132 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I think this is the core of the question. Is a game primarily a simulation of the world it's depicting, or is it primarily a story-delivery system?

I don't think the game being fixed outside the involvement of the player really relates to whether the game is about delivering a story or not. 

What I was getting at is whether it's necessary to fix the game-world. If you're doing a simulation there's a prettiy compelling case for a fixed world. Is there such a case if delivering the story is the primary concern?

[Wulfram]

AlanC9 wrote...

What I was getting at is whether it's necessary to fix the game-world. If you're doing a simulation there's a prettiy compelling case for a fixed world. Is there such a case if delivering the story is the primary concern?

I think the story is more satisfying if it feels like the world is "real", rather than flexible and only existing to serve the story.

The point is to weave so convincing an illusion that it becomes in some emotional sense real to the audience.

Modifié par Wulfram, 07 juillet 2013 - 03:30 .

[duckley]

Circumstances will dictate to some degree an individual's decisions and actions. However, most people, in most circumstances don't act completely out of character. You would have a hard time convincing me that character X is a kind loving, morally outstanding person in one play through, and a totally evil, conniving, murderous jerk in another.

More refined or subtle differences, of course, would be fun and interesting IMO, and a good way to enhance re-play value.

[LinksOcarina]

This has been an interesting discussion to say the least.

I know I am one of those guys who has talked about the meta-gaming knowledge that the OP has referred to, but I would agree that the companions should be able to grow to a point. One of BioWare's strengths after Neverwinter Nights 2 was doing just that, by giving us malleable companions in that way.

One of the more ironic things is that I think BioWare went too far in making them realistic, at least in terms of a video game. Anders I still cite as the prime example of this, of a character that goes through a mental transformation that is personified because of Vengeance, and unwavering in its conviction.

To me that is the mark of a good game, or at the very least a well thought out character arc. And it is one that I personally welcome. In game terms however, its something we can't control, so its something we as gamers tend to loathe because of our lack of control over it.

I do have a question to add to this, if the characters are to go through character growth, the question then is should we as the player be influencing them the entire time or not?

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

What I was getting at is whether it's necessary to fix the game-world. If you're doing a simulation there's a prettiy compelling case for a fixed world. Is there such a case if delivering the story is the primary concern?

Oh, I get it. I think that even if you're doing narrative-based design, if a feature of your narrative is choice, then not going parallel words enriches the experience. TW2 is a good example - the Act II allows you to see the opposite side of the choice, and you feel like you've changed the world because of your presence. It's like a point of divergence in the timeline that originates with you as the player.

Put another way, I don't think "X is different because I thought the story would be better" really leads to a story being better. 

[duckley]

LinksOcarina wrote...

This has been an interesting discussion to say the least.

I know I am one of those guys who has talked about the meta-gaming knowledge that the OP has referred to, but I would agree that the companions should be able to grow to a point. One of BioWare's strengths after Neverwinter Nights 2 was doing just that, by giving us malleable companions in that way.

One of the more ironic things is that I think BioWare went too far in making them realistic, at least in terms of a video game. Anders I still cite as the prime example of this, of a character that goes through a mental transformation that is personified because of Vengeance, and unwavering in its conviction.

To me that is the mark of a good game, or at the very least a well thought out character arc. And it is one that I personally welcome. In game terms however, its something we can't control, so its something we as gamers tend to loathe because of our lack of control over it.

I do have a question to add to this, if the characters are to go through character growth, the question then is should we as the player be influencing them the entire time or not?

IMO Alistair went through significant  character growth, as did Morrigan  for example - depending on how you played. In fact most of the companions in DA:O  grew, changed, softened, as  a result of the experience. The format of DA2 didnt allow for that to that to the same degree, leaving it for me a more flat experience in terms of character development.

Dont get me wrong, I enjoyed DA2 - but for me it lacked the  same richness of character development  largely IMO, because of the format of people having their own lives over a decade stretch versus all being in one expereince together. (there was a topic about this not long ago).

