1638 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

Sure the impact of a character dying remains as part of the story, but the impact as a choice seems significantly reduced, as no alternative is presented. And if there is no real alternative, is there a real choice? And if it is not, was there even need to present it as a choice?

Although this may sound rather contradictory to the rest of my posts that's not necessarily a bad choice. If the player doesn't care at all for either Ashley or Kaidan so they may as well have tossed a coin then it's a pointless choice. If it leaves them wondering if they've got someone killed just to save the character they liked then it's somewhat more meaningful. I think such choices can work as long as the player doesn't feel like "This is only happening because the writers wanted DRAMA!"

 

IIRC on my first playthrough I saved Kaidan because he was on the bomb (being more technical) and the bomb was the mission, so needed defending. I was trying to be purely pragmatic.

[vallore]

Although this may sound rather contradictory to the rest of my posts that's not necessarily a bad choice. If the player doesn't care at all for either Ashley or Kaidan so they may as well have tossed a coin then it's a pointless choice. If it leaves them wondering if they've got someone killed just to save the character they liked then it's somewhat more meaningful. I think such choices can work as long as the player doesn't feel like "This is only happening because the writers wanted DRAMA!"

 

IIRC on my first playthrough I saved Kaidan because he was on the bomb (being more technical) and the bomb was the mission, so needed defending. I was trying to be purely pragmatic.

 

Interesting; in my own first playthrough I saved Kaiden because he was on a roof with a squad of Salarians, and that Shepard would try to save as many as she could. The interesting bit is that, while our choices were different, they were similar in that they were secondary to the dilemma proper being presented by the writer; (possibly not their goal, imo).

 

Of course, assuming that the goal was actually to have the player feel the weight of life-and-death decisions, a dissimilar pair of options would likely turn the focus back in choosing if a companion lives or dies.

 

For instance, if the choice was between saving a companion whose position was being overrun or capturing/killing Saren, it would create a classic dilemma between loyalty to one’s brother’s-in-arms/friendship/love vs. duty to the mission, and the potential negative consequences of that choice, (that could be explored by the game for either case).

 

So, by other words, I’m dissociating the effectiveness of Vermire choice, from a story point of view, from it’s effectiveness as a RPG choice.

[Reorte]

For instance, if the choice was between saving a companion whose position was being overrun or capturing/killing Saren, it would create a classic dilemma between loyalty to one’s brother’s-in-arms/friendship/love vs. duty to the mission, and the potential negative consequences of that choice, (that could be explored by the game for either case).

That would however very quickly run into my "feeling contrived" problem. Whilst it's possible to pull it off it it's hard to do that sort of thing without it feeling like the writer is simply being cruel; it's one of those situations which might very well have turned out differently if I'd done something that I plausibly could've done differently five minutes earlier, but the game never gave me that choice.

[vallore]

That would however very quickly run into my "feeling contrived" problem. Whilst it's possible to pull it off it it's hard to do that sort of thing without it feeling like the writer is simply being cruel; it's one of those situations which might very well have turned out differently if I'd done something that I plausibly could've done differently five minutes earlier, but the game never gave me that choice.

 

Well, the choice I presented is more in line with a different type of story; one about compromises, hard choices and human limitations. Imo, ME was not really ALL about hard choices in the first place, but rather a game that offers us the chance to decide what kind of story we want to play:

 

A story about a character that makes hard, pragmatic decisions, or a story of a greater-than –life hero that makes the right decisions, without ever compromising her morals… or a story in between those two.

 

Regardless, the point I was making was about that the impact of choice benefits from being the result of significantly different options, as opposed to providing options that end up feeling almost the same, as these options end up becoming secondary in the actual decision making.

[AlanC9]

 

In my experience, there is a very fundamental difference between RPGs and other games, or movies, etc. (Concerning player perspective and control). What may work in a story, presented in, say, a movie, (or even in a non-RPG game), my not work that well, (if at all), if the same story is presented as an RPG.

 

Why wouldn't it work. I agree that RPGs put the player in a different emotional space, since you feel responsibility for the PC in a way you sometimes don't in other genres. But I don't see how we get from there to some plots not working.

[Reorte]

Why wouldn't it work. I agree that RPGs put the player in a different emotional space, since you feel responsibility for the PC in a way you sometimes don't in other genres. But I don't see how we get from there to some plots not working.

 

Back to the impact of choices. A plot that relies heavily on a particular choice being made that could've reasonably been made differently is going to be a struggle for an RPG.

[AlanC9]

Only if the PC made that choice. Which I suppose does rule out Aristotelian tragedy, but that's about it.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Were half-life 2, or Heavy Rain RPGs ?

 

 I ask as I have not played them.

