more than one thing.  Apples over oranges, still like oranges well enough.

I can play nearly any game, if the right premise and context are given. DE:HR pretty much comes out and says "Hey, you are this guy, Adam Jensen. He never asked for this." Dishonored, though much more of an action/stealth game with RPG elements in a fantasy setting than a Fantasy RPG, gave you a rather wide berth with Corvo... but gave very little in the way of expressing that character, other than how he killed his targets (and those in his way to those targets). 

Both games were entertaining enough for me (I'd rather play Borderlands 2) but I could enjoy them for what they were because I understood what they were before engaging in them.

I started playing Kingdoms of Amalur because I had heard it was a great open world RPG with lots of content. I got into the game and quickly realized that there was a reason it was a failed MMO... because it was a poor MMO model with none of the MMO to help balance it out. The dialogue system was fine enough... but the story lacked any depth or enjoyment for me and the quests were straight out of WoW... kill 5 rats, collect 10 mushrooms, fetch this item, etc. I went in expecting a good RPG and found only a poor impersonation of every hollow fantasy MMORPG on the market. So I couldn't enjoy it at all.

Setting proper expectations is crucial when selling games. Or, really, any type of entertainment. If you go into the Twilight movie expecting Underworld, you are going to be sorely disappointed. If you go into Sin City expecting Action Comics, you are going to be sorely disappointed. If you go into The Dark Tower books expecting Shawshank Redemption... you are going to be sorely disappointed. 

I'd say that is where Bioware's Achilles Heel has been over the last few years. It seems they have been playing PR scramble constantly because fans feel like they haven't gotten what they expected, in some form or another. And while I have been certainly heartened by the lessons the team has stated they have learned about how they want to enhance their games going forward... maybe it might be better to understand the game they are about to release and how it will be viewed and set expectations accordingly?

But, then again, that may be the whole plan with this E3 reveal next month. I, and others, stand waiting with bated breath.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 mai 2013 - 01:36 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But once you get your hands around the set background of DA:O, you could craft lots of character ideas.

<snip>

But the biggest obstacle... how could Sylvius play a coward? Neither DA:O no DA2 supports it in the least. 

It's a production value call. Do you sacrifice content you want to make in order to allow the sort of playstyle others might undertake but you don't support? Or do you sacrifice the things you don't support in order to strengthen the content you are focusing on? 

Does min/maxing content development make for a better overall game experience than a more balanced approach? I'd argue that it does, simply because the developers care more about the things they want to work on than the things they don't.

Sadly, players like Sylvius are collateral damage... but I'd argue that they weren't part of the target audience to begin with anyway, and that the opportunity cost to keep them is not worth the sacrifice. 

Edit: Unless there is sufficient financial reason to try to keep them... which has influenced certain creative works in the past (e.g. the anime Rurouni Kenshin was originally conceived as a shounen/boy's series, but the largest part of the actual audience was young women, prompting a change of tone later in the series to be more romanticized and angsty. Other example: bronies). But when that happens, you also run the risk of alienating not only the original target audience, but also your developers since it might not be what they signed on for either. 

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 17 mai 2013 - 01:59 .

[robertthebard]

No matter what, nobody is going to be 100% happy with the finished product. What some see as essential to the game, silent protagonists, I am finding now, to be quite bland. I wish the paraphrases had been a bit more literal though. I find myself waiting for the Warden to speak, even though I know it's not going to happen. I don't find myself "delivering" lines, I find myself clicking a button and listening to the NPC talk while I stand there looking like a goof. YMMV, but that's how I'm seeing it now.

I played BG when it was first released, and I had never played a BioWare game previously. It was, however, my understanding that they made the game they wanted to play? If that's the case, then more power to them. My complaints with DA 2 were limited to reused maps, and some of the paraphrases, but I found that, after playing ME, I prefer the voiced protagonist. I didn't find most of the dialog to be more immersion breaking than standing there doing my idle animations during dialogs, with absolutely nothing to say.

[Fast Jimmy]

Edit: Unless there is sufficient financial reason to try to keep them... which has influenced certain creative works in the past (e.g. the anime Rurouni Kenshin was originally conceived as a shounen/boy's series, but the largest part of the actual audience was young women, prompting a change of tone later in the series to be more romanticized and angsty. Other example: bronies). But when that happens, you also run the risk of alienating not only the original target audience, but also your developers since it might not be what they signed on for either. 

