153 réponses à ce sujet

[DarthLaxian]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But having the PC behave differently from how I would have him behave effectively renders him an NPC, and thus I lose any interest in his story or even the fate of his world.

Interesting.

Damn:blink: You do have control issues.

No, I just lack empathy.

why is it "a lack of empathy" if you don't want your PC to do things you would not want him/her to? (auto-dialogue-sequences for example - that is not me acting anymore then and so it is not me and that makes it so bad IMHO) - your PC is you and if you do not decide to do something it (the PC) should not either!

greetings LAX

[DarkKnightHolmes]

I'd gladly be an avatar. I don't need my character to be defined for me because I should already know my character inside and out

[TK514]

For this sort of game, a character in their own right. We should obviously have some input into their actions and choices, but I prefer Hawke-style to, say, Dragonborn-style, in this case.

[draken-heart]

I wold like to at least shape the character. for the most part, I would like the Inquisitor like Shepard in terms of character/avatar.

[Reever]

Thought this was about something else first - like many others who only read the title

I never really thought about this issue, so it doesn't really bother me. Of course, it could be better if such things would come to light directly in a discussion or something. Or just give us codex entries, I'd also be okay with that

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

BSN, to my experience, doesn't hold a candle to the raging inferno of RPG Codex fueled flamer-thrower and napalm using trolls of Project Eternity's forums.  The moderators there actively cultivate a given side of arguments, engage in "us vs. them" and bashing of other developers, and protect the rights of trolls.

I've NEVER experienced a worse forum.  That's not to say there are many, many far worse forums out there - but I've never been hounded by an active, coordinated group of bullies and had the moderators tell me that its my fault for daring to post and that the solution is for ME to stop posting.  Again, worse forums surely exist...

but BSN is utopia compared to Obsidian's forums.

It's possible I don't perceive the hostility.

[Sylvius the Mad]

DarthLaxian wrote...

why is it "a lack of empathy" if you don't want your PC to do things you would not want him/her to?

Because the PC acting independently makes him an NPC, and I have no interest in the lives of NPCs.

That's the empathy angle.

[Taleroth]

MerinTB wrote...

but BSN is utopia compared to Obsidian's forums.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DarthLaxian wrote...

why is it "a lack of empathy" if you don't want your PC to do things you would not want him/her to?

Because the PC acting independently makes him an NPC, and I have no interest in the lives of NPCs.

That's the empathy angle.

I agree with your stance, but for different reasons.

I have tons of empathy and interest in NPCs. But that's not why I'm playing RPGs. If I want that, I'll play an action adventure. As his own character, Nathan Drake is miles and away better than Shepard or Hawke or any RPG character.

I play an RPG for the control.

Modifié par Taleroth, 22 août 2013 - 06:52 .

[Shadow Fox]

DarthLaxian wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But having the PC behave differently from how I would have him behave effectively renders him an NPC, and thus I lose any interest in his story or even the fate of his world.

Interesting.

Damn:blink: You do have control issues.

No, I just lack empathy.

why is it "a lack of empathy" if you don't want your PC to do things you would not want him/her to? (auto-dialogue-sequences for example - that is not me acting anymore then and so it is not me and that makes it so bad IMHO) - your PC is you and if you do not decide to do something it (the PC) should not either!

greetings LAX

Only in certain games could you claim that  and even then it's not really "you" because the game limits how the PC can react to given situations.Of course this is only appliable if you self-insert which many people don't.

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't mind Obsidian's boards, but I spend more time in the general forums than in Eternity's.

Although I would encourage people to make sure this doesn't spill over into any sort of Obsidian slagging (just a preemptive strike)

[MerinTB]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't mind Obsidian's boards, but I spend more time in the general forums than in Eternity's.

Although I would encourage people to make sure this doesn't spill over into any sort of Obsidian slagging (just a preemptive strike)

To be fair to the BSN's "notorious" reputation, I've never been part of any of the infamous romance threads, and have only been on the extreme borders of the "equality / equal representation" flare ups.

I tend to stay pretty insular here, follow friends posts and my own groups more than anything else... so I am fairly sheltered here.

-----


On Topic -

I would have preferred DA to have stayed "player created" characters.  DA2 dipped more into the Mass Effect design style of "player shaped but dev created" characters, but DA:I sounds like it's shifting either entirely back to DA:O's style, or some middle ground between DA:O and DA2 (likely what BioWare is shooting for, and not necessarily a bad thing.)

