544 réponses à ce sujet

[Naesaki]

CybAnt1 wrote...

You really should look into Pillars of Eternity and Wasteland 2 , they are more the type of role-playing experience you crave

Trust me, he knows about them. 

Also, one should add, Torment: Tides of Numenera. 

The "spiritual succcessor" (and yes they've used those words) of Planescape: Torment, the game I guess some people thought wasn't a game. Coulda fooled me. I enjoyed the hell out of it. 

I keep forgetting to add ToN to the list xD i'm even a kickstarter back for it for crying out loud :3 same for PoE as well, really can't wait for them

[EmperorSahlertz]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Uhm.... The same way that an ACTOR can ROLEPLAY a certain ROLE that is given to them in a movie or stageplay?
Roleplay is not just "rolecreator" as you want . Sometimes you are given a role to play.

I'm still waiting for the actor to be handed an emotional tone, a paraphrase, and then told to "wing it". 

That would be an interesting play.

You havn't ever seen an improv show? Because there are literally THOUSANDS of them playing every day...

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The decision made is completely independant of the tone of voice imagined. Either way the game does not react to your imagined tone of voice, or even your reasoning behind the decision made, making the tone of voice 100% head-canon and irrelevant to the game world.

But you do react to them, and you're part of the game.

[CybAnt1]

So it's "Dragon Age: Improv", then, I suppose. You bring your random props, I'll bring mine. (Let me see, clown nose, seltzer bottle, fake Trek phaser, rubber chicken, watermelon, mallet, check.)

P.S. you do know an improv show not only has no fixed dialogue, but no fixed storyline either?

If we invite Qistina to be one of the improv actors, the show could go some really .... novel .... places. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 29 janvier 2014 - 11:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Naesaki wrote...

@Sylvius
The RPG genre is much broader and wider than it used to be, might not be what you want ,but a ton of people like the approach DA and ME use now, I like both approaches tbh so everything you are getting upset over honestly I just can't fathom / comprehend it :/

The "RPG genre" is limited by the nature of roleplaying.  If the games don't allow roleplaying, they aren't roleplaying games.

I don't think the future ME and DA games are going to be for you anymore since it looks like Bioware have found the direction they want to keep exploring. They aren't the type of games with a blank slate protagonist anymore.

I don't need a blank slate protagonist - I just need a protagonist I understand.  The easiest way to give me that is to give me a blank slate, but failing that they need to document all of the restrictions they've placed on the character.  Every detail they determined in advance, they need to write those down.

You really should look into Pillars of Eternity and Wasteland 2 , they are more the type of role-playing experience you crave

I couldn't give those guys money fast enough.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm.... The same way that an ACTOR can ROLEPLAY a certain ROLE that is given to them in a movie or stageplay?
Roleplay is not just "rolecreator" as you want . Sometimes you are given a role to play.

Acting and roleplaying are not synonymous.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The decision made is completely independant of the tone of voice imagined. Either way the game does not react to your imagined tone of voice, or even your reasoning behind the decision made, making the tone of voice 100% head-canon and irrelevant to the game world.

But you do react to them, and you're part of the game.

Your perception of the game is the only thing that changes with your imagined tone of voice. The game is unchanged no matter how radical your head-canon might be.
As a player I am decidedly not part of the game world. I am just a guy sitting in front of my computer playing a game.

[Fast Jimmy]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The decision made is completely independant of the tone of voice imagined. Either way the game does not react to your imagined tone of voice, or even your reasoning behind the decision made, making the tone of voice 100% head-canon and irrelevant to the game world.

But you do react to them, and you're part of the game.

Your perception of the game is the only thing that changes with your imagined tone of voice. The game is unchanged no matter how radical your head-canon might be.
As a player I am decidedly not part of the game world. I am just a guy sitting in front of my computer playing a game.

Perception is all that matters. Perception IS reality. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Your perception of the game is the only thing that changes with your imagined tone of voice. The game is unchanged no matter how radical your head-canon might be.
As a player I am decidedly not part of the game world. I am just a guy sitting in front of my computer playing a game.

Your character is part of the game world.  The things he does affect the game world.  You choose those actions.  Therefore, you affect the game world.

Anything that affects your choices, including headcanon, therefore also affects the gameworld.

This is a remarkably straightforward syllogism.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Your perception of the game is the only thing that changes with your imagined tone of voice. The game is unchanged no matter how radical your head-canon might be.
As a player I am decidedly not part of the game world. I am just a guy sitting in front of my computer playing a game.

