1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Star fury]

David7204 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The idea that the player 'earns' a good ending for their character is a fallacy that only leads to dead ends.

It doesn't matter if you're an Olympian supermodel with sevens Ph.D and breeze through the game on the super-ultra extra hardest difficult, or a basement-dwelling intellectually challenged societal reject who struggles over and over to complete the game on the easiest setting.

You get the exact. same. story.

The player character is just as brave. Just as competent. Just as attractive. Just as intelligent. Just as strong.

The simple truth that so many people on this forum seem vehemently opposed to is that the qualities of the character flow from the character. Never from the player.

Mr.House wrote...
Play more games.

dreamgazer wrote...
Please, for the love of all that's decent in this realm, play Dragon Age: Origins.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Have you never played a roleplaying game?

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
With video-games, most specifically ROLEPLAYING-games, this is not at all the case. That's just a simple fact that you vehemently oppose and just don't want to understand.

Is this the best argument the BSN can give me?

A simple question. Do you deny that there are ugly, weak, unintelligent, unskilled (in any and every combination) players who play attractive, competent, intelligent strong chracters in role playing games?

You should play more games, preferably RPG games, it would be even better if you play Dragon Age. I know it sounds shocking to you.

[David7204]

Then what? What quality of a person is it that 'earns' the success of the protagonist?

His skill? No. The same endings are earned by the master who plays on the highest difficult and the notice who struggles with easy.

His intelligence? No. The protagonist is no more or less intelligent regardless if played by a genius or fool.

His work? His dedication? Are those things of any substance in playing a video game? If they are, you can no longer claim ME 2's ending is lacks merit for not being earned. Because when the player completes the loyal missions, that's the same dedication, the same work that goes into any game. If such 'work' and 'dedication' has merit, it has merit in ME 2. It either has value, or it doesn't.

What quality, what factor is it then, that 'earns' success for the protagonist? 

Modifié par David7204, 31 octobre 2013 - 03:47 .

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

Then what? What quality of a person is it that 'earns' the success of the protagonist?

His skill? No. The same endings are earned by the master who plays on the highest difficult and the notice who struggles with easy.

His intelligence? No. The protagonist is no more or less intelligent regardless if played by a genius or fool.

His work? His dedication? Are those things of any substance in playing a video game? If they are, you can no longer claim ME 2's ending is lacks merit for not being earned. Because when the player completes the loyal missions, that's the same dedication, the same work that goes into any game. If such 'work' and 'dedication' has merit, it has merit in ME 2. It either has value, or it doesn't.

What quality, what factor is it then, that 'earns' success for the protagonist? 

Overcoming greater challenges is what give it merits. Shooting the same goons over and over is not the same as going though a challenge to earn something. 

[David7204]

That clearly is not true at all. Why? Because, as I said, the exact same story is seen by the master who breezes through the highest difficulty and the novice who struggles with the easiest mode. They both get the exact same ending. The exact same story. The exact same player character. Nothing is 'earned' by overcoming a greater challenge.

Modifié par David7204, 31 octobre 2013 - 03:53 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Redbelle wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It feels too game-y in the end.

So I have to disagree.

Dude!

It is a VIDEO GAME!

It's supposed to be gamey! Because it's a game! A Mass Effect game!

BW aren't making Pac-Man here. I'm sure they know how to put together an action RPG. They've done it since Baldur's Gate.

Just as a note, since this is apparently a trigger phrase for some people, I can understand and empathize with the "too gamey" angle.

No, I'm never oblivious to the fact that I'm in a video game, but there are things that ostensibly pull me out of the experience.

In some ways I rationalize by simply having a suspension of disbelief (most combat in most games, RPG or otherwise), but sometimes I get invested in the story and characters and something ends up happening in the game that pulls me out and makes it feel as though it was included simply because "it's a video game and a video game must have this identifiable feature."

When someone says something feels "gamey" in a video game, it typically just means it's something that reminded the player that the setting is fake and artificial, and not in a good way.  Ruined ones immersion, so to speak.  When someone responds with "it's a video game" to a comment like this, I get the impression that there's a disconnect between the two perspectives and people are getting caught up on the specifics of the words used rather than the meaning of the words.

