335 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
And... I'll put on my Sylvius the Mad hat here... how is Allistair's reaction any reflection of the intent of my character? I could say sorry with a shirt eating grin and he could not have noticed it. He could be so heartbroken, he could not even care. He could have thought I was smiling to try and cheer him up. There's a million ways I can interpret the situation to where the NPC, a character that is not mine, reacts to something in a way I had not intended.

It is when the PC... MY character... acts, talks and behaves in ways that I can't control that things are 100% broken. There's no other word for it. If the PC, the Player Character, cannot be controlled by the player to the point where I even know what is going to be said... then that is broken. Hence, the voiced protagonist breaks the game in many respects. 

There are snafus or points of confusion with the slient PC. With the voiced one, my own character comes out and tells me, as the player, that I was wrong or misunderstood. That is a fail.

Because, as I've said, even if we grant this absurdity, we still have the problem that your character can't actually ever even attempt to correct a misunderstanding, and the only kinds of characters that become possible in this respect are incredible passive ones. So I can't ever actually control my character, because it's impossible to be active and forceful with a silent PC. I can't dominate a scene. I can't push characters verbally. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Except it can't. The only way it can is to engage in a reality denying exercise the likes of which is tantamount to pretend that in-game events just full-on don't ever happen.

There's no need to deny anything.  Everything we see on screen happens.  The only thing I deny is that you can magically read the characters' minds to know why they're doing what they're doing.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes, they are.  But they're even more restricting when the dialogue options are tied to animations and voiced lines.

We should all that those actions to be less restricting, not more.

I agree with you on half that point: that forced animations 3D more restrictive that their absence. I disagree with you on dialogue. 

I disagree.  You're not required to accept these things.  You're merely required not to object openly.

Not openly objecting is acceptance. You need to accept that this is a fundamental character type. It's a fundamental part of my IRL personality, and I wouldn't want to design a character that is passive to that extent. 

The PC still gets to reject (in his mind) the idea that he belongs to that group, and you can then choose the available option that is most compatible with that rejection.

Except there never are. Bioware never provides an option to backtrack on the choice you've just made unless a character is telling you to pick something else, i.e., asking you if you're sure. 

But not that he supports the Alliance military structure, or speaks in a shouty voice, or any number of other things.

That's no different than saying that DA:O didn't tell me in advance that I couldn't correct misunderstands, and therefore DA:O broke all of my characters. I'm happy to grant this point, but it just leads to my original objection: there is no substantive distinction between silent PC and VO other than the specific ways in which each design choice fundamentally and irreparably breaks your character with no prior warning. 

No, it absolutely does not.  Whatever your state of mind from moment to moment, there exists a wide range of possible actions you might undertake.  Each moment, you undertake one of them, with some of those opportunities then lost forever.

Even if I grant this, it doesn't change the fact that sometimes the class of actions that a character would just are just not available. Your Shepard example being one. 

Why do you think there's a necessary connection between thinking and action?  I still don't get this.

It's not a necessary connection, in the sense that for every single person, their thoughts must lead to an action. But there are characters - and people (myself being an example) - for which this is true. As I've explained, I'm a very forceful person. If I want to do something, I do it. And if someone refuses, then I'm going to find a way (to paraphrase Renegade Shepard) to verbally bludgeon hard enough to get my way. Whether it's them or someone else. 

Edit: That's not to say I'll always succeed. But my actively trying is still very different from my being passive. 

Modifié par In Exile, 30 juillet 2013 - 10:41 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There's no need to deny anything.  Everything we see on screen happens.  The only thing I deny is that you can magically read the characters' minds to know why they're doing what they're doing.

But I don't need to read their minds. I just need to see their actions. So long as their actions are not commesurate with what I want, I will continue to act to influence them. My theory of the mind, in this respect, is entirely instrumental. It doesn't actually matter whether my theory of X's mental state is a true description of their state. It only matters if my theory allows me to predict what responses and actions are necessary to get X to behave in the way that I want. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Because, as I've said, even if we grant this absurdity, we still have the problem that your character can't actually ever even attempt to correct a misunderstanding, and the only kinds of characters that become possible in this respect are incredible passive ones.

That I'll concede, in that you can't correct misunderstandings.  Though, again, this can be avoided by simply not believing that you can perceive misunderstandings.

