544 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Based on preference and attitude. I don't need to have a reason for hating unequal power dynamics. I can just hate unequal power dynamics. I can then be opposed to slavery on the basis of that belief.

But the presence of that hatred is, in itself, a rudimentary backstory.  And you made it up.

[Grieving Natashina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

While I'll accept that showing spoken lines is preferable to simply a paraphrase, you need some examples, OP.

I finished the thread and I'm requesting the same.  Would you please give us some examples?

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I see a difference here in our motivations for action.  You have external motivations, and I have internal motivations.

If you insult someone, you're doing it for them.  Your objective is that they feel insulted.  That they notice they've been insulted, and do so in a way that you can perceive that awareness, is why you did it in the first place.

If I insult someone, I'm doing it for me.  My objective is that I have insulted someone.  I don't particularly care whether they notice.  Whether they do will again help inform my opinion of them, but my success or failure is determined by what I do, not by what other people do.

Hmm. Yes, it's also how I communicate. As such it's terribly frustrating for me to be ignored. Because I cannot determine whether I succeeded at communicating or not.

Therefore, Alistair reacting the same way to a joke as to an insult would both be frustrating to me as a person but also potentionally character breaking for me.

[abnocte]

Sir JK wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I would further suggest that unless the game reacts differently to the line spoken sarcastically than it would if it were sincere, it doesn't matter.  More options for the player.

I'd argue that if it doesn't then it's not reacting to you at all. It's a false choice.

Choice.

The infamous word.

A while back I participated in a discussion here about the wheel vs text list. After a few posts I finally noticed that people meant two different things by "choice".

Ones understood choice as the possible reactions the game would have to dialogue.
The others understood choice as the different character traits they could give to the PC through dialogue.

I always use the same example:

In Planscape:Torment there is a point where your character is asked the following:

What can change the nature of man?

The game gives you over 20 different responses ( all with the tag [Truth] so the player knows that The Nameless One is being sincere ). The events that follow are exactly the same whatever response you give.

So by the first definition of choice, there is none.
But by the second definition of choice we get over 20 different ones. It is hard for me to imagine that "The Nameless One" that will answer with "Hate" has anything in common with the one that will answer with "Love", or "Regret" or "Nothing".

Modifié par abnocte, 28 janvier 2014 - 09:54 .

[Angarma]

Sir JK wrote...

Any case where a character is broken because the dialogue system failed is unacceptable, of course. My point being was that while we can all imagine, or even point to, examples where it would have helped. The point was that often enough, it wouldn't.

Mhn, yes. This I've already agreed with:

Daroska wrote...
This tl;dr esque rant all boils down to the thought that full knowledge of each sentence matter is helpful at
points, to certain people.

But when it does help, that's where it really counts. Surely, that's a good enough reason unto itself.

Sir JK wrote...
Consider for instance:

"That is a fantastic idea"
Paraphrased as: "Great".

The full line couldn't possibly tell you that it is in fact not only sarcasm, but delivered mockingly. Here the full line completely and utterly fails to deliver that message. The paraphrase does too.

In traditional literature, various techniques would be used to pinpoint this.

Actually, there is one to be added here: exaggeration.
Usage of exclamation marks and extension of words make for a great way to indicate sarcasm.
Not to mention including oft seen adjectives into the mix.

"That's a completely and utterly marvelous idea."
"Greeat."
"Oh really now! I'd never have thought JK was such a genius."

Sir JK wrote...
Point is: that line couldn't, even with the full text available, help you reach the conclusion that it's mocking sarcasm. Here the supposed solution would completely fail to achieve it's purpose. Insteda it'd only provide it's aggravating side-effects.

It's debatable, of course, because it's a matter of perspective.
Further clarification, I find, is often just that: clarification.
Some people it'll aid, others it'll hamper. Which is? Yes, a view.

Take for instance this 'aggravation' side effect, have I ever noticed such by reading dialogue-
then hearing it be spoken? No, not really. The thought of 'one size fits all' is ill begat, for me.

Now to continue, I'd like to state that my belief here (like many others) is that I think Bioware should
follow DXHR's example of implementing a tooltip feature, for the actual dialogue lines. For it would
both aid current wheel users and greatly help to bring back some stubborn, dialogue tree old timers.