Your character is part of the game world.  The things he does affect the game world.  You choose those actions.  Therefore, you affect the game world.

Anything that affects your choices, including headcanon, therefore also affects the gameworld.

This is a remarkably straightforward syllogism.

Except that your head-canon is a creation as a result of the world, not the other way around.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm.... The same way that an ACTOR can ROLEPLAY a certain ROLE that is given to them in a movie or stageplay?
Roleplay is not just "rolecreator" as you want . Sometimes you are given a role to play.

Acting and roleplaying are not synonymous.

Acting IS roleplaying. Roleplaying is not necesarily acting. But why is the way YOU like to roleplay any superior to how others prefer to? If you do not like the way DA is going, that is your problem, lots of people are perfectly fine with acting a given role.

[CybAnt1]

How can you act a role if you don't know what you're going to say?

This is not improv. If it were, I should just be able to say anything into the microphone, then see it onscreen. 

No, this is a game where we are being offered choices of what to say, the problem is we can't see our choices before we make them. 

How would you like it if the game asks you what you are about to DO next, but only gives you a very vague description of the action? "You are about to enter some kind of room, and do something in it, to whatever is in there. Confirm, yes or no?" 

That isn't playing a role, IT IS JUST BLOODY DAFT.





 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 30 janvier 2014 - 01:01 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

CybAnt1 wrote...

How can you act a role if you don't know what you're going to say?

This is not improv. If it were, I should just be able to say anything into the microphone, then see it onscreen. 

No, this is a game where we are being offered choices of what to say, the problem is we can't see our choices before we make them. 

How would you like it if the game asks you what you are about to DO next, but only gives you a very vaguedescription of the action? "You are about to enter some kind of room, and do something in it, to whatever is in there. Confirm, yes or no?" 

That isn't playing a role, IT IS JUST BLOODY DAFT.

You are wildly exagerating the severeity of the dialogue wheel's information. I was NEVER in any sort of doubt about what would happen when I clicked the differnet dialogue options. What exactly happened may ahve surprised me a few times, but I had the braincells to rub together to deduce in which direction the conversation would go.
But ignoring all that, you are looking at it the wrong way. You should imagine the three dialogue wheel options as three lines the director would present you, allowing you to choose in which direction Hawke would go, but the director as always have the final say in what the character says.

[CybAnt1]

You should imagine the three dialogue wheel options as three lines the director would present you, allowing you to choose in which direction Hawke would go, but the director as always have the final say in what the character says.

Pal, if I am not only an actor, but working for a director, then I want SAG pay scale. 

http://en.wikipedia....en_Actors_Guild

I never asked for no stinking director. But if I have to work for one, then homey's getting paid. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except that your head-canon is a creation as a result of the world, not the other way around.

If my choices in the game affect the gameworld at all, then the state of the world is a result of my choices.  And since my choices are a result of my head-canon, then the state of the world is an indirect result of my head-canon.

Do you honestly not understand what I'm saying?

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You don't design the character. You guide the character. You guide based on general "themes" of diplomatic, sarcastic, or aggressive (to use DA ]['s tones as an example).

I still don't understand how those are themes.

And that sounds incredibly dull.

You're not roleplaying.

I'm not playing at all, if that's all the game offers.

[Sylvius the Mad]

TipsLeFedora wrote...

"A game is any system that takes in inputs by a player and that gives out rewards or penalizes the player as an output of the system. The most important thing in this system is a set of rules that limits the action that the user can take. The player's action are confirmed by these set of rules, the extent of these rules is limited on the scope.

With this definition however, it means Music,graphics and story are not esstential to the game. A game can contain these other forms of multimedia but it does not cease to become a game because these are missing. This also means story is not essential for a game but you can find a game without all of these things but you cannot find one without a set of rules and action which the player can perform "

Lets take a game like Icewind Dale. What do you get after every confrontation or mission? Experience to level up that is one of your rewards. You also run the risk of not surviving. Icewind dale is an rpg game but if you noticed it has all the mechanics of a game system. Icewind dale could exist without the roleplaying aspect and still be a game in it's state.

You have the input of interacting with the player character and an output of your action.

I don't think roleplaying games fit your description.  By your definition, I would deem roleplaying games not to be games.