 

In my experience, there is a very fundamental difference between RPGs and other games, or movies, etc. (Concerning player perspective and control). What may work in a story, presented in, say, a movie, (or even in a non-RPG game), my not work that well, (if at all), if the same story is presented as an RPG.

 

Depending on whom you talk to, you'll see people refer to Heavy Rain as an RPG. Half-Life 2, while an amazing game, is an FPS.

 

The key difference between an RPG and film (as I see it) lies in the interactivity. But I think a lot of people make a huge mistake in how limited their interpretation of interactivity is. Take for example the claim that forced choices (any choice) turns a game into a movie. The key difference between the two genres is not even that games can make the player feel like all-powerful, but that the player has an in-character perspective into the world.

 

Feeling helpless in a video game (for myself at least) still feels completely different from helplessness in film, because I'm denied that in-character perspective from which to view the world.

 

All that said, I certainly don't see anything wrong with games incorporating cinematics, which are basically short films, provided that they're enjoyable.

[Reorte]

Do you want to be able to be the protagonist, or just shape him to a degree? Come to think of it (and I'm not sure if this is relevent or not) do you prefer first or third person views?

[vallore]

Why wouldn't it work. I agree that RPGs put the player in a different emotional space, since you feel responsibility for the PC in a way you sometimes don't in other genres. But I don't see how we get from there to some plots not working.

 

Even if the story of a given movie and an RPG are the same, I would argue they are still perceived differently, because requirements, perspective and priorities of the audience and player  are likely different.

 

Back to ME, using the  Vermire example, (even if it is far from the most appropriate to illustrate the point):

 

while the choice scene was not a source of frustration for me, (far from it), it neither had the impact that I (assume) was intended by the author. Why?

 

Since I would lose a character regardless, I focused in what was different:  

 

The group of salarians vs the bomb.

 

Now, if I was watching it in a movie, I would likely have focused in the drama of the loss of the companion, as in a movie there is no choice for me to make. Audience choice is a non existent issue in a movie.

 

But since my perspective as player is different, (and choice is a fundamental part of the RPG experience), I focused in what I could actually change. Because this, my perception of the incident is not the same as a player and as part of an audience, neither are my expectations. In this case, the result was a diminishment of the impact (supposedly) intended by the author.

 

 Imo, this is one of the reasons why it is relevant to provide clearly different options when the player is prompt to make a relevant choice; otherwise there is a substantial risk the player will naturally focus in what is secondary but changeable, instead of what was intended to be primary but offers little opportunity for choice. The scene then loses some of the intended impact.

 

Of course, this is just a part of the problem.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Do you want to be able to be the protagonist, or just shape him to a degree? Come to think of it (and I'm not sure if this is relevent or not) do you prefer first or third person views?

 

Both, depending on the game.

[vallore]

Depending on whom you talk to, you'll see people refer to Heavy Rain as an RPG. Half-Life 2, while an amazing game, is an FPS.

 

The key difference between an RPG and film (as I see it) lies in the interactivity. But I think a lot of people make a huge mistake in how limited their interpretation of interactivity is. Take for example the claim that forced choices (any choice) turns a game into a movie. The key difference between the two genres is not even that games can make the player feel like all-powerful, but that the player has an in-character perspective into the world.

 

Feeling helpless in a video game (for myself at least) still feels completely different from helplessness in film, because I'm denied that in-character perspective from which to view the world.

 

All that said, I certainly don't see anything wrong with games incorporating cinematics, which are basically short films, provided that they're enjoyable.

 

I don’t think it is a mistake, rather a matter of goals and reasonable expectations.  Personally, when I role play I expect a number of things that I would not expect from a movie.

 

You speak of perspective, and so will I, but my take on it seems to be significantly different:

 

In a movie I’m part of an audience. My perspective is external to the story. No character is mine, to whatever degree.  I may guess what one will do, and feel empathy for that character, but my perspective is not hers.

 

In an RPG I’m within the story, living it through the eyes of a character, (even if I choose to make the character completely distinct from me, as often is the case).

 

To a significant degree, that character is mine, even if the author wrote what that character can say and do in the first place.  Because it is up to me to decide: what potential action becomes an actual action, and why. The author is responsible for the explicit component of the story but, at least in relation to a specific character, I add a layer of implicit depth of my own.

 

But what happens when the writer decides to take away this (illusion of) control he allowed the player, (regarding her own character) before?

 

At best nothing. The player may not even notice it much, (if it is reasonably in tune with what the player would choose). But at worse it can be easily game-breaking.  And it can easily have very negative consequences.

 

At worse, the illusion of control is broken, not only in regard to a scene but in regard to the entire game. When that happens, the perspective of the player changes: from participant, from within the story, to passive audience, from outside the story.  