[Sir JK]

abnocte wrote...

Choice.

The infamous word.

A while back I participated in a discussion here about the wheel vs text list. After a few posts I finally noticed that people meant two different things by "choice".

Ones understood choice as the possible reactions the game would have to dialogue.
The others understood choice as the different character traits they could give to the PC through dialogue.

I always use the same example:

In Planscape:Torment there is a point where your character is asked the following:

What can change the nature of man?

The game gives you over 20 different responses ( all with the tag [Truth] so the player knows that The Nameless One is being sincere ). The events that follow are exactly the same whatever response you give.

So by the first definition of choice, there is none.
But by the second definition of choice we get over 20 different characters we can play. It is hard for me to imagine that "The Nameless One" that will answer with "Hate" has anything in common with the one that will answer with "Love", or "Regret" or "Nothing".

That particular exchange is both fantastic and a special case. Yes, the reaction is the same for all choices there. But the reaction in question makes it work. No matter what you choose, the reaction is an acknowledgement.

It's a True choice to me because it's acknowledged. It's not ignored. Which, as I explained to Sylvius a few posts up, is what's important to me.

I need to have the illusion that they listen to me. I need nothing more. As long as that illusion is maintained, I consider it to be a choice.

[Sanunes]

abnocte wrote...

Choice.

The infamous word.

A while back I participated in a discussion here about the wheel vs text list. After a few posts I finally noticed that people meant two different things by "choice".

Ones understood choice as the possible reactions the game would have to dialogue.
The others understood choice as the different character traits they could give to the PC through dialogue.

I always use the same example:

In Planscape:Torment there is a point where your character is asked the following:

What can change the nature of man?

The game gives you over 20 different responses ( all with the tag [Truth] so the player knows that The Nameless One is being sincere ). The events that follow are exactly the same whatever response you give.

So by the first definition of choice, there is none.
But by the second definition of choice we get over 20 different characters we can play. It is hard for me to imagine that "The Nameless One" that will answer with "Hate" has anything in common with the one that will answer with "Love", or "Regret" or "Nothing".

I do agree and I think part of the problem is people seem to talk about how one issue is the main problem, but really its a multitude of similar issues, so it becomes hard to pin down exactly what people want.  Even in this thread I see a lot of people saying that they don't like paraphrasing, but for different reasons so even if BioWare was to come up with a possible solution I just can't see it pleasing the majority of the people here because it doesn't fix what they consider broken.  Using the Human Revolution example, yes they present the full line of dialogue, but I find Adam Jensen to be vastly different then how the protagionist for a BioWare game works, so they might put the full lines of text on the screen, but it still doesn't work for other areas of the games are completely different, it might solve one symptom, but the real cause it still there.

Modifié par Sanunes, 28 janvier 2014 - 09:56 .

[Sir JK]

Dodok wrote...
Actually, there is one to be added here: exaggeration.
Usage of exclamation marks and extension of words make for a great way to indicate sarcasm.
Not to mention including oft seen adjectives into the mix.

"That's a completely and utterly marvelous idea."
"Greeat."
"Oh really now! I'd never have thought JK was such a genius."

Oh, I absolutely agree that there are better ways to write that line/paraphrase. Good suggestions, by the way. I didn't deliberately to illustrate the point

It's debatable, of course, because it's a matter of perspective.
Further clarification, I find, is often just that: clarification.
Some people it'll aid, others it'll hamper. Which is? Yes, a view.

Take for instance this 'aggravation' side effect, have I ever noticed such by reading dialogue-
then hearing it be spoken? No, not really. The thought of 'one size fits all' is ill begat, for me.

Now to continue, I'd like to state that my belief here (like many others) is that I think Bioware should
follow DXHR's example of implementing a tooltip feature, for the actual dialogue lines. For it would
both aid current wheel users and greatly help to bring back some stubborn, dialogue tree old timers.

Of course. I too generally prefer clarification. My point was that a full line does not neccessarily achieve that. There's plenty of tools to be had. And considering the referenced conversation I'd say that given how obvious this solution is chances are Bioware has already tested it.

Why they discarded it as an approach I do not know. But I am fairly certain that they had rather good data behind that decision. One far more reliable than any of our hunches or feelings. I do not think it was a decision made on a whim.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Hmm. Yes, it's also how I communicate. As such it's terribly frustrating for me to be ignored. Because I cannot determine whether I succeeded at communicating or not.