I am fine with playing a Mario game and having my character (or the boss character) have a moment of invulnerability after being hit (usually indicated by the character flashing on the screen).  However, when I patiently await to do a stealth shot in the PSX Metal Gear Solid and shoot a guy square in the back, and he goes invulnerable and starts flashing because he's not dead yet, I consider that "gamey" and not in a good way.  I find it inconsistent with the tone I was expecting.

Now whether or not this is the game's fault or my fault (for having differing expectations) is more just an illustration that playing a game is kind of a contract between game designer and game player and how willing they are to meet in the middle.

[Allan Schumacher]

While it's clear many here disagree with David, if I see people attacking him (or even just an over reliance on falling back on the fact that he hasn't played Dragon Age), that type of behaviour is more likely to draw my ire.

I've deleted some posts already.


Although David, I do agree with the general notion that experiencing more RPGs may help illustrate the perspectives other people have (myself included).  I get the impression that you're struggling to understand why many disagree with your perspective, when it could simply be because they have different experiences that motivate their perspectives.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 octobre 2013 - 03:59 .

[Estelindis]

David7204 wrote...

That clearly is not true at all. Why? Because, as I said, the exact same story is seen by the master who breezes through the highest difficulty and the novice who struggles with the easiest mode. They both get the exact same ending. The exact same story. The exact same player character. Nothing is 'earned' by overcoming a greater challenge.

Look, I don't mean to pile onto you when so many others are doing so already, but you seem to have no sense whatsoever of the different emotional situations offered by the endings of Dragon Age: Origins.  There are four endings, each of which have a huge number of variables offering further "sub-endings."  Depending on the origin you play and the roleplaying approach you take to your character, the "same" ending can actually be totally different from person to person.  For me, the "Warden Commander" ending was a personal tragedy.  Another player, making different choices throughout the game, could make the "Warden Commander" ending a cynical and selfish one.  That difference is achieved through roleplaying.  It is earned.

[Steelcan]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

even just excessively falling back on the fact that he hasn't played Dragon Age

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what business he has in a thread dedicated to a game he refuses to play.

And then makes claims to understand what all games HAVE to do in order to be meaningful etc... 

He can't have an informed opinion on this topic and seems to relish in showing off his ignorance of the games.

Modifié par Steelcan, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:02 .

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

That clearly is not true at all. Why? Because, as I said, the exact same story is seen by the master who breezes through the highest difficulty and the novice who struggles with the easiest mode. They both get the exact same ending. The exact same story. The exact same player character. Nothing is 'earned' by overcoming a greater challenge.

Not to be rude, but you're embarrassing the hell out of yourself right now.

DA:O is cheap, David. You need to be informed to continue these discussions.

[David7204]

No, it's not earned. Does a film require anything of the audience? Any problem solving, any skill, any merit? No. Anyone can watch a film, and different people can get entirely different things from it. Very meaningful things. Does that meaning need to be 'earned'?

No. It doesn't.

[Estelindis]

David7204 wrote...

No, it's not earned. Does a film require anything of the audience? Any problem solving, any skill, any merit? No. Anyone can watch a film, and different people can get entirely different things from it. Very meaningful things. Does that meaning need to be 'earned'?

No. It doesn't.

A film is not an interactive medium that allows for player choice to lead to different outcomes.  You're not comparing like with like.

[The Night Mammoth]

You're putting entirely too much stock into what people mean by 'earned'.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

No, it's not earned. Does a film require anything of the audience? Any problem solving, any skill, any merit? No. Anyone can watch a film, and different people can get entirely different things from it. Very meaningful things. Does that meaning need to be 'earned'?

No. It doesn't.

"Does a film require anything"

"a film require"

"a film"

"film"

[David7204]

I'm not actually.

If you define 'earning' something as simply examining it with your own perspective, your own mind, that's perfectly okay. But I still win. Because if you define it so, you forfeit the right to complain about gameplay such as the charm and intimidate options. Because those options, despite being derided as 'easy win buttons,' clearly meet that definition of earning. Heroism and success at the press of a button meet that definition, and are thus valid storytelling. They are 'earned.'

Modifié par David7204, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:08 .

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Metagaming undermines your perspective entirely. It's the player directly influencing the choices of the player character based on knowledge that the player has that the player character cannot. This literally comes across as a tacit concession of the point....

And how is that?

