132 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

I'm making this topic to discuss the question:

Should characters (NPCs) be consistent between different playthroughs of the same game?

My short answer: no, and they already aren't, but first things first. The desire to write this was triggered by some people on other threads dismissing certain lines of arguments as metagaming, implying that because it involves meta-level information, these arguments are invalid. Some time later, the same people expressed a desire to have characters consistent between different playthroughs with regard to certain character traits they express or not. However, the absence of character consistency between playthroughs only becomes apparent if you use meta-level information, which means that if you expect characters to be consistent that way, then meta-level information is not irrelevant to you.

Why is this important?

Well, I think there is a need to discuss how the nature of the story of a typical Bioware game - its nature as a branched story - affects the possible ways we can experience it, the characters in it and the world presented through it. We are used to linear stories and conditioned to think in the categories of linear stories where everything is immutable. Many things are not immutable in a story told through a DA game or an ME game. This leads to a completely new set of different ways of experiencing the story.

Here's an example:

Suppose you play a game with a branched storyline and different companion NPCs plus romance. Your PC gets into a romance with a certain NPC, you make some decisions, and to you utter delight, this story turns out to have everything you ever wanted from a video game romance, and you come to love that NPC and get highly invested in the story. Then you come to a discussion forum, and you realize, had you chosen an alternative branch at some point, the same NPC would have done something you didn't like and even more importantly, through that action expressed a character trait you really despise.

How do you react?
(1) "Oh no, it's all ruined. I can never play that romance any more and I hate that character now"
(2) "Doesn't happen in my game, the character is as is in my game, what do I care about others."

If you react with (1), you are from the traditional school of thought where a character is one unified entity  just as in linear stories, and everything the writers have written about them in any continuity also applies to yours. "The character" is seen as the sum of all potentialities, regardless of whether they're realized in your game or not. You may be of the opinion that meta-level information should not matter, but nonetheless it matters to you.

If you react with (2), you are from the school of thought that every playthrough is an alternative universe and that unrealized potentialities do not exist in any given continuity. "The character" is what you experience in a single playthrough only, and others have different versions of them which don't necessarily have the same traits. Meta-level information really doesn't matter to you.

My main hypothesis now is this: Mindset (2) is a more appropriate way to experience a branched storyline typical of a game like DAx. If unrealized potentialities don't exist, you can immerse yourself in a plot branch or character branch, and you have more freedom to shape your experience of the story to your liking. We already talk of "hardened Alistair" and "hardened Leliana" as if they were different characters from their unhardened variants, which in fact, they are. We already have divergent plot decisions, why shouldn't we have divergent character traits as well? The standard response from mindset (1) is "just because a trait isn't expressed that doesn't mean it doesn't exist". Yeah, but it also doesn't mean it does exist. The state of things is free for you to decide. If metagaming really doesn't matter, then information from other playthroughs should have no effect on who the character is in the AU you're currently playing in.

This takes some effort from the players though. I think we should realize that when we play a DA game, we aren't told a story. We are shaping a story within constraints set by the writers. The writers of the game help us to use their game to write our own stories within our own instance of the DA setting. I do not know the DA writers' opinion on this, but they could help players with this by adding more alternative and mutually exclusive elements to the characters which only materialize under specific conditions. This would have the added benefit of pleasing more player bases.

So, should characters (NPCs) be consistent between different playthroughs of the same game? Of course there needs to be enough consistency to establish a character as an individual, but on the whole: no, and they already aren't. Metagaming information should be irrelevant, but most of us aren't there yet.

Responses, comments etc.. welcome.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 juillet 2013 - 08:30 .

[Fredward]

I've always seen different playthroughs of the same game as a AU. The only similarity between the two is the state of affairs before the protag shows up, they and their actions are the catalyst for change between the AU's, it's why they're the protag. Since this is inevitably gonna include arguments over companion sexuality I'll say this: to me their sexuality doesn't change. They're straight/gay/bi in one universe and not in another. It's pretty simple.

[Ieldra]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
I've always seen different playthroughs of the same game as a AU. The only similarity between the two is the state of affairs before the protag shows up, they and their actions are the catalyst for change between the AU's, it's why they're the protag. Since this is inevitably gonna include arguments over companion sexuality I'll say this: to me their sexuality doesn't change. They're straight/gay/bi in one universe and not in another. It's pretty simple.