Whereas, I don't think it's possible to determine whether I succeeding at communicating in that way.  Partly because I don't think people's behaviours are terribly meaningful, and partly because I don't think communication is a thing.

Instead, I'm more interested in whether I succeeded at expression or interpretation - the parts of communication that I control.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

And I will ask again, if you can't actually act on that in game, with a dialoue option to state you were a runaway as a teen, or where you came from, or even what you were arrested for, nor if it is ever brought up in game at all for you to express, then what is the point of making a backstory when the game refuses to let you act on that backstory?

I'll answer that with a question.

Without a backstory, how do you decide what your character does next?  How do you know what he wants to do?  How do you know what he likes or dislikes?  How do you make any decisions for him without having a firm grasp of who he is as a person, and what he wants out of life?

Building a coherent backstroy is a vital piece of my gameplay, because without it my character has no motivation to do anything.

I just role chaotic neutral and go in a straight line to wherever it is that takes me, which is ironically riverun. As soon as I talk to someone the game will railroad me into investigative dialouge and a yes or no option for the quest only, so I don't see where the conflict arises. If it were a table top game I would be in trouble, but since it is a video game, it is more or less designed to stop you from doing your own thing and following the programers direction.

[Naesaki]

Sir JK wrote...
 I do not think it was a decision made on a whim.

Yet people no matter what will still be convinced Bioware has no idea what they are doing and are just running around in circles and throwing custard cream pies at each other 

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Whereas, I don't think it's possible to determine whether I succeeding at communicating in that way.  Partly because I don't think people's behaviours are terribly meaningful, and partly because I don't think communication is a thing.

Instead, I'm more interested in whether I succeeded at expression or interpretation - the parts of communication that I control.

I'm firmly convinced that you and I are very different from one another

Naesaki wrote...

Yet
people no matter what will still be convinced Bioware has no idea what
they are doing and are just running around in circles and throwing
custard cream pies at each other [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/bandit.png[/smilie]

Well... as far as theories go... that does sound far more fun than a mountain of statistics. It's also easier to argue against in favour of one's own preferences.

[Sylvius the Mad]

abnocte wrote...

Choice.

The infamous word.

A while back I participated in a discussion here about the wheel vs text list. After a few posts I finally noticed that people meant two different things by "choice".

Ones understood choice as the possible reactions the game would have to dialogue.
The others understood choice as the different character traits they could give to the PC through dialogue.

I always use the same example:

In Planscape:Torment there is a point where your character is asked the following:

What can change the nature of man?

The game gives you over 20 different responses ( all with the tag [Truth] so the player knows that The Nameless One is being sincere ). The events that follow are exactly the same whatever response you give.

So by the first definition of choice, there is none.
But by the second definition of choice we get over 20 different ones. It is hard for me to imagine that "The Nameless One" that will answer with "Hate" has anything in common with the one that will answer with "Love", or "Regret" or "Nothing".

I would actually prefer that moment if the [Truth] indicator were not there.  It should be up to the player to decide whether the Nameless One is answering truthfully.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I just role chaotic neutral and go in a straight line to wherever it is that takes me, which is ironically riverun. As soon as I talk to someone the game will railroad me into investigative dialouge and a yes or no option for the quest only, so I don't see where the conflict arises. If it were a table top game I would be in trouble, but since it is a video game, it is more or less designed to stop you from doing your own thing and following the programers direction.

But why go to Riverwood?  Why not backtrack to Falkeath?  Why not head south to leave Skyrim along the path the prisoner cart carried you?

[Pasquale1234]

Sir JK wrote...

That particular exchange is both fantastic and a special case. Yes, the reaction is the same for all choices there. But the reaction in question makes it work. No matter what you choose, the reaction is an acknowledgement.

It's a True choice to me because it's acknowledged. It's not ignored. Which, as I explained to Sylvius a few posts up, is what's important to me.

I need to have the illusion that they listen to me. I need nothing more. As long as that illusion is maintained, I consider it to be a choice.

The line is acknowledged in the same way regardless of the tone in which it was delivered.

The same is true of the specific example under discussion.

What you are saying is that you want the game to react according to the way your PC delivered a specific line.