Because roleplaying games don't reward or penalise the player.  Ever.

[EmperorSahlertz]

CybAnt1 wrote...

You should imagine the three dialogue wheel options as three lines the director would present you, allowing you to choose in which direction Hawke would go, but the director as always have the final say in what the character says.

Pal, if I am not only an actor, but working for a director, then I want SAG pay scale. 

http://en.wikipedia....en_Actors_Guild

I never asked for no stinking director. But if I have to work for one, then homey's getting paid. 

So you don't ever play DnD with a game master? He would essentially fill the same role as a director.
The game obviously cannot accomodate the same amount of character freedom a game master can, which means you must accept the restricted freedom. And you accepted this restriction the second you bought and installed the game.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except that your head-canon is a creation as a result of the world, not the other way around.

If my choices in the game affect the gameworld at all, then the state of the world is a result of my choices.  And since my choices are a result of my head-canon, then the state of the world is an indirect result of my head-canon.

Do you honestly not understand what I'm saying?

I understand fully what you say, I just disagree. Your imagined tone of voice changes NOTHING in the world, it might change YOUR decision process, but the world remains the same, as is evidenced by the fact that you can imagine two completely different tones and the EXACT same result happens.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You're not roleplaying.

I'm not playing at all, if that's all the game offers.

Then don't.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 30 janvier 2014 - 05:08 .

[CybAnt1]

So you don't ever play DnD with a game master? 

Back in the day ... we're speaking of the Upper Paleolithic, of course ... when I did play PnP D & D with a group of friends, yes, of course, we all rotated who would be Dungeon Master between modules. 

I also took my turn as DM at one point. I remember making a lot of decisions. Describing a lot of things to players. Adjudicating the dice rolls. Here's what I can't remember.

When one of my friends' characters decided he would parley with the fire giants and keep them from attacking, I didn't say "Hold it. Don't tell me what it is you want to tell the fire giants. Just describe the emotional tone, and give me a paraphrase." 

You know why? That would be crap. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Acting IS roleplaying. Roleplaying is not necesarily acting. But why is the way YOU like to roleplay any superior to how others prefer to? If you do not like the way DA is going, that is your problem, lots of people are perfectly fine with acting a given role.

But we're not given a role, nor are we free to act within it.

I'll grant that improv is roleplaying.  But even there, the actors are given guildelines to follow.  They know the constraints of the characters they are playing, and they act within those constraints.

DA2 does not tell us what our constraints are.  Nor does it let us choose what our characters say or do.  Even if we weren't free to choose what to do, as actors in a scripted play are not, they at least know what they're going to say, and can put themselves in an appropriate frame of mind.

[EmperorSahlertz]

CybAnt1 wrote...

So you don't ever play DnD with a game master? 

Back in the day ... we're speaking of the Upper Paleolithic, of course ... when I did play PnP D & D with a group of friends, yes, of course, we all rotated who would be Dungeon Master between modules. 

I also took my turn as DM at one point. I remember making a lot of decisions. Describing a lot of things to players. Adjudicating the dice rolls. Here's what I can't remember.

When one of my friends' characters decided he would parley with the fire giants and keep them from attacking, I didn't say "Hold it. Don't tell me what it is you want to tell the fire giants. Just describe the emotional tone, and give me a paraphrase." 

You know why? That would be crap. 

Have you ever played dungeon world or apocalypse world? In both of those games, it is fully within the game masters control to tell the players what their characters does, because it is a NARRATIVE driven campaign, instead of the usual DnD CHARACTER driven campaign.
Of course the game master can allow for the players themselves to specify what they want to say, and to a degree DA2 did that perfectly since you would have to be an absolute moron not to understand the icons, or where the conversation would go after clicking one of them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I understand fully what you say, I just disagree. Your imagined tone of voice changes NOTHING in the world, it might change YOUR decision process, but the world remains the same, as is evidenced by the fact that you can imagine two completely different tones and the EXACT same result happens.

Except it doesn't.  Because you used a different tone, your interpretation of the NPCs' reactions will be different, which will then cause you to make a different choice in the future.

You're taking far too narrow a view.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Of course the game master can allow for the players themselves to specify what they want to say, and to a degree DA2 did that perfectly since you would have to be an absolute moron not to understand the icons, or where the conversation would go after clicking one of them.

How was I supposed to know that Hawke would hate slavers, when they'd been nothing but nice to each other up until that moment?