Debates about this always happen when controversial character traits exist which aren't expressed in every playthrough. It's a pattern I've seen too often in debates:

Player A: "But A says X if you do F!"
Player B: "But I don't do F. I can legitimately treat this trait as nonexistent."
Player A: "That's not how things work."
Player B: "That how things work for me."

Which is why I posted it as a separate topic.

[Ziggeh]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The desire to write this was triggered by some people on other threads dismissing certain lines of arguments as metagaming, implying that because it involves meta-level information, these arguments are invalid.

I would say, in general, that any time an argument depends on telling people how they should be playing the game, the argument is flawed.

Further, I think there is considerable value in either method being available (though as you say, inconsistencies already exist and so it involves a certain level of dissonance, but that's easy, we're human after all.)

As you say, the story is a collaborative effort between writer and reader and this is another level of control over the narrative we can wield. The "flexible" love interests can be seen as gay, straight or bisexual, depending on which best suits the player and their story. We can apply or deny context on a whim. I would personally miss that if they made a method more explicit.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 04 juillet 2013 - 08:52 .

[Kallimachus]

Zigghe, I think Ieldra2 opened a new thread, in order to discuss the principle of the matter she describes, rather than its specific relevance to the subject discussed in the original thread where she originally expressed her idea (Correct my if I'm wrong, Ieldra2). So I am going to try and respond to it in that manner (especially since I think you have referred to me somewhere in your post, in a way that stems from misunderstanding what I originally wrote, again, correct me if I'm wrong, Ieldra2).

The idea you expressed there and expand upon here, that each playthrough would have "more alternative and mutually exclusive elements to the characters which only materialize under specific conditions" (and I could add, and not at all sarcastically, why only under certain conditions? such things could also happen by way of semi-random selection by the game engine itself, sort of like banters of certain characters that appear in some playthroughs and not in others, and have differing degrees of rarity - Sandal's prophecy comes to mind) sounds wonderful. Seriously. It could keep the game fresh, in a way that rivals the addition of mods or even DLCs, it would undoubtedly add to the re-playability of the game, and allow unprecedented agency (and a feeling of personalization) within the game. There is no doubt about it.

I said as much (though not as elaborately) in that You-Know-What thread, but like I said there I must make a reservation to it. Not for its merits - in an ideal world that would be wonderful - but for its cost. Unless those changes would be so small that they would be almost unnoticeable (perhaps an expansion of systems already existent within the game - such as the aforementioned prophecy), the cost of the added effort in writing and producing would be so great as to make it unfeasible.

Again - I'm not saying the idea is bad, I certainly do not express a "desire to have characters consistent between different playthroughs with regard to certain character traits they express or not", I'm just saying it is probably too expensive.

Modifié par Kallimachus, 04 juillet 2013 - 09:33 .

[Ieldra]

@Ziggeh:
My position is that if the writers introduce elements that result in a dissonance if you adopt mindset (1) to which we are conditioned since time immemorial, then they should help players along in adopting mindset (2).

@Kallimachus:
You are correct in your assumption. It is that larger principle which is important to me rather than the specifics of the other problem, and this went under as people (you, mostly) misunderstood me as having strong feelings about the specific matter, which I don't have, as opposed to strong feelings about the larger principle, which I do have. Also, yes, little elements of randomness are one possible way to do make a playthrough more explicitly AU to the others. More difficult to realize though, since if you do this more than once, the elements must fit each other.

As for the cost being prohibitive - maybe, but I think the idea deserves to be explored before being dismissed on grounds of "They will never do it".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 juillet 2013 - 09:42 .

[fchopin]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm making this topic to discuss the question:

Should characters (NPCs) be consistent between different playthroughs of the same game?
 

My answer is yes they should always be consistent unless the differences are explained and they make sense.
 
If they are not consistent then i would rather they not be in the game.
 
When i first came on the bioware forums when ME1 was made i heard that Bioware were the best game company for story games but i am finding out that they use cheap companions and silly magic stones for stories and they are not the best from what i see.
 
If they want to compete with the best to make good stories then they should forget about PC gratification and concentrate on real companions and no more magic stones unless differeneces are explained.