As for Anders, a character that I adored in Awakenings, to one who annoyed the c**p out of me was an interesting transformation, but I do feel that transformation could have been  more robustly explained.

Modifié par duckley, 07 juillet 2013 - 04:29 .

[LobselVith8]

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.

I think a better view of 'playersexual' would be how malleable the companions can be, such as when Fenris will romance Hawke even if he keeps Orlana as a slave and expresses that he endorses the use of slavery. Why a companion will romance the main character if he (or she) expresses views and morals that conflict with their own is more of an issue than simply having the companion be bisexual with a protagonist who shares many of the same ideals and morals that they do.

Mykel54 wrote...

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.

That's because those specific people correlate everything Merrill has said and done throughout the narrative, so they know she isn't an elven supremacist. She approves of Hawke encouraging Feynriel to seek out the Dalish, she approves of Hawke being willing to protect the human mages from Starkhaven, and she will give her life to fight pro-templar Hawke to protect the mages of the Circle of Kirkwall (unless full Friendship or Rivalry with her has been established). I would argue that all these moments during the narrative contradict the theory that Merrill is an elven supremacist.

Mykel54 wrote...

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.

I think it's an issue of who the characters are, which we might not know much about because of specific events that transpire. For example, I never knew about Karl being Anders' first love until I chose the third option with my apostate, and it opened my eyes as to why Anders was doing everything he did in Kirkwall - he deeply loved this man, and he wanted to make his death matter. It changed how I looked at Anders, and those character traits do matter. Isabela is another example of a character who opens up to the protagonist (after they engage in carnal contact), and she reveals parts of her history that she wouldn't otherwise.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
That's because those specific people correlate everything Merrill has said and done throughout the narrative, so they know she isn't an elven supremacist. She approves of Hawke encouraging Feynriel to seek out the Dalish, she approves of Hawke being willing to protect the human mages from Starkhaven, and she will give her life to fight pro-templar Hawke to protect the mages of the Circle of Kirkwall (unless full Friendship or Rivalry with her has been established). I would argue that all these moments during the narrative contradict the theory that Merrill is an elven supremacist.

To add to that, Merril has (in DA2 terms) a frank discussion about children with Hawke. It's a shame that topic wasn't explored further, but the entire Merrill-Hawke romance is pretty blatant evidence that she's not even close to a racist. 

[The_11thDoctor]

Honestly, I dont mind npcs reacting different ways depending on my playthrough or how I play. All npcs can have a certain personality, but react differently depending on how you play, add replay value and make the game a more enjoyable experience. Wither their orientation changes, their way they treat you depending on class chosen, etc, doesnt matter. If they hold no importance to the plot of the story Im playing, they can change since they are simply extra content to add to my entertainment and nothing more. As far as Lelianna dying, thaet never happened in my game, so what happened in other's game doesnt concern me. Its fun to know different people had different things happen in their story and that they might have had a completely different party and story happen to them, but thats part of the fun. Talking to others that played the same game, but had different experiences. If I find out my story isnt cannon later, so be it. Its always been BW story to tell and we're just gamers along for the ride of experiencing a small part of BW world. As long as the ending makes sence and I dont feel like I wasted my hrs in the game, Im fine.

[QueenPurpleScrap]

I've only read 2 pages of this thread, but the original question is interesting. I have played every Origin story at least twice. Each time I decide what my character is going to do. I don't expect the reactions of npc's or companions to be exactly the same from one playthrough to the next. That is not practical or realistic.

In order to stay away from the whole sex thing which is discussed near to death in other threads (and I added my thoughts in at least one of them) I am going to use Bhelen as my example. You can view him through three different filters: the non-dwarf outsider, the casteless sibling of his mistress, or the sibling he plotted against. Is he ruthless? Yes, that does not seem to change, it is a core trait. I would also say his desire for the throne and his cleverness and deviousness are also unchanging. What might change is how much of these traits we see. But if you are a casteless dwarf you see a different aspect of Bhelen, his apparent affection for your sister. And through her words when she defends him.