Suppose all walkthroughs vanished tomorrow. Suppose this changes nothing. Players might have to do a bit more work, take a few less shortcuts, but they still complete games as easily. They still achieve the same percentage of endings and whatnot. If that's true, then that proves my point, or at least supports it. That the success of the player character is not 'earned' by the player. For how can the abilities of the player be a significant issue if tools to boost those abilities have no effect? 

Suppose that it changes everything. Suppose without walkthroughs, players now have significant difficulty completing games. Perfect ending percentages goes way down. That also proves my point, more or less. Why? Because it defies your belief that the suicide mission and analagous content is too easy to achieve and thus unsatisfying.

Bolded emphasis mine.

First instance: Players might have to do more work.  As such, they may have to earn their happy ending.  Conclusion: Your point is incorrect.

Second instance: Given that players have more difficulty completing the game, we have fundamentally shown that player ability and knowledge affects the player character.  As such, your point that the player character behaves independently of the player is incorrect.  We've demonstrated that metaknowledge (i.e. player knowledge) can affect how things play out for the player character.


It's also important to note that it's very risky to assume your own interpretations and understandings are applicable to other people.

As such, I'm quite willing to accept that people may like the Suicide Mission and the level of effort required to ensure a satisfactory playthrough.  When I say I find it too easy, it means that it wasn't sufficiently difficult for Allan.  If optimal playthrough simply means completionist playthrough, then I think we can stand to make the choices in our games more interesting.

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The Lothering gossips mention it.

Alright. I'd maintain the point, however, that Grey Warden business, i.e. fixing the Blight>quelling a demon infestation.

I'd argue that whether or not which is important is greatly dependent upon the player playing the game.

Or in the cases of someone playing like, say, Sylvius, the type of character the player intends to create.

[David7204]

Some games, yes.

Obviously, this is not fundamentally true. A developer could easily make a game, where, for example, the player must answer quantum physics question and bases the success of the protagonist on it. Then, yes, the intelligence of the player character is absolutely based on the intelligence of the player.

Many puzzle games are essentially this. Toned down, obviously.

However, that's ultimately not relevant, because the industry has a whole has clearly decided not to go down that path for AAA games. Many people fail to realize or simply ignore the very serious problems and repurcussions for going down that path, and dishonestly try to claim that AAA games could easily do this with no consequences. Which is the mistake of many of the posters here, particularly the ones who think themselves 'hardcore gamers.'

Modifié par David7204, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:17 .

[TEWR]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

I always went to the Circle first because from the rumors you hear in Lothering, it sounded like the one most in need or immediate help imo.

DID you hear rumors there?

I was under the impression that you DID hear rumors there. However, that doesn't invalidate the fact that we need Arl Eamon to win this war--so my Warden's went to Redcliffe first. However, because I imagined that they had heard the Circle was in turmoil, when it came time to "cure" Conner they all either went for blood magic or killed him (this is after I knew you could go to the Circle) because they knew the Circle couldn't help them (at that time of course).

However, on my most recent playthrough I kept an eye out and an ear open, and I didn't hear anything about the Circle being in trouble. You're sure you didn't hear anything in Lothering?

I know for a fact Ser Bryant says that the Right of Annulment has been called for and requested -- which indicates something troubling is afoot at the Circle -- as well as two gossiping commoners talking about something going on at Lake Calenhad IIRC.

[Estelindis]

David7204 wrote...

The idea that the player 'earns' a good ending for their character is a fallacy that only leads to dead ends.

It doesn't matter if you're an Olympian supermodel with sevens Ph.D and breeze through the game on the super-ultra extra hardest difficult, or a basement-dwelling intellectually challenged societal reject who struggles over and over to complete the game on the easiest setting.

You get the exact. same. story.

The player character is just as brave. Just as competent. Just as attractive. Just as intelligent. Just as strong. 

The simple truth that so many people on this forum seem vehemently opposed to is that the qualities of the character flow from the character. Never from the player. 

Heroism, bravery, etc., are simply not the same from character to character in the case of DA:O.  Because of the diversity of backgrounds, the Warden can have many different outlooks and guidelines for behaviour.  Ultimately, Bioware cannot give us infinite ways to express difference.  Such a game would never be finished.  But they still give us plenty of ways to put our own stamp on the player character, to make her or him ours.