But that level of passivity is far from incredible.  Literally every character I ever played fell within that range of passivity until you convinced me to try something different.  And yes, then I found the limitation, but it's hardly as restrictive as you suggest.

So I can't ever actually control my character, because it's impossible to be active and forceful with a silent PC. I can't dominate a scene. I can't push characters verbally.

Yes, there are things you can't do.  That's always going to be true.

Also, I don't think I'm willing to concede that a scene is a thing.  And domination requires complicity from the other characters.  Of course you can't, on your own, decide to dominate a scene.  Just as you, on your own, can't decide to win an argument.  There are other people involved, and you don't get to decide how they react to you.

If you and I had a real world conversation, it's entirely possible we'd both think we'd controlled it - just in different ways.

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius and In Exile are arguing. All is right with the BSN.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Not openly objecting is acceptance. You need to accept that this is a fundamental character type. It's a fundamental part of my IRL personality, and I wouldn't want to design a character that is passive to that extent.

If not passive, how about deceitful?  I strongly object to the suggestion that not openly objecting is acceptance.  In fact, I'd even allow that openly accepting isn't necessarily acceptance - you could be trying to manipulate events long in the future, and this current claim of acceptance is merely a means to an end.

Except there never are. Bioware never provides an option to backtrack on the choice you've just made unless a character is telling you to pick something else, i.e., asking you if you're sure.

That's not a problem with the dialogue.  That's a problem with the quest gate that closed based on that dialogue.

That's no different than saying that DA:O didn't tell me in advance that I couldn't correct misunderstands, and therefore DA:O broke all of my characters. I'm happy to grant this point, but it just leads to my original objection: there is no substantive distinction between silent PC and VO other than the specific ways in which each design choice fundamentally and irreparably breaks your character with no prior warning.

Except that the silent PC at least makes it possible to design a character that won't be broken, while the voiced PC (as BioWare has implemented it so far) does not.

But really, that's the difference between full text dialogue options and the paraphrases.  It's really the paraphrases that unequivocally break more characters.  You are correct that the voice or lack thereof breaks both ways.

So, obvious solution: Full text options, plus optional voice (and no animated scenes).

Even if I grant this, it doesn't change the fact that sometimes the class of actions that a character would just are just not available. Your Shepard example being one.

But with a silent PC, that Shepard would have worked fine.  The detail would all be in how the lines were delivered.  Even a seemingly contradictory line like "don't bother me with details," delivered by a character who's clearly all about details, can work.

It's not a necessary connection, in the sense that for every single person, their thoughts must lead to an action. But there are characters - and people (myself being an example) - for which this is true. As I've explained, I'm a very forceful person. If I want to do something, I do it. And if someone refuses, then I'm going to find a way (to paraphrase Renegade Shepard) to verbally bludgeon hard enough to get my way. Whether it's them or someone else. 

Edit: That's not to say I'll always succeed. But my actively trying is still very different from my being passive.

I would get through that by intending that action at some future time when it becomes available.  Even if it never does, that everpresent intent to do it would suffice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

But I don't need to read their minds. I just need to see their actions. So long as their actions are not commesurate with what I want, I will continue to act to influence them. My theory of the mind, in this respect, is entirely instrumental. It doesn't actually matter whether my theory of X's mental state is a true description of their state. It only matters if my theory allows me to predict what responses and actions are necessary to get X to behave in the way that I want.

So the problem isn't that their reaction disprove your supposition about how the line was delivered, but that, given the unexpected reaction, you would want the PC to continue trying to induce that reaction.

Does that approach work in DA2 or ME?  I mean, regardless of how the dialoue works, the game will only model a small number of reactions from each dialogue hub.  Doesn't this problem still exist with the voiced protagonist?

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I'm playing kotor and it's silent protag glory, and it sucks.

Quoting a game from close to a decade ago with a quarter of the budget of ME3 and using that as measure of quality is a little lopsided.

Dragon age origins was made a decade ago and only had a 1/3 the budget of mass effect?

No.  KotOR.  You were talking about KotOR.

Given the snide of this response, I didn't even bother further engaging the conversation. 

[I Am Robot]

MerinTB wrote...


 The game market has started contracting.  

lol what? there is more branching no contracting.

[byarru]

A silent one please, more dialogues = better