This does not mean he is a different character, just that depending on the filter of our playthrough we might see different things. That is part of the reality of that one game. Why do you think people have different opinions of the same person (call him X)? They each have their own personal filter through which they view X and they might have different experiences with X to further differentiate their opinion of X.

I find this one of the more enjoyable aspects of Dragon Age, that I can possibly learn more about different people or get different reactions based on who I am and what I do. If I am not the same person in each game/universe why should I expect everybody else to be absolutely the same and react absolutely the same from one game/universe to the next?

[CuriousArtemis]

Hmmm. On the whole, I agree that #2 is the best way to play a BW game. However, I confess that if I learned Fenris raped and murdered someone if I chose a specific action in a different playthrough, it would most definitely color my reading and love for the character LOL

So taking the Bhelen example QueenPurpleScrap just gave, I do find it really hard to support Bhelen since I know what he has done. However, I CAN support him by just acknowledging to myself that my WARDEN doesn't know what he did. But still, I see him as a very bad guy, no matter what.

[LucidlyInsane]

I've read through the thread and, while it's all extremely interesting, I think there's little I can offer to some of it. However, to address the original question:

 Ieldra2:

Perhaps it's because I read heavily long before I ever gamed, but I tend to view story-heavy games such as BioWare's very like novels. My play style fits in with this.

I almost never metagame, and I tend to have an attitude that relies on character being a hugely important - and where possible, consistent - thing in RPGs. To keep that consistency, I tend to err nearer to attitude #1 in your original question: parts of a character - and character flaws - seen only on certain playthroughs are still parts of their character, and present whether or not my Warden/Hawke/Shepard/etc. is aware of them. For example: the Anders that had a relationship with Karl is the same as the Anders my FH!awke is romancing, he's simply choosing not to tell her about that part of his past.

I think of it this way: for me, events can be AU and vary wildly; people really don't. 

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.

I think the better mindset varies depending on who's playing. The thing is this: player freedom and a firm narrative are obviously mutually exclusive, at least to a degree. I'm the kind of player who, while I enjoy the choices in CRPGs, understands that I'm only given the illusion of choice. Unlike with, say, Skyrim, I do view the developers as telling us a set story, and that story's detail is the thing I like most about BioWare games. While I do enjoy shaping the story - indeed, that's my second-favourite thing about games of this genre - I also understand the constraints the developers set. I enjoy mindset no. 1 - well, for character branches, anyway - because it enables me to experience the games mainly as stories, and for me personally, makes the characters feel deeper and more realistic. I understand that others may not play that way, and I understand why. 

So yes, I do view RPGs as linear stories - though to a lesser degree than novels - and I think NPCs should be consistent, as character and good storytelling mostly take precedence for me over the gamer's freedom.

Modifié par LucidlyInsane, 07 juillet 2013 - 07:59 .

[Rawgrim]

LinksOcarina wrote...

This has been an interesting discussion to say the least.

I know I am one of those guys who has talked about the meta-gaming knowledge that the OP has referred to, but I would agree that the companions should be able to grow to a point. One of BioWare's strengths after Neverwinter Nights 2 was doing just that, by giving us malleable companions in that way.

One of the more ironic things is that I think BioWare went too far in making them realistic, at least in terms of a video game. Anders I still cite as the prime example of this, of a character that goes through a mental transformation that is personified because of Vengeance, and unwavering in its conviction.

To me that is the mark of a good game, or at the very least a well thought out character arc. And it is one that I personally welcome. In game terms however, its something we can't control, so its something we as gamers tend to loathe because of our lack of control over it.

I do have a question to add to this, if the characters are to go through character growth, the question then is should we as the player be influencing them the entire time or not?

Bioware didn`t make Neverwinter Nights 2.

[Big I]

 The point of any chararacter is to tell a story. The best way to do that is to make the player approach them as if they were real people. The idea that the character is retroactively different based on player decisions degrades that view and takes a person out of their suspension of disbelief, because real people aren't like that. Imagine if by choosing the templar warrior spec Anders was suddenly pro templar. That sort of character change goes against everything about how relations between people work.