I can easily enjoy playing a pre-established character, though never as much as one of my own creation.  And, sometimes, the pre-established character is so unlikable it really hurts my enjoyment (Geralt, I'm looking at you.)

[nihiliste]

The character should absolutely be moulded by us. A little background is necessary sure, but Hawke was not my character in any way, shape, or form and that goes against the core of what I'm looking for in an RPG. When I played through DA2 I rarely found myself thinking "what would I do?" but rather "what would Hawke do?" and that is a problem.

Modifié par nihiliste, 22 août 2013 - 08:06 .

[Sasie]

BlueDemonX wrote...

Thought this was about something else first - like many others who only read the title

I never really thought about this issue, so it doesn't really bother me. Of course, it could be better if such things would come to light directly in a discussion or something. Or just give us codex entries, I'd also be okay with that

The title might been slightly misleading but I'm overall happy with the direction the thread went. xD
The result is more or less what I expected though, a large group of people do seem to not mind the DA:O approch at all while I personally prefer to roleplay a character like Hawke. A background for me does not turn a RPG into a action adventure but just allows more chances to roleplay and imagine different personalities from said background.

Even BG2 that is generally praised among the better RPG games of all time, in some circles, had a set background and Planescape torment that is praised even more has even greater restriction on what character the player can be. 

As for my original complaint about stupid questions they only really bother me when they are painfully obvious or when replaying the game for the second/third time. I can't even stand speaking to Wynne in Origins anymore because half her dialog is about Grey Warden stuff and duty and going through it for the 10th time is annoying.

nihiliste wrote...

The character should absolutely be moulded by us. A little background is necessary sure, but Hawke was not my character in any way, shape, or form and that goes against the core of what I'm looking for in an RPG. When I played through DA2 I rarely found myself thinking "what would I do?" but rather "what would Hawke do?" and that is a problem.

I don't think this is a problem at all myself. A person with Hawke's background could turn out in many different ways and doesn't just have to be one way or another. Personally I think we should ask ourselves what our character would do or rather what this version of our character would have done rather then play ourselves in a game but then different tastes and all that. 

Modifié par Sasie, 22 août 2013 - 08:45 .

[Ieldra]

OP, the thread title suggests a rather broader scope of problem than what you've explained in your OP. I'm with you in that questions a character of a given background should know the answer to shouldn't come up in dialogue just for the sake of the player. I want my character to be a believable denizen of the fictional world.

When asked, however, how much definition I prefer in general, then my answer would be: "as much as necessary, as little as possible." Too strongly-defined characters have a habit of ceasing to be my characters. In a game with any kind of roleplaying, there's little that kicks you out of a world and a story faster than character-derailing autodialogue. Above everything else, I hate being forced to act stupid or say stupid things, I hate to be forced to express specific emotions, and I hate to be forced to subscribe to certain values.

[Sasie]

Ieldra2 wrote...

OP, the thread title suggests a rather broader scope of problem than what you've explained in your OP. I'm with you in that questions a character of a given background should know the answer to shouldn't come up in dialogue just for the sake of the player. I want my character to be a believable denizen of the fictional world. 

Can't argue with this howeverr I do think they are connected. A character on their own would never ask the stupid questions that tend to annoy me the more I play the game while complete avatars of the player can more or less say whatever the player is thinking at the time or well, what the developers think the player is thinking at the time.

The odd part is that I think this is problem arrived with Kotor and modern Bioware games as I recall. In BG2 the player's memories gets damaged a bit in the beginning but for most of the game the player will react as a Bhaalspawn would and not ask everyone to explain the universe around them. Revan however was a bit... dumb.

"Who is Bastila?" is a pretty odd question when you serve on a ship commanded by the same famous Jedi. 

Ieldra2 wrote...
When asked, however, how much definition I prefer in general, then my answer would be: "as much as necessary, as little as possible." Too strongly-defined characters have a habit of ceasing to be my characters. In a game with any kind of roleplaying, there's little that kicks you out of a world and a story faster than character-derailing autodialogue. Above everything else, I hate being forced to act stupid or say stupid things, I hate to be forced to express specific emotions, and I hate to be forced to subscribe to certain values.