What I find confusing is that you present as a dichotomy that the qualities of the character flow either from the character having those qualities... or the player having those qualities.  But what, exactly, is wrong with a person who (for instance) is not brave roleplaying a brave character?  In its own way, the bravery flows from the player, from their imagination.

David7204 wrote...

If you define 'earning' something as simply examining it with your own perspective, your own mind, that's perfectly okay. But I still win. Because if you define it so, you forfeit the right to complain about gameplay such as the charm and intimidate options. Because those options, despite being derided as 'easy win buttons,' clearly meet that definition of earning. Heroism and success at the press of a button meet that definition, and are thus valid storytelling. They are 'earned.'

A person still has to want to charm or intimidate in order for these options to be appealing, though.  While, for those who are less interested in a deep gaming experience, they can just be cheap "win" buttons (assuming people invest in the skills - I'm often surprised by how many don't), a roleplayer can also choose not to intimidate or persuade if they think it would be out of character.  They are then rewarded with a different experience.

[David7204]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

First instance: Players might have to do more work.  As such, they may have to earn their happy ending.  Conclusion: Your point is incorrect.

As such, I'm quite willing to accept that people may like the Suicide Mission and the level of effort required to ensure a satisfactory playthrough.  When I say I find it too easy, it means that it wasn't sufficiently difficult for Allan.  If optimal playthrough simply means completionist playthrough, then I think we can stand to make the choices in our games more interesting.

What I read from this is that completing trivial tasks without a walkthrough is 'work' and that everything that goes into getting a perfect ending for ME 2 is not.

[Dave of Canada]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

When I say I find it too easy, it means that it wasn't sufficiently difficult for Allan.  If optimal playthrough simply means completionist playthrough, then I think we can stand to make the choices in our games more interesting.

Not targeted only to Allan!

I'm curious, how does everyone feel about Fallout's system of limiting "optimal" solutions through your character's statistics? Some solutions can only be handled by a scientist, others can only be handled by someone who's a slaver, etc.

That isn't to say that persuade is often the modifier that leads to most optimal solutions but I remember playing New Vegas, investigating into who the enemy at a base is (and deflecting a lot of red herrings on the way) which led to me hearing about a bomb and rushing over to it. To my horror, I couldn't disable it due to my character not having the skills mandatory for it and being forced to watch it explode.

The fact that the quest didn't instantly fail and I had to deal with the post-bomb scene was fantastic.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:22 .

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

Then what? What quality of a person is it that 'earns' the success of the protagonist?

His skill? No. The same endings are earned by the master who plays on the highest difficult and the notice who struggles with easy.

His intelligence? No. The protagonist is no more or less intelligent regardless if played by a genius or fool.

His work? His dedication? Are those things of any substance in playing a video game? If they are, you can no longer claim ME 2's ending is lacks merit for not being earned. Because when the player completes the loyal missions, that's the same dedication, the same work that goes into any game. If such 'work' and 'dedication' has merit, it has merit in ME 2. It either has value, or it doesn't.

What quality, what factor is it then, that 'earns' success for the protagonist? 

The choices that the player makes.  As you've conceded yourself in this post the players do make the choices for the player character.

By making a particular sequence of choices during a particular playthrough, the player can be rewarded for those particular choices by getting a rarer ending (assuming the game is created to be accommodating in such a way).

For games like Mass Effect 2 and 3, the choices made tend to be more "complete all content" and I'd agree that that is perhaps not the most interesting way to allow a player to do something like that.  Mass Effect 2 is an example, it's just not a particular strong one because as you say, it's mostly just playing the game like normal.  That's on the developer, however.


In the case of Dragon Age Origins, however, if the player (such as myself, since this did happen to me) arrives in Redcliffe to save Connor, and has no semblance of the Mage Circle or an inkling of belief that there are other alternatives, then someone must die to conclude that quest line.

However, those that either went to the Circle first, or take a chance and pursue other options, are rewarded for that choice by getting a superior outcome (no one must die).


(It should be noted that I think the Connor sequence can be done better, and I'm not really a fan of leaving a possessed Connor to find other solutions without some sort of consequence occurring).

The players make the choices (as you've mentioned).  "Earn your happy ending" is simply a way of saying "reward the player for a particular type of playthrough.  Usually grounded in some sort of risk analysis and in keeping the circumstances logical.  Few that want "Earn your happy ending" want it to be non-sensical.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:23 .