What StM and I are saying is that we don't expect to control how others react to our dialogue and actions.  If I can direct my character to say and do things that are in character for her / him, then I am effectively role-playing, regardless of what the rest of the world does.

[javeart]

I get the thing about having options to express yourself, independently of whether or not you get a different reaction... but I sincerely don't understand why would anyone bother to roleplay a different personality if everything it's going to play out in the exact same way... litlle choices here and there to set your character personality are necessary, I agree, but for me choices are fundamentally about consequences

[Cainhurst Crow]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I just role chaotic neutral and go in a straight line to wherever it is that takes me, which is ironically riverun. As soon as I talk to someone the game will railroad me into investigative dialouge and a yes or no option for the quest only, so I don't see where the conflict arises. If it were a table top game I would be in trouble, but since it is a video game, it is more or less designed to stop you from doing your own thing and following the programers direction.

But why go to Riverwood?  Why not backtrack to Falkeath?  Why not head south to leave Skyrim along the path the prisoner cart carried you?

Cause I wasn't facing that direction when I got control of my character. Believe me, I tried to go against the game and follow neither the stormcloak or imperial guy and head out the gate, and I auto-died.

So I just gave up and went along the fixed path the game obviously set up for me. Really it was just doing whatever other characters told me without any feeling or connection of my own. Bascially a personality and history devoid philisophical zombie like the game creators wanted you to play.

[TurretSyndrome]

Problems I found in the conversation system in DA 2.

1)Dialogue Wheel
2)Paraphrases
3)Voiced Protagonist

In my opinion, all three played a role in diminishing player control over the protagonist in their own ways, not just paraphrasing. Therefore, I felt that explaining this is something I need to do, so bear with me.

1)Dialogue Wheel: The dialogue wheel, with it's "emotion system" was one problem. The fact that only one unique line is glued to one emotion, completely removed the ability to choose what we want to say and how we would say it. Basically the player had to hope for the right combination of emotion and phrase, which in my experience very rarely happened.

For example, let's say we have the options, (Diplomatic)Yes, (Sarcastic)Maybe and a (Aggressive)No. This is what I mean by lines being glued to a certain emotion. I mean, there was no way to customize what emotion you want to go with a certain response. For example: (diplomatic)No, or a (Diplomatic)Maybe, a (Sarcastic)No, an (Aggressive)Maybe etc were not possible. This is the reason why I always disliked the dialogue wheel. It simply removes all player control of "how" we want to say things.

2)Paraphrases: Paraphrasing, I think, has a + and a - to it. The advantage of paraphrasing is that you take less time reading what you want to say. That's right. Did you ever notice this while playing DA 2? Atleast at the beginning? I did. I noticed that, from the moment I was given the options to the point where my Hawke finished responding, I spent more time hearing what Hawke said than reading what I want to say through him. This is probably one of the reasons why I think Bioware chose to go the way of paraphrases. It also allowed them to create seamless instances of quick to and fros between Hawke and the one he's talking to. This granted a sort of convenience for the player, or so they thought.

But, there is a cost. Player input. If the dialogue wheel constricted the player on "how" they wanted to say things, paraphrasing took away the ability of freely choosing "what" they wanted to say. Sure, you don't have to spend time reading through the full text of every option presented, like in DA:O, but now you can't really choose precisely what you want your protagonist to say. As Ieldra2 mentioned, at that point, the player is forced to choose what is the safest option, with emotion giving them a hint on what the protagonist is going to say. Once they choose an option, they have to cross their fingers and hope that what the protagonist says, is closer to what they want to say.

Most times, the protagonist won't say what the player wants, either forcing the player to live with it(which I have done during my playthrough of DA2) or skip the entire line of conversations, be exposed to a couple or more spoilers and load the game to a previous state.

With these two in place, the player lost total control over the character. Either the lucky three emotions with their lucky three unique lines fit the role play characteristics of the protagonist of the player, or they didn't. It's like a dice roll, every time you pick an option.

3)Voiced protagonist: Has it's own disadvantage. Voice is picked. A silent protagonist also has, in my opinion, an equally weighted disadvantage; no voice at all. I don't want to debate which is better just from this, so I won't. So besides that, what other disadvantage a voiced protagonist has over a silent one? I say, conversation delay.