That is all fair enough, but I use Sylvius as an example on the far end of the spectrum. There are a number of players of varying levels of the fence that enjoy a higher level of player agency in controlling their character. Sylvius may be okay to lose, but what about 1,000 former dedicated fans? 10,000? 100,000?

I would say that is Bioware's call to make, but (and I really don't mean this in a disrespectful way, just a pragmatic one) they seem pretty out of touch with how their design decisions will be received by their fanbase as of late. I'm not sure if I would trust them to be entirely accurate if they were to say "We are going to pursue this course of dialogue system - it will lose between X and Y amount of fans more than likely, but to continue to accomodate them under our new design model."

Again, I'm not trying to stir up a fire, but they seem to be missing the mark by a not-insignificant margin when determining fan reaction and how it will color their product release in the past few years.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 mai 2013 - 02:11 .

[Fast Jimmy]

robertthebard wrote...

No matter what, nobody is going to be 100% happy with the finished product. What some see as essential to the game, silent protagonists, I am finding now, to be quite bland. I wish the paraphrases had been a bit more literal though. I find myself waiting for the Warden to speak, even though I know it's not going to happen. I don't find myself "delivering" lines, I find myself clicking a button and listening to the NPC talk while I stand there looking like a goof. YMMV, but that's how I'm seeing it now.

I played BG when it was first released, and I had never played a BioWare game previously. It was, however, my understanding that they made the game they wanted to play? If that's the case, then more power to them. My complaints with DA 2 were limited to reused maps, and some of the paraphrases, but I found that, after playing ME, I prefer the voiced protagonist. I didn't find most of the dialog to be more immersion breaking than standing there doing my idle animations during dialogs, with absolutely nothing to say.

I'd say that has more to do with conversation organization than a voiced or silent protagonist. DA:O had many instances where companions or NPCs did a huge information monologue many times throughout the game. I didn't mind it, but I can see where it would turn some people off.

If the conversations were written in the exact same manner for DA2, your Hawke would be standing there, doing idle animations as well?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 mai 2013 - 02:18 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">Edit: Unless there is sufficient financial reason to try to keep them... which has influenced certain creative works in the past (e.g. the anime Rurouni Kenshin was originally conceived as a ]shounen/[/color]boy's series, but the largest part of the actual audience was young women, prompting a change of tone later in the series to be more romanticized and angsty. Other example: bronies). But when that happens, you also run the risk of alienating not only the original target audience, but also your developers since it might not be what they signed on for either. 

That is all fair enough, but I use Sylvius as an example on the far end of the spectrum. There are a number of players of varying levels of the fence that enjoy a higher level of player agency in controlling their character. Sylvius may be okay to lose, but what about 1,000 former dedicated fans? 10,000? 100,000?

I would say that is Bioware's call to make, but (and I really don't mean this in a disrespectful way, just a pragmatic one) they seem pretty out of touch with how their design decisions will be received by their fanbase as of late. I'm not sure if I would trust them to be entirely accurate if they were to say "We are going to pursue this course of dialogue system - it will lose between X and Y amount of fans more than likely, but to continue to accomodate them under our new design model."

Again, I'm not trying to stir up a fire, but they seem to be missing the mark by a not-insignificant margin when determining fan reaction and how it will color their product release in the past few years.

It is their decision to make. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone who posts here regularly (including the bio-tagged people) really has any influence on that. The only people who might would be Mark Darrah (executive producer), and possibly Mike Laidlaw (lead designer), and I can say with fair certainty that neither of them puts a lot of stock in what forum posters have to say, especially those who are ignorant of what is actually going on in development.

As for the tradeoff, it's not just about fans they lose, but also what they also stand to gain. If the content is really good, then will they gain 10,000 fans? 100,000? They have a chance to make a really visually impressive and cinematic game that will resonate with players. It stands to reason that polishing and expanding their key features is better business sense than sacrificing those strengths to allow for the weaknesses, especially when other games do those other aspects so much better.

Basically, if I'm playing a fighter in a very combat-oriented campaign, I would rather have 18/00 strength and 3 intelligence than 17 strength and 5 intelligence.

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would argue that this isn't a case of the game telling the player what to do, but of Mina telling Mike what she thinks he should do.

Mike might disagree.

But it can be clearly seen that the mission objective is to infiltrate the place and plant a bug. Mina says this beforehand, but it also is shown here, in the mission "briefing."

Killing an NSA agent is not infiltrating. Killing an NSA agent is essentially failing the mission. Now, the fact that you're allowed to fail is great. But it shouldn't be painted as acceptable, when it violates the very clear mission parameters.