In order for choices to be important in an rpg they must happen within a context the player understands. If anything can happen in a way the player can't predict then choice loses it's meaning. The foundation of a story, the history of places and characters, should be static regardless of playthrough in order to facilitate player agency.

[In Exile]

Rawgrim wrote...
Bioware didn`t make Neverwinter Nights 2.

They did, however, clearly take the approval mechanism from KoTOR 2 and NWN 2 and applied it in DA:O. 

edit: Although now that I do think about it, didn't the OC in NWN and HoTU have something similar?

Modifié par In Exile, 07 juillet 2013 - 09:27 .

[snackrat]

For me, I treat different games like different timelines. Anything that occurs AFTER my protagonist is introduced (hardening players, encouraging behaviours, resolving conflicts etc) are part of that characters timeline. Merrill's eluvian, Zevran's betrayal (or lack thereof), Loghain's ultimate fate, these are all tied to an individual character rather than the setting.

Anything that comes BEFOREhand as part of a backstory is always present even if not mentioned. For example, Anders still had a casual arrangement with Karl (he does mention love was self-forbidden so I don't know how casual) but neglects to mention it to fem!Hawke because he either deemed it not an appropriate way to charm a woman or unnecessary, only saying it to bro!Hawke to make it clear he is available.

I treat metadata the same way, where possible. If you at some point had the chance to say "what do you think of X?" and didn't, I'd still treat that information as character specific (where appropriate - if it is a line from a hardened character I do not apply it to unhardened). However while I let metadata influence my PCs decisions (for better or for worse) towards a particular timeline I want to create, I don't think my PCs themselves should be affected by information they don't know.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

It's a bit like having a conversation and the question is: Do you prefer cats or dogs?

''DOGS? Me too, love them hairy little fellows, always ready to play''

''CATS? OMG me too, I had a cat when I was little, they are soo much better than dogs.''

I simply hate it when NPCs change their entire personality based on what the player likes. It turns your party into a big circus filled with yes-men and women whose only goal is the please the Hero. This goes beyond them just opening their legs because you spammed them a bunch of gifts. I'm supposed to react to the world, the world is not supposed to tailor itself to me.

Modifié par Spaghetti_Ninja, 07 juillet 2013 - 10:49 .

[The Red Onion]

Arguments for consistency boils down to some kind of "adherence to reality," where the characters have to conform to the way you think they are. Oh they are consistent, therefore they are real. Because they are real, therefore I can better immerse. Because I can better immerse, I like it more. etc etc. Fair enough, but fairly consider the following.

You may find it easier to immerse because because they are real; but what if I find it easier to immerse because they aren't?
Or, you may find reality in consistency, but what if I find more reality precisely in inconsistency? (I actually do.)
Where is the consistency between an omniscient player and a situated Hawke?
Which narratives are more real, the consistent ones or the inconsistent ones?

These questions are largely contingent on how a reader enjoys his or her narrative. In particular I want to stress that "freedom" is far from the only motivation for endorsing narrative fractures. I also stress that a desire for fractures does not preclude desire for a cohesive narrative message.

[In Exile]

alexbing88 wrote...
You may find it easier to immerse because because they are real; but what if I find it easier to immerse because they aren't?

Then the developers have to pick who they're designing the game for, like every design decision they make.

These questions are largely contingent on how a reader enjoys his or her narrative. In particular I want to stress that "freedom" is far from the only motivation for endorsing narrative fractures. I also stress that a desire for fractures does not preclude desire for a cohesive narrative message.

All true, but I think there's a difference between characters being inconsistent in the people are full of it IRL sense, and characters being inconsistent in the designing a set experience for the player across a number of variables sense. 

[LinksOcarina]

In Exile wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Bioware didn`t make Neverwinter Nights 2.

They did, however, clearly take the approval mechanism from KoTOR 2 and NWN 2 and applied it in DA:O. 

edit: Although now that I do think about it, didn't the OC in NWN and HoTU have something similar?