 

But the player expectations were not the same from our movie audience in the first place, and she already invested considerable time and creativity in fleshing her character. All of it was now discarded by the change of perspective.

 

So, imo, it is not really about having a super character, but rather of seeing our investment in the story as a (lesser) co-creator rewarded, or lost.

[AlanC9]

Since I would lose a character regardless, I focused in what was different:  
 
The group of salarians vs the bomb.
 
Now, if I was watching it in a movie, I would likely have focused in the drama of the loss of the companion, as in a movie there is no choice for me to make. Audience choice is a non existent issue in a movie.

But in an RP sense, you're doing the right thing; Shepard should be thinking about the mission too. The real problem with this choice is that focusing on salarians vs. bomb doesn't do anything since the choice doesn't actually affect them.

If anything, an RPG is a superior way to experience that decision.

[CronoDragoon]

Do you want to be able to be the protagonist, or just shape him to a degree? Come to think of it (and I'm not sure if this is relevent or not) do you prefer first or third person views?

 

Interesting question. Myself I always prefer to shape a character that is already somewhat predefined. I find it more enjoyable and fulfilling than simply trying to inject myself into the character. Why? For one, I'm always bound to be disappointed by the inescapable limitations of a cyber space designed by someone else. Perhaps when the (far in the future) day comes that I can simply say something, anything, I want, and have the characters in the world react to it appropriately, I'll buy the whole "this character is me" thing.

 

This is probably why I'm fine with ME3 auto-dialogue. Flavor wheels still exist, and your choices therein will define some of the auto-dialogue flavor, but the important thing is that all the choices are still mine to make. As to the exact personality? I've always seen this as a willful delusion by players (not that I have any scorn for it or anything, after all it's their game to enjoy how they see fit). But I also have less sympathy than perhaps others would when that delusion is exposed as such.

 

As for the third vs. first, I prefer third but mostly because I always want to see my awesome character design and (mostly) badass armor. I spend way too much time playing fashionista at the weapons locker.

[wright1978]

Do you want to be able to be the protagonist, or just shape him to a degree? Come to think of it (and I'm not sure if this is relevent or not) do you prefer first or third person views?

 

It's about control over the protaganist's characterisation for me. It can be a sliding scale of control but once you reach the tipping point it stops being my character.

[vallore]

But in an RP sense, you're doing the right thing; Shepard should be thinking about the mission too. The real problem with this choice is that focusing on salarians vs. bomb doesn't do anything since the choice doesn't actually affect them.

If anything, an RPG is a superior way to experience that decision.

 

But I wasn’t doing the intended thing. That it worked was likely fortuitous.  I still assume the scene was supposedly to be felt more as a personal drama of the character, and at that level Vermire can easily fail because the reason I posted earlier.

 

It worked only in the sense that there was a secondary choice available, (possibly not even intended by the author, as you noticed).  And because said secondary choice fit the type of particular story being told, (and that could easily not be the case). 

 

But what if the secondary choice didn’t fit? Or what if there was no secondary choice available?

 

Then it would have failed, bad.

[vallore]

Interesting question. Myself I always prefer to shape a character that is already somewhat predefined. I find it more enjoyable and fulfilling than simply trying to inject myself into the character. Why? For one, I'm always bound to be disappointed by the inescapable limitations of a cyber space designed by someone else. Perhaps when the (far in the future) day comes that I can simply say something, anything, I want, and have the characters in the world react to it appropriately, I'll buy the whole "this character is me" thing.

 

This is probably why I'm fine with ME3 auto-dialogue. Flavor wheels still exist, and your choices therein will define some of the auto-dialogue flavor, but the important thing is that all the choices are still mine to make. As to the exact personality? I've always seen this as a willful delusion by players (not that I have any scorn for it or anything, after all it's their game to enjoy how they see fit). But I also have less sympathy than perhaps others would when that delusion is exposed as such.

 

As for the third vs. first, I prefer third but mostly because I always want to see my awesome character design and (mostly) badass armor. I spend way too much time playing fashionista at the weapons locker.

 

Why is it a delusion?

 

A story imposes limitations about who our character can be.  But you will notice that, in general, good RPGs provide consistent type of choices during the story. Those allow you to pick why the character is doing what she is doing, and remain consistent with previous choices, not violating the chosen personality.  It is as much a choice as any other, limited as any other.

 

The problem arises when the game suddenly breaks the rules the author himself created; forcing the player to make inconsistent choices with what the game provided them before.

[CronoDragoon]

Why is it a delusion?

 

A story imposes limitations about who our character can be.  But you will notice that, in general, good RPGs provide consistent type of choices during the story. Those allow you to pick why the character is doing what she is doing, and remain consistent with previous choices, not violating the chosen personality.  It is as much a choice as any other, limited as any other.