OK so this is basically a different take on the whole conversation systems in both DA:O and DA2. Personally, I thought DA:O system worked fine, with what it had to offer, but I think this is one other element we are forgetting.

Did anyone other than me notice the difference in the delay in conversations in DA 2 and DA:O due to the various things that were tried and implemented in both of them? Because, I think this is what it boils down to, regarding why Bioware made certain changes to the conversation system. What I'm talking about is the amount of time we spend during the conversation, and the elements of the conversation system affecting it.

Whenever I see someone mention their dislike of the silent protagonist in DA:O, I frequently read something similar to "I'd rather have a set voice that I can live with, than watching a mute just staring into space" . This is wrong. In DA:O, the Warden only did that when we were choosing the dialogue options. Hawke did the same thing in DA 2, while choosing the dialogue options, he wasn't dancing or anything. The only difference between the both of them was that you got to see Hawke repeat the line you picked, whereas in DA:O the moment you pick the option is the moment, according to the game, your Warden says the line.

For example, you are talking to Leliana, asking her about Bards. If Hawke is your controlled character, the sequence is
1)You pick the line
2)Hawke says the line
3)Leliana responds

Replace Hawke with Warden there and you have
1)You pick the line
2)Leliana responds

See what I mean? This is the hidden advantage I see with silent protagonists. Unfortunately, most people don't see that and play the silent protagonist sequence like this.

1)You pick the line
2)Warden stares off into space for 10 seconds
3)Leliana responds

Now as far as the problem with paraphrasing comes, this is the problem that I see without it. Meaning, if DA:I has no paraphrasing but has a voiced protagonist, this is the sequence.

1)Read the full text of every option presented to you at every instance in the conversation
2)Pick one
3)Wait for protagonist to verbally repeat the chosen option completely
4)Wait for the "talking to" character to finish responding

You can just imagine how much time you're going to spend doing even the smallest conversations with that kind of setting.

Just so you know, I'm not FOR paraphrases. I've always disliked all three parts of the system that I mentioned. I just wanted to point out that certain combinations of the three, especially the no paraphrasing + voiced protagonist, might cause massive gameplay inconvenience.

Do I think it's worth it since I atleast regain control of what I want my character to say? Possibly. It's something that I think I can deal with.

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 28 janvier 2014 - 10:52 .

[Pasquale1234]

@TurretSyndrome - you have a point (several, in fact), but I think some of that could be mitigated by making the voiced lines shorter. IIRC, the Warden's lines were pretty short and direct, whereas Hawke was relatively chatty.

I would suggest that if the voiced lines were shorter, there would be less opportunity to break characters - although it may also detract from the personable PC the writers might be wanting to implement.

[TurretSyndrome]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

 IIRC, the Warden's lines were pretty short and direct, whereas Hawke was relatively chatty.

I would suggest that if the voiced lines were shorter, there would be less opportunity to break characters - although it may also detract from the personable PC the writers might be wanting to implement.

You're right, they were mostly short or medium sized. But I think that's because you had a lot more chances to say something during the conversations in DA:O than in DA 2. In DA 2, once you picked an option, Hawke would auto-handle the rest. In DA:O you were manually choosing every single line. 

Basically, you had a lot more to and fro cycles in DA:O , where you choose a dialogue option after every cycle than in DA 2.

It's true that the problem might be mitigated if the lines were shorter, but that means more lines, and more lines means an easy over-the-budget scenario.

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 28 janvier 2014 - 11:05 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Showing full text, though I'd love for this to happen, simply won't.

Bioware have said again and again they're going for cinematic back-and-forth dialogue where the PC converses with the NPC without allowing the player to click-confirm everything the PC says. Most we could ask for and hope to possibly get is text for the PC's opening sentences, because we're sure as hell not going to get a tree of "This is also what you're going to automatically say after the NPC replies."

It sucks for us who prefer the DA:O approach, but this discussion was done to death months ago. The devs looked into it and decided against it for what sounded like sensible reasons.

You might as well argue against their cinematic dialogue approach for all the good it'll do.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

It still is better than choosing the  sarcasm icon and the misleading paraphrase and find out you mockingly  just insulted someone's recently dead wife. 