*ahem*

Infiltrate: To penetrate with hostile intent
Infiltrate: to pass (troops) singly or in small groups through gaps in the enemy line
Infiltrate: to move into (an organization, country, territory, or the like) surreptitiously and gradually, especially with hostile intent
 (and before you get nitpicky - surreptitiously: secret or unauthorized)

You are extrapolating from what it is asking you to do.

The mission is simply to get the server and get the information you want out of it.  Infiltrate doesn't preclude violence, and doesn't necessitate stealth.  It can simply mean to move into someplace without authorization.  You are assuming it needs you to avoid detection or not kill the guy stationed there... but those are assumptions, it doesn't SAY that.  Read the description of the mission again.

If the mission had said, like say the CIA mission, that you should "if possible, avoid detection and do not engage American agents" then you might have a point.  But it doesn't.  The CIA one DOES, after saying infilitrate.



I realize that is likely to small to read as well, so just go here - http://i1232.photobu...zps354f95f5.png

Modifié par MerinTB, 17 mai 2013 - 04:37 .

[robertthebard]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

No matter what, nobody is going to be 100% happy with the finished product. What some see as essential to the game, silent protagonists, I am finding now, to be quite bland. I wish the paraphrases had been a bit more literal though. I find myself waiting for the Warden to speak, even though I know it's not going to happen. I don't find myself "delivering" lines, I find myself clicking a button and listening to the NPC talk while I stand there looking like a goof. YMMV, but that's how I'm seeing it now.

I played BG when it was first released, and I had never played a BioWare game previously. It was, however, my understanding that they made the game they wanted to play? If that's the case, then more power to them. My complaints with DA 2 were limited to reused maps, and some of the paraphrases, but I found that, after playing ME, I prefer the voiced protagonist. I didn't find most of the dialog to be more immersion breaking than standing there doing my idle animations during dialogs, with absolutely nothing to say.

I'd say that has more to do with conversation organization than a voiced or silent protagonist. DA:O had many instances where companions or NPCs did a huge information monologue many times throughout the game. I didn't mind it, but I can see where it would turn some people off.

If the conversations were written in the exact same manner for DA2, your Hawke would be standing there, doing idle animations as well?

After ME, actually speaking the dialog made me, oddly enough, feel more like I was actually participating in the dialog.  Even with my MMO play, I find I'm skipping through the dialog because it's flat boring to stand there and listen to the NPCs respond, essentially, to themselves.  One would think that not having the voice means you can set your own tones, but, even in DA:  O, and as far back as BG even, I sometimes got responses that didn't fit with how I thought the dialog was going to go.  I can't pull any specific dialog from memory right now though if I had to.  I just remember the "WTF was that" moments.

I can live with it, I did, I held the record on another forum for most complete playthroughs on BG with over 100.  But I can also live with the paraphrase not being exactly what I thought it was going to be.  I feel more involved in the dialog when the protagonist is speaking, so that acts as a buffer, I guess.  There's no voice to distract me from those lines that didn't garner the response I thought they were going to with the silent protagonist, so for me, it all comes out in the wash.

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Now, I'm not saying a coward VA line should be recorded, as likely barely anyone would use it. But it goes to illustrate a point - one could play many types of characters, some FAR outside the intentions of the writing team, in DA:O, even with the set backgrounds. It does not require a blank slate protagonist, like FO:NV or Skyrim outlines, but could still work within more clearly defined backgrounds... as long as the player has solid control of the character and know what they will do and say beforehand. 

I mostly agree with some of the core values of your posts but just to present an dissenting opinion:

I actually feel I have more control over Bioware's voiced characters than their quiet ones. I guess I'm a bit of the odd one out there, but the limitation that it supposedly brings is something I've experienced in bioware rpgs as far back as I've remembered. Instead it opened up the possibility to express emotion on a level I've not had before, which is something I thought was very important. So for me the addition of the voice has been a net plus (since I did not lose anything).

However I absolutely agree that nothing should be expressed by my character without at least an indirect prompt. The implementation in DA2 (or mass effect) was far from perfect and needs to be mde better, clearer and more player controlled.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

But I fail to see how the Voiced Protagonist has any benefit for this.

Say, for example, these were all paraphrases for the actual statements made by your character, instead of what was actually said. And that this option had a Sarcastic icon next to it.