 

Sure, so long as you have one of the few chosen personalities that work with the dialogue given. A great example of this is ME2. Destroying the Collector Base works for a lot of personalities. Shepard giving the reasoning as "I'm not going to sacrifice the soul of our species" does not.

[AlanC9]

But I wasn’t doing the intended thing. That it worked was likely fortuitous. I still assume the scene was supposedly to be felt more as a personal drama of the character, and at that level Vermire can easily fail because the reason I posted earlier.

OK, but then we need a better example; if Virmire really was there to do what you say it was, then it was trying to do a bad thing -- prioritizing personal drama over the reality of the situation -- in a bad way, and the fact that it failed to do that thing isn't of much significance.

Unless your point is that Virmire was trying to do a good thing?

[AlanC9]

Sure, so long as you have one of the few chosen personalities that work with the dialogue given. A great example of this is ME2. Destroying the Collector Base works for a lot of personalities. Shepard giving the reasoning as "I'm not going to sacrifice the soul of our species" does not.

I'm going to channel Sylvius the Mad for a second and point out that this could theoretically be avoided by never having the PC explain his reasons for doing anything. But this approach has its own costs, which I don't believe are generally worth paying.

[CronoDragoon]

I'm going to channel Sylvius the Mad for a second and point out that this could theoretically be avoided by never having the PC explain his reasons for doing anything. But this approach has its own costs, which I don't believe are generally worth paying.

 

I agree that's a hypothetical counterpoint, but what RPGs have done this? Further, what recent RPGs? Very few if any it seems to me, probably because they agree that it does the story more harm than good.

[Iakus]

I agree that's a hypothetical counterpoint, but what RPGs have done this? Further, what recent RPGs? Very few if any it seems to me, probably because they agree that it does the story more harm than good.

You know, it's funny, I recently completed Dragonfall, the exansion to Shadowrun Returns.

 

Near the end, someone asks the NPC a hypothetical question:  if the player could perform a certain morally questionable act without the risk of collateral damage, would you do it?  There are actually several different "yes" or "no" answers, giving reasons why you answered as you did.  Granted this is only a part of a conversation, it doesn't lead to any definitive action.  But it does let you expand on your character's personlity.

 

At the moment I was confronted with the question, though, I found myself thinking "If this was ME3, I'd just have a < shaped 'wheel' with a set response followed by autodialogue"

 

It makes you think about what is given up for the sake of voiced protagonists.

[Jorji Costava]

I'm going to channel Sylvius the Mad for a second and point out that this could theoretically be avoided by never having the PC explain his reasons for doing anything. But this approach has its own costs, which I don't believe are generally worth paying.

 

Pretty much in agreement here. To write PCs in such a way that they never explain their reasons for anything is already to impose certain characteristics on those PCs; namely, that they are taciturn, or secretive about their reasons for acting, etc. And if you don't want to play that type of character, you're pretty much SOL. In general, I'm skeptical that there's any such thing as a true 'blank slate' PC.

[CronoDragoon]

It makes you think about what is given up for the sake of voiced protagonists.

 

Oh I've thought about it, and concluded that voiced is the way to go. Besides the fact that the dialogue wheel (in theory, and better represented in DA2 ironically) offers the chance for more dialogue options than the DA Origins system does (which sort of underlines how your point only reflects how ME3 in particular refuses to give a lot of dialogue options, and that the whole voiced/dialogue wheel thing aren't really to blame) I also just now find it awkward talking to voiced companions as a silent protagonist. I'm constantly being made aware of the fiction of the entire situation by how unrealistically the conversations progress.

 

What I think is a more interesting question is whether voice acting in general improves the experience of video games. I'd have to say yes simply because of how advanced everything else has become technically in current-day games, however for old-school games like PSX RPGs I absolutely think the experience would be lessened by voice-acting.

[Reorte]

Oh I've thought about it, and concluded that voiced is the way to go. Besides the fact that the dialogue wheel (in theory, and better represented in DA2 ironically) offers the chance for more dialogue options than the DA Origins system does (which sort of underlines how your point only reflects how ME3 in particular refuses to give a lot of dialogue options, and that the whole voiced/dialogue wheel thing aren't really to blame) I also just now find it awkward talking to voiced companions as a silent protagonist. I'm constantly being made aware of the fiction of the entire situation by how unrealistically the conversations progress.

 

What I think is a more interesting question is whether voice acting in general improves the experience of video games. I'd have to say yes simply because of how advanced everything else has become technically in current-day games, however for old-school games like PSX RPGs I absolutely think the experience would be lessened by voice-acting.

DA:O loses a lot without a voiced protagonist - my Warden is pretty much a nonentity as a result. Oddly enough I don't feel quite the same in TES games.