Modifié par fchopin, 04 juillet 2013 - 09:40 .

[Sontemuka]

Mhh... I understand. In my experience, I liked Isabella for example, and in my first gameplay, she leave the party and never came back, it was so upsetting. Then I realized that she could be able to stay in the party by choosing the right decisions. If that same situation would happend to me but, in reverse, knowing that she's capable to leave the PC; will be the situation you're describing.

My reaction would be (2), because characters have personalities and depending on your acts, their acts would vary. So.. no, characters shouldn't be consistent between different playthroughs of the same game.

[Wulfram]

Well, I don't agree with the OP. Characters should be consistent. They should act differently according to different events that happen, but they're always the same person.

We shouldn't have Schoedinger's Alistair with two personalities until the player collapses the waveform.

Modifié par Wulfram, 04 juillet 2013 - 10:07 .

[Ziggeh]

Kallimachus wrote...
Zigghe, I think Ieldra2 opened a new thread, in order to discuss the principle of the matter she describes, rather than its specific relevance

I appreciate, and while I understand the risk of derailment, it's the best and clearest example. (Duncan's decision can be read in a very weird way.)

Ieldra2 wrote...
@Ziggeh:My position is that if the writers introduce elements that result in a dissonance if you adopt mindset (1) to which we are conditioned since time immemorial, then they should help players along in adopting mindset (2).

Right, and I'm saying the choice of mindset has a value in itself. That by imposing a method of engagement, you lose the option of legitimately including meta information, which is all context that can add to your story.

[wright1978]

(2) "Doesn't happen in my game, the character is as is in my game, what do I care about others."

This. Compartmentalising different alternate universes with my various protaganists feels natural to me. Choices/events can affect an NPC in the same way they can affect the character i am roleplaying. My Shep in ME1 changed over the course of 3 games as events shaped him. I love the fact Leilana/Alistair attitudes can be hardened whilst still being very much in character in DAO or Isabela can be subtly changed by falling in love with Hawke. Obviously that said i don't want the extreme where NPC's are completely malleable puppets without their own personalities.

[Ziggeh]

fchopin wrote...

When i first came on the bioware forums when ME1 was made i heard that Bioware were the best game company for story games but i am finding out that they use cheap companions and silly magic stones for stories and they are not the best from what i see.
 
If they want to compete with the best to make good stories then they should forget about PC gratification and concentrate on real companions and no more magic stones unless differeneces are explained.

Do you think you describe why? What impact that has upon your method of gameplay? "Cheap" and "gratification" are sort of loaded, vague terms that only really tell me you didn't like them. I'd be interested to know why.

[fchopin]

Ziggeh wrote...
 "Cheap" and "gratification" are sort of loaded, vague terms that only really tell me you didn't like them. I'd be interested to know why.

When i say cheap or gratification then that is what i mean and it has nothing to do with what i like.
What i like is something separate.

[Mykel54]

I think you need to be more specific, maybe use some examples, instead of just A or B. Are you talking about companions being playersexual? One example is Anders, which comments on his relation with Karl if you´re male, otherwise he doesn´t, so his orientation changes according to the player.

Or are you talking about bringing a certain character to a quest? There are people who like Merrill a lot, but when Merrill is in the party on night terrors and says something like "The keeper would use ancient magic for this halfbreed? She wouldn´t do that for me", some people didn´t like that, because they think Merrill isn´t like the rest of dalish and she doesn´t feel superior. I woud argue she is as elven supremacist as the rest of dalish, but she doesn´t show it upfront like Velanna. Other people would argue that because they didn´t bring Merrill to that conversation, then it didn´t happen in their game.

Those two things are different, and i´m not sure which one this topic is about. As for me i have 2 scales of canon: 1) what happens in my game, 2) what happens in comics/books. I don´t really care what happens in other people´s games, because it is their version of the DA universe, not my own. At most i am curious to see how differently things could have turned out.

[Ziggeh]

fchopin wrote...
When i say cheap or gratification then that is what i mean and it has nothing to do with what i like.

I would describe them as efficient and satisfying (or at least, aiming to be), which mean the same thing but without the subjective connotation.

But fair enough, it's a shame you don't want to elaborate, but all we really do here is announce preferences.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 04 juillet 2013 - 11:15 .