How would you know it wouldn't be saying your version of "we all get old, don't feel so bad" but with a snarky twist or the more literal "you aren't a chicken!" Yes, because it is snarky, you'd likely lean more towards the sillier interpretation, but I'd say the uncertainty is still there.

Similarly, the line "you probably won't be around much longer" would likely have the aggressive option... but how do I know that this won't be my Warden being a jerk... or my Warden directly threatening the life of Wynne?

I don't. Not in the least.

So I'd say the opportunity for confusion still absolutely exists in the voiced protagonist... but we also lose the degree of player agency we already had. Which is a step backward, in my estimation.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 mai 2013 - 11:21 .

[robertthebard]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

But I fail to see how the Voiced Protagonist has any benefit for this.

Say, for example, these were all paraphrases for the actual statements made by your character, instead of what was actually said. And that this option had a Sarcastic icon next to it.

How would you know it wouldn't be saying your version of "we all get old, don't feel so bad" but with a snarky twist or the more literal "you aren't a chicken!" Yes, because it is snarky, you'd likely lean more towards the sillier interpretation, but I'd say the uncertainty is still there.

Similarly, the line "you probably won't be around much longer" would likely have the aggressive option... but how do I know that this won't be my Warden being a jerk... or my Warden directly threatening the life of Wynne?

I don't. Not in the least.

So I'd say the opportunity for confusion still absolutely exists in the voiced protagonist... but we also lose the degree of player agency we already had. Which is a step backward, in my estimation.

I submit that we never really had it to begin with, if responses to chosen lines can garner the same reaction as choices on the dialog wheel.  I think Alan even touched on this in one of the previous threads around this topic.
 It's not a limitation of voiced over silent, it's a limitation that exists because it's a game.  No matter what, we're not going to always get the response we want to give, or the reaction we thought we'd get.  I very much wanted to tell all the treaty races to settle their crap and get their armies together to fight the Blight.  Instead, I'm forced to play nanny to Ferelden and Orzammar.  Admittedly, the game would have been really boring, but my CE had absolutely no reason to care that humans would be wiped out, so why couldn't I wait until Denerim was utterly destroyed before I engaged the Archdemon?

Agency is an illusion, some of us can buy that illusion no matter how it's presented, some of us can't.  I did, after all, buy it with a silent protagonist, or I wouldn't have the Achievements done, not that I did it for the achievements, but they do track what I did and didn't do in the game, and can indicate multiple playthroughs to accomplish them.  However, as I inidicated previously, I'm liking the voiced protagonist better, as it makes me feel more involved in the dialog than being silent.  I also indicated that I thought the paraphrases had been a bit more literal, so that some of my responses didn't come out of left field.  I was not shocked that Hawke is upset about Leandra's passing, especially given how she passed.  I didn't get offended by "She's with the Maker" when asked about it in the bedroom after the fact, as it was almost the same line Aveline used, just missing the "or she's not".  It's not the earth shattering event that some like to believe it is.

So this is what I want from the next persuasion system:  Engross me in the story, and make my choices when dealing with the companions/relevant or irrelevant NPCs matter.  It may mean that there has to be two scales, the one from 2, and the one from Origins.  I can, for example, side with the Mages w/out believing that they need to be autonomous, or side with Chantry w/out believing that all circles need to be annulled.  If a proposed companion believes that siding with the Chantry is right, but that all the Circles should be annulled, then I should have both positive and negative points with that companion, on separate scales.  I believe in their position, but not their methodology, and this should be reflected.  However, as someone that has actually coded, I understand how hard that's going to be to implement, so I'd settle for the 2 system with some revisions to the Rivalmance options, where applicable.  If I'm constantly calling potential romance companion down on methodology, while supporting their overall position, then it should have some consequences, such as; sorry, but we can only be friends, since you don't think I'm right about what has to happen, or something...  Still on my first cup of coffee, so my brain's not fully functional yet. 

[Fast Jimmy]

^

And, while I appreciate the depth of this response, it is, ultimately, a "Deal With It" response. Which is a fine enough response for Bioware to give us about what they want for the series... I'd just wish they would tell us that, instead of portraying the series as one that offers lots of player agency. I'd say it offers lots of ways of experiencing the game by using different character archetypes and interacting with companions in different ways, but that isn't my definition of player agency.

Which, again, is fine, but setting a group of people up who are expecting something and just not getting it is dangerous. I think we are doing our due diligence by expressing our opinions now, so Bioware can either meet them or properly warn us that this will not be the case.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 mai 2013 - 01:11 .