It may have, but the characters you can recruit in Neverwinter Nights were always henchmen and never really that dynamic as characters.

Much like Baldur's Gate they were useful as combat characters more than personalities to go by...although if we are really splitting hairs Baldur's Gate 2 was the first attempt to flesh out characters.

And I can't believe I mucked that up again...I keep mixing bioware and obsidian together even today...

[In Exile]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Much like Baldur's Gate they were useful as combat characters more than personalities to go by...although if we are really splitting hairs Baldur's Gate 2 was the first attempt to flesh out characters.

They were just as good meatshields in BG1. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Does poor writing really create multiple dimensions, in your view?

In what way would that necessarily be poor writing?

Without some established standard by which to judge the writing's quality, could we even tell?

[Ieldra]

alexbing88 wrote...
Arguments for consistency boils down to some kind of "adherence to reality," where the characters have to conform to the way you think they are. Oh they are consistent, therefore they are real. Because they are real, therefore I can better immerse. Because I can better immerse, I like it more. etc etc. Fair enough, but fairly consider the following.

You may find it easier to immerse because because they are real; but what if I find it easier to immerse because they aren't?
Or, you may find reality in consistency, but what if I find more reality precisely in inconsistency? (I actually do.)
Where is the consistency between an omniscient player and a situated Hawke?
Which narratives are more real, the consistent ones or the inconsistent ones?

I'm making a more fundamental distinction: if characters have variant traits depending on playthrough, are they really inconsistent? I'd if every playthrough represents a closed narrative, then they are only inconsistent if they have variant traits within that closed narrative. Only then does the question of whether consistency equals reality kicks in.

Can we legitimately expect the characters to be the same between playthroughs, considering that our protagonists and the world around them are not necessarily the same, depending, among other things, on decisions a different protagonist in this continuity has made?

These questions are largely contingent on how a reader enjoys his or her narrative. In particular I want to stress that "freedom" is far from the only motivation for endorsing narrative fractures. I also stress that a desire for fractures does not preclude desire for a cohesive narrative message.

While this is true, I think that one of the arguments for such fractures is that they can convey different narrative messages. How much writers are willing to embrace such divergence depends on how important they consider their messages to be or how attached they are to them. In any case there is space for such divergence even if the narrative of the main story arc (as opposed to a character's story arc) has a cohesive message.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 juillet 2013 - 01:35 .

[Ryzaki]

TK514 wrote...

When I think character consistency, I think of scenarios like Leliana and Wynn objecting to the Warden tainting the Ashes, or Sebastian leaving should you spare the guy who just murdered Sebastian's surrogate mother figure. These actions are consistent with the characters and their beliefs and personalities.

When Fenris sticks around even if Hawke takes an elven slave, I have problems. There's no way Hawke should be able to convince Fenris or Isabella that slavery is ok.

It's actually *extremely* easy to justify that incident I'm really boggled by how people are confused. Fenris if anyone would know how vulnerable and easy to exploit that girl would be. Hawke maybe a douche (if aggressive) but he/she isn't abusive. The elf girl even as a slave would be treated far better than just wandering off on her own. Fenris himself would kill any Hawke who tried to make him a slave of course but Fenris is fully capable of taking care of himself.

Hawke's not enslaving a perfectly capable of being independant elf. He's taking in a slave girl who knows nothing else who's extremely vulnerable and codependant and giving her a place to sleep, food to eat and has her act like a servant for all intents and purposes (without pay mind).

As Merill said a lone elf is easy prey for anyone.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 08 juillet 2013 - 03:06 .

[LinksOcarina]

In Exile wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
Much like Baldur's Gate they were useful as combat characters more than personalities to go by...although if we are really splitting hairs Baldur's Gate 2 was the first attempt to flesh out characters.

They were just as good meatshields in BG1. 

Yeah but some of them had malleable personalities.

Even though it was from an expansion Sarevok comes to mind as a prime example. Imoen of course is also important...