[Ieldra]

Ziggeh wrote...
Right, and I'm saying the choice of mindset has a value in itself. That by imposing a method of engagement, you lose the option of legitimately including meta information, which is all context that can add to your story.

Mindset (2) leaves the possibility open to use meta information to "collapse the waveform", as Wulfram put it so aptly, for those traits which a specific playthrough leaves undefined, basically helping your imagination along in order to fill holes you'd otherwise have to fill with your own stuff if you want them filled. It just asserts that unrealized potentialities aren't a canonical part of characters in any single playthrough.

[Ieldra]

Mykel54 wrote...
I think you need to be more specific, maybe use some examples, instead of just A or B. Are you talking about companions being playersexual? One example is Anders, which comments on his relation with Karl if you´re male, otherwise he doesn´t, so his orientation changes according to the player.

Or are you talking about bringing a certain character to a quest? There are people who like Merrill a lot, but when Merrill is in the party on night terrors and says something like "The keeper would use ancient magic for this halfbreed? She wouldn´t do that for me", some people didn´t like that, because they think Merrill isn´t like the rest of dalish and she doesn´t feel superior. I woud argue she is as elven supremacist as the rest of dalish, but she doesn´t show it upfront like Velanna. Other people would argue that because they didn´t bring Merrill to that conversation, then it didn´t happen in their game.

Those two things are different, and i´m not sure which one this topic is about.

They are actually not so different. The question "Is Merrill an elven supremacist?" wouldn't even come up in playthroughs where you don't bring her to "Night Terrors", since there isn't any other place where she expresses similar sentiments (at least as I recall). Players who don't bring her don't experience her as somewhat racist, so they can legitimately say she isn't in their playthoughs. 
The difference with Anders is that both branches are clearly defined, while with Merril there's an undefined state in one branch. Which means that if you adopt mindset (1), the Anders situation will result in a dissonance while the Merill situation won't.

[Ziggeh]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Mindset (2) leaves the possibility open to use meta information to "collapse the waveform", as Wulfram put it so aptly, for those traits which a specific playthrough leaves undefined, basically helping your imagination along in order to fill holes you'd otherwise have to fill with your own stuff if you want them filled. It just asserts that unrealized potentialities aren't a canonical part of characters in any single playthrough. 

Are there benefits to that beyond making it easier to adopt the mindset? 

Because I see both mindsets as valid, I see the cost as higher than the value: It makes it harder to adopt the first mindset, while removing the option for the elements it's explicitly makes part of the second.

[fchopin]

Ziggeh wrote...

But fair enough, it's a shame you don't want to elaborate, but all we really do here is announce preferences.

If you want me to elaborate then i can do so provided you do the same.
 For me companions and anything in the game should be for the story and that should be the priority in a story driven RPG. Companions should have set personalities as well as sexualities so we can interact with them and get to know them if that is what we wish.
If a companion is against slavery then he or she should never take part if the PC is doing a mission that makes it worse for slavers. Same if female companion is a lesbian and should always say no to a male PC for romance.
If companions change depending on the PC genders then they are moronic companions and only exist for PC masturbation or gratification so they have no relevance to story or beliefs.
 
If gamers want romance gratification then Bioware can create other NPC’s who are not companions in the game which you can meet in the Dragon Age world and they can be anything the PC wants.
The NPC’s will mostly be irrelevant to the story but if that is what people want then they can do that.

[Ziggeh]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Which means that if you adopt mindset (1), the Anders situation will result in a dissonance while the Merill situation won't.

If you're assuming both are true, then in a femHawke playthrough he's still in a relationship with Karl, he just didn't mention it.

[Nightdragon8]

Ziggeh wrote...

fchopin wrote...

When i first came on the bioware forums when ME1 was made i heard that Bioware were the best game company for story games but i am finding out that they use cheap companions and silly magic stones for stories and they are not the best from what i see.
 
If they want to compete with the best to make good stories then they should forget about PC gratification and concentrate on real companions and no more magic stones unless differeneces are explained.

Do you think you describe why? What impact that has upon your method of gameplay? "Cheap" and "gratification" are sort of loaded, vague terms that only really tell me you didn't like them. I'd be interested to know why.