The problem isn't just the icon, it's the brand of sarcasm. I'd absolutely insult someone's dead wife in a sarcastic way. The disconnect isn't as much the link between the speech and the icon, but that to some players the line itself couldn't be sarcastic. 

Well, it would have the sarcastic icon if this was DA2. You just wouldn't have a totally clear idea of WHAT you were being sarcastic about at times. 

The line that comes to mind where Hawke made a joke about how a recently found dead woman could possibly still alive, flopping around with just blood and skin, was beyond macabre and  the paraphrase was something innocuous like "she might not be dead." The paraphrase there have no indication that you'd be coming off as a sociopathic maniac, just that you might crack a joke to lighten the tension a little. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Showing full text, though I'd love for this to happen, simply won't.

Bioware have said again and again they're going for cinematic back-and-forth dialogue where the PC converses with the NPC without allowing the player to click-confirm everything the PC says. Most we could ask for and hope to possibly get is text for the PC's opening sentences, because we're sure as hell not going to get a tree of "This is also what you're going to automatically say after the NPC replies."

It sucks for us who prefer the DA:O approach, but this discussion was done to death months ago. The devs looked into it and decided against it for what sounded like sensible reasons.

You might as well argue against their cinematic dialogue approach for all the good it'll do.

Given that the looked at Skyrim and said "open world type games make money, let's chase that even though we have next to no experience doing it" was disheartening, when they could have just as easily said "silent PC with little cinematic interference make money, let's chase that because we've made some of the best critically and gamer received games in the entire industry!"

Maybe I'm just seeing this through a slightly biased lens.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Cause I wasn't facing that direction when I got control of my character. Believe me, I tried to go against the game and follow neither the stormcloak or imperial guy and head out the gate, and I auto-died.

So I just gave up and went along the fixed path the game obviously set up for me. Really it was just doing whatever other characters told me without any feeling or connection of my own. Bascially a personality and history devoid philisophical zombie like the game creators wanted you to play.

So you tried one time, during the game's tutorial, and then just gave up.

I think you just made a good argument for scrapping in-game tutorials.

[Noctis Augustus]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Noctis Augustus wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Noctis Augustus wrote...

I don't understand why they defend voiced protagonists so badly. Skyrim was much more successful than DAO and DA2 combined and it had a silent protagonist. And that game was incredibly oversimplified to pander to the non-RPG players.

Skyrim barely has a protagonist at all.

Skyrim has the protagonist you create.  It can be whatever you'd like.

My last Skyrim character was a Nord girl who'd run away from home as a teenager, who'd then gone on to be a street urchin and then burglar in Cyrodiil.  At the start of the game, she was fleeing Cyrodiil and trying to return home to her parents in Riften.

There are no actual dialogue options in Skyrim.

What are you talking about?  Of course there are.

Thats a nice fanfiction you wrote there but if you cant actually act on thst in game then whats the point at all?

That's called background. And if you seriously don't see the point of "role-playing" in a role-playing game then something is wrong with you.

Is it? Is it roleplaying? Or is it pretending you have a choice in your background when really, the only reason you even can have such fantasies is that the game simply didn't fill that part in nor care enough about it to address it.

The rules of roleplaying that apply when interacting with other sentient, sapient individuals, like in a actual campaign or text based roleplay, don't apply to role playing video games, because of the removal of a conscious outside party in telling the story.

It really is a game where you can't actually roleplay, and more like a choose your own adventure book. And sure, you could roleplay the backstory of the protaganists of said book and make up all the unwritten details, but in the end you are still stuck to picking from options premade for you, and simply following the pre-made paths of the author, not making any choices on your own or having actual impacts on your character outside of what was actually programed.

Or it was purposedly left open for the player to fill in because it's called a role-playing videogame? You see, that's the difference between a game like BG2 or, a more recent example, Skyrim and DA2 in which the latter fits more your point of view.

So your point is? RPVG are much more limited, that's granted. Regardless, it's not impossible to make a decent role-playing video game. You have several games that accomplished that. Baldur's Gate 2 being one of them.

You pick a setting, you create a story that leaves things as open as possible for players to fill in, you program it and done... You've got yourself a decent RPVG. The rest is up to imagination.

If you don't want to do that then don't call it an RPG. It's false advertising.

Modifié par Noctis Augustus, 28 janvier 2014 - 11:54 .