[robertthebard]

Sorry if it came across that way, it's just the way I perceive it. We not only like to think we have more control than we do, we also must believe it if we're going to enjoy the game, especially in RPGs. The problem is the threshold for believing it or not. Some feel like a voiced protagonist takes away the illusion of control, others, like myself, feel more disconnected with a silent protagonist than with a voiced one. Neither one is wrong.

[Naitaka]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

And, while I appreciate the depth of this response, it is, ultimately, a "Deal With It" response. Which is a fine enough response for Bioware to give us about what they want for the series... I'd just wish they would tell us that, instead of portraying the series as one that offers lots of player agency. I'd say it offers lots of ways of experiencing the game by using different character archetypes and interacting with companions in different ways, but that isn't my definition of player agency.

Which, again, is fine, but setting a group of people up who are expecting something and just not getting it is dangerous. I think we are doing our due diligence by expressing our opinions now, so Bioware can either meet them or properly warn us that this will not be the case.

I'm pretty much of the same opinion. There's really no changing Bioware's direction at this point so all it comes down to is expectation. As long as potential buyers aren't misled to assume Bioware games for something they're not, then there really wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem; it's one of the reason why I've always felt that DA2 would have been much better received if it weren't marketed as a direct sequel.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sorry if it came across that way, it's just the way I perceive it. We not only like to think we have more control than we do, we also must believe it if we're going to enjoy the game, especially in RPGs. The problem is the threshold for believing it or not. Some feel like a voiced protagonist takes away the illusion of control, others, like myself, feel more disconnected with a silent protagonist than with a voiced one. Neither one is wrong.

Neither one is wrong, you are correct. But, as Sylvius would say, you can still play the way you would like with a silent protagonist, albeit in a less enjoyable way. He cannot play his way at all with a voiced protagonist.

And I didn't perceive your earlier post as rude or dismissive, but it essentially boils down to the mindset that the voiced protagonist is here to stay, anything you used to do with a silent protagonist was not intended and, therefore, not something that anyone should concern themselves with. Again, a fine enough mindset to have, but when Gaider and Laidlaw talk about how they understand that players didnt like the loss of player agency in DA2 and they are working to improve that, then it gives the (possibly false) hope that these problems would be reconciled.

So I guess we'll wait and see. Again, I feel like doing the due diligence of not just complaining but explaining in detailed ways why I'm complaining at least gives the information out there of what I would like, if not to implement than at least to make sure it is spelled out in some way that it is not going to be available.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 mai 2013 - 02:03 .

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
You are extrapolating from what it is asking you to do.

The mission is simply to get the server and get the information you want out of it.  Infiltrate doesn't preclude violence, and doesn't necessitate stealth.  It can simply mean to move into someplace without authorization.  You are assuming it needs you to avoid detection or not kill the guy stationed there... but those are assumptions, it doesn't SAY that.  Read the description of the mission again.

I thought the NSA mission was asking you to bug the place. Is that incorrect? If so, I stand corrected.

If not, then I would argue my point still applies, because a bug clearly would not survive on the servers if you kill the person guarding it. In what--hours? Days?--the NSA will realize their agent isn't checking in, will check it out and find the place empty or with a body in plain sight, and realize that their security has been breached.

That's if by "tap into" they mean "bug" and not "download."

Tap into means access.  It is slang likely from beer tapping, and one appropriate definition is "to establish access to or a connection with."  Now it could be seen as short hand for "wiretap", and seeing as you are talking about the NSA, it's not a bad assumption.

You get the information later, from Mina, so it is likely that, at least, you just established the connection for her to get the data.  But it could be an ongoing bug.

The trick is, though, your mission isn't to set up surveillance on the NSA listening post.  You are primarily just checking to see what that listening post ALREADY KNOWS about Halbech and Al-Samad activities.  Leaving the tap in place to gather new intel would be a bonus.

Also, if you've played the scene more than once with different choices, you somewhat get the idea that the NSA isn't in charge of that place any longer anyway.

Anyway, long story short (and massive digression aside), the mission isn't to stealthfully, cleanly bug the listening post.  You CAN go about it that way, somewhat, but it's not the only way to succeed at your primary goal - which is to get the information the NSA has on Halbech and Al Samad activities in the area.

I'm fairly certain there is no way to fail the scene, just based on mission objectives.  If your personal goal is to maintain your cover at all costs, not kill anyone ever if you can help it, or you are trying to impress Marburg and/or Leland, then you can lose by engaging in the shootout.