Also I would like fchopin to give me a good example in what he considers a "Good" story. because good/bad/horrible/great are subjective to stories, there are people who swear by (insert famous littaray author here), when others could think, Meh its alright.

Edit: due to fchopin reply

Eh, I would disagree about the whole "Gratifaction" bit, cause honeslty thats assuming too much of anything. Gratifaction could be even reading a good story so unless you do those sort of things with just a good stoy shouldn't really be brought up.

Also you need to look at it from a "story perspective" in most storys you don't ever get to choose what gender you are. You just don't. Pick up a book and you are looking though the eyes as a male or female. There are too few books that take a neutral standpoint

Like with DA2 From the male standpoint. Fenris is gay, Merill Straight, Isabella Bi, Aviline Straight, Anders gay/bi. (and with a comment from Isabella he is bi.)

With a female its Fenris its Straight, Merill gay, Isabella Bi, Avilene Straight, Anders Straight

So from a story standpoint, those are your veiws, its only when you reset the world and pick a different gender do we get different results.

Which is where the Metagaming comes in. A person who NEVER plays another gender in game won't know about it and won't complain or even see inconsistencies.

Romance with a compaion can also enhance the story as well. yes it is not required but its always nice. With making an "NPC" pretty much a clay model would be a bigger injustice and would make the story worse, cause it would effectivly cheapen the story as a whole, and really make it into a "Gratifaction" aid in a much worse way

Modifié par Nightdragon8, 04 juillet 2013 - 12:24 .

[Ziggeh]

fchopin wrote...

If you want me to elaborate then i can do so provided you do the same.

More than happy to, but my question was why you see those things as issues, I was already clear that you felt they were issues.

For myself I do a highly dissonant combination of the two, choosing whatever I think makes the story stronger at any given time. I'm interested to know why you think selecting variable content is by definition weaker, even if it allows you to pick the stronger of two elements?

[fchopin]

Ziggeh wrote...

 I'm interested to know why you think selecting variable content is by definition weaker, even if it allows you to pick the stronger of two elements?

Because the companions have no set personality and sexuality and that means they do not believe in anything so we cannot interact with them. How can i argue with a companion when he agrees with everything i say or if he does not agree still does what i tell him?
 
I want real companions to stand up for themselves and if they do not agree with me to just go.And it should be the same with their sexuality; i don’t want slaves but people to interact with socially and sexually.

[Nightdragon8]

fchopin wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

 I'm interested to know why you think selecting variable content is by definition weaker, even if it allows you to pick the stronger of two elements?

Because the companions have no set personality and sexuality and that means they do not believe in anything so we cannot interact with them. How can i argue with a companion when he agrees with everything i say or if he does not agree still does what i tell him?
 
I want real companions to stand up for themselves and if they do not agree with me to just go.And it should be the same with their sexuality; i don’t want slaves but people to interact with socially and sexually.

and yet Anders hates Templars and hates anyone who is going against Mage freedom, Fenris hates mages, Isabella is only out for herself unless you befriend her (or make her your rivial, I agree that was a mistake) Aveline is pretty much your second mother, and even and wen you rival her, you get a very different reaction from her later, its honestly pretty good. And shows her character even more. Merill... honestly, an idiot, a pretty damn big idiot....  Varic, the observer, and fellow troublemaker. Seb... honestly he is the confused one, he knews what he belives in but just doesn't know what  to do or who he should be. Bethany/Carver, siblings, Beth, willing to let the world go by her and more than happy to do it quitely. Carver, the struggle to get out from behind Hawkes Shadow.

Feel like im missing someone but gon't know who.

The romance of the LI in some cases ends up reviealing more about who they are really vs who they would be for a friend. So it hasn't really taken anything "away" from the story at all, and nether does it seem to matter that they are gay or straight. Cause from what I understand the world seems to be a ton more tolorent of homosexuality than our real world.

So in a world where homosexuality is not looked down on (i think execpt in royality expected to have heirs) would a person act any differently if they where gay or straight?

[Xilizhra]

Why is Isabela's rivalry a mistake? On that, you're actively encouraging her to be a better person; that's sort of the point of your influence, and it'd logically make her more inclined to rejoin you. I'll not touch on your utterly contentless slander of Merrill, however.