I sort of hate this too, it sort of makes me cringe when I replay some of my favorite games and I arrive at one of those moments that have unavoidable conversation that makes the player seem like it's suffering from hits to the head. I also should mention I do hate games with a far too restricted personality as well. I never liked the Witcher games for that reason since Geralt can not be shaped at all. 

Emotion can be nice though. The scene in Mass effect one were Shepard gets grounded comes to mind of a scene I did like even if I had no control over the players emotion. However in Mass effect 3 they tried the same thing at times and it didn't work at all so eh. All comes down to when and how maybe? 

Modifié par Sasie, 22 août 2013 - 09:09 .

[cindercatz]

Hmm.. I like to define the character's thoughts and values, but not their knowledge base, and I very much like very central emotional responses in the game, like ME3, though I prefer to have control over what those emotions are in general circumstances.

Also, I do very much love being able to flesh out my character's past through conversation on the fly, even if as the player I'm not knowledgeable of the situation beforehand. It allows me to roleplay my character's past and help define who they are through that conversation. Next to actually playing a character's origins/past, this is the next best thing. The Exile's conversation with the dark Jedi lorekeeper woman in KoTOR 2 is one of my favorite moments in gaming because of this.

On the 'not sounding like an idiot' front (also a pet peeve of mine), I really like the way, again, that ME3 did it for the most part (aside from the beginning and end), where investigate is one option all on its lonesome that leads to a full back and forth conversation wherein the player character just talks to the other character naturally. This allows the game to inform the player without actually having to ask a lot of stupid questions or prescribing any motivations to the PC, and the scene in general flows a lot more fluidly and naturally. It also allows for your character to inform you as the player by stating their own knowledge and proactively voluteering any necessary information as part of the conversation, rather than you having to ask about things your character should know. This is ideal.

Sometimes the choppiness of going through the investigate options makes me forget which option I chose, so I end up with repeats, which also means the rhythm of the question & answer style has a tendency to let me wonder and drop me out of the scene. I do not consider the single investigate option convos autodialogue. They're just a better, more natural and dynamic way of acquiring the same information that multiple investigate options normally provide.

To sum up: Yes, I prefer my character be a fully realized denizen of the game world, not my direct avatar. I do, however, want to have maximum control of who my character is, if not what they say moment to moment.

Modifié par cindercatz, 22 août 2013 - 09:43 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

David7204 wrote...

There never has been a player character the player has real control over.

There never will be.

It would not only be impossible from a technical perspective, but ridiculous from a narrative perspective.

I see somebody's never played tabletop.

[kinderschlager]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd really prefer that, depending on our background, there were already certain Codex entries explaining things that our character would, for all intents and purposes, already know.

Either that or have books/items/etc. during the respective opening that would supply said Codex entries. This way, the player then has a way to catch up with items the character should already know very well.

If that makes sense, at least.

origins *kinda* did thAT, BUT YES, WOULD BE GREAT

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

David7204 wrote...

There never has been a player character the player has real control over.

There never will be.

It would not only be impossible from a technical perspective, but ridiculous from a narrative perspective.

I see somebody's never played tabletop.

And tabletop gameplay is the standard to which CRPGs should aspire.

[Shadow Fox]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

David7204 wrote...

There never has been a player character the player has real control over.

There never will be.

It would not only be impossible from a technical perspective, but ridiculous from a narrative perspective.

I see somebody's never played tabletop.

Depends on the DM.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

David7204 wrote...

There never has been a player character the player has real control over.

There never will be.

It would not only be impossible from a technical perspective, but ridiculous from a narrative perspective.

I see somebody's never played tabletop.

Depends on the DM.

Point is, it is possible to have real control over a character.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And tabletop gameplay is the standard to which CRPGs should aspire.

Hey, all he was saying is its never happened. I'm saying it has and will continue to, and that I hate generalizations.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 23 août 2013 - 04:14 .

[Shadow Fox]

possible but unlikely.

[Shelondias]

Whenever questions like that came up for my dwarf I pretended it was one of my companions asking the question.
Made it kind of fun pretending Alistair was standing there asking the people in orzammar about Paragons and the like.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It would not only be impossible from a technical perspective, but ridiculous from a narrative perspective.

I see somebody's never played tabletop.

Depends on the DM.

If it depends on anything, then it isn't impossible.