174 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Isn't this already true, though? Roleplaying is a thought experiment. We already approach the game world in ways that don't resemble real world behaviour at all. We casually murder whole species based on the belief that they are "evil". We loot every corpse we find.

Roleplaying games (particularly fantasy roleplaying games) basically always operate according to Blue and Orange morality.

 

That's precisely what the setting does not recognize, however. The looting is an excellent example - because the idea of murdering people for their stuff is considered wrong whereas it is encouraged by the gameplay. 

 

But a better example is the ubiquity of murder as a way to learn. Children would be out in the fields drowning cats for the XP to learn integral calculus if the world corresponded to RPG rules. That alone would create a society so alien as to be wholly inconsistent with the setting. 

[fchopin]

Personally, I'm really glad that DA2 gave Hawke facial expressions. One of the hardest parts for me of playing Origins, was how my Warden's facial expression never changed-- always that vaguely creepy closed-mouth stare even during emotional moments.

The problem with that is if you give them facial expressions then they become set characters and you can not roleplay what you want or imagine the expression you like for your character.

That is why I say voiced dialogue needs a set character or it does not work.

[The Elder King]

The problem with that is if you give them facial expressions then they become set characters and you can not roleplay what you want or imagine the expression you like for your character.That is why I say voiced dialogue needs a set character or it does not work.

While there were only few, there were facial expression in DAO as well. Example, when the HN Warden finds out that his sister-in-law and nephew are dead, or when he met a wounded Bryce, or when he has to leave his parents with Duncan.

[naddaya]

The problem with that is if you give them facial expressions then they become set characters and you can not roleplay what you want or imagine the expression you like for your character.That is why I say voiced dialogue needs a set character or it does not work.

You get to shape your character though. Self inserts are tougher if you like that kind of thing, but I find voiced characters more interesting (provided the voice is good and there's not much autodialogue). You give them directions and create a general personality, but they partially grow on their own and seem more alive than silent ones. I end up being fond of most of my characters for this reason, they're like babies. I found Hawke more likable than the warden.

[Vincent-Vega]

Roleplaying games aren't games at all.

 

The point of a computer roleplaying game, I insist, is to mimic the gameplay of tabletop roleplaying games without the need for other players.  And tabletop roleplaying games are not games.  They are activities, like hiking or stamp collecting.  There's no end point.  There's no victory or defeat.

 

I admit, I'm having a hard time following your argumentation, so maybe I'm off the track here, but that seems to be your "problem". You're trying to make DA into a game it isn't and IMO never was.

DA has always been about strong, independent characters and about telling a story. Taking that away (e.g. by allowing you to control them during conversations) would rob Bioware games of it's biggest strenght.

I know it's a weak comparison, but it would be like joining the Rockstar forum and writing something like: "Yeahh, GTA V is not a bad game, but it has way too much shooting and driving in it."

[wright1978]

Not a fan of forced facial expressions for the PC that can have a very jarring dissonance vs the character being roleplayed. There's a scene in ME3 where shep gets a petrified expression whilst EDI is telling a joke. It was absolutely awful.

[Sylvius the Mad]

no you couldn't. there was never an opinion to choose emotion independent of what was inherit in a dialogue choice in dragon age period...

There was no emotion inherent in the dialogue choices before we got a PC voice.

and no head canon doesn't count, head canon never counts except in fanfics.

Why not?  All roleplaying takes place in the player's head, even in tabletop games.  Everything you understand about other people exists only in your own head.  All of your motives are in your head.  That's the only place any of this can ever be.

[In Exile]

The problem with that is if you give them facial expressions then they become set characters and you can not roleplay what you want or imagine the expression you like for your character.

That is why I say voiced dialogue needs a set character or it does not work.

 

DA:O had a fair number of really incongruous facial expressions, because they broke the otherwise stoic presentation of the PC. Jade Empire even had you smile when you moved your cursor over silent lines of dialogue. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's precisely what the setting does not recognize, however. The looting is an excellent example - because the idea of murdering people for their stuff is considered wrong whereas it is encouraged by the gameplay. 

That it is encouraged by gameplay is evidence that it isn't considered wrong within that setting.  Why do you think it is?

 

While there were only few, there were facial expression in DAO as well. Example, when the HN Warden finds out that his sister-in-law and nephew are dead, or when he met a wounded Bryce, or when he has to leave his parents with Duncan.

And I objected to every one.  I remember complaining about the look of horror on the Warden's face when Daveth died during the Joining.  That shouldn't have been there.

 

You get to shape your character though. Self inserts are tougher if you like that kind of thing, but I find voiced characters more interesting (provided the voice is good and there's not much autodialogue). You give them directions and create a general personality, but they partially grow on their own and seem more alive than silent ones. I end up being fond of most of my characters for this reason, they're like babies. I found Hawke more likable than the warden.

Hawke was basically an NPC.  I never got to know him, and as such I was completely indifferent to him or to the fate of the world in which he lived.  I felt much the same about Shepard.  I didn't care whether Hawke succeeded or failed.  I didn't understand his motives or goals.

 

But I knew the Warden's intimately, because I'd carefully crafted them in excruciating detail (before the game even started).

[In Exile]

That it is encouraged by gameplay is evidence that it isn't considered wrong within that setting.  Why do you think it is?

 

Because we have clear evidence that the gameplay is incongruous with the setting, the best example being the scripted death scenes at Ostagar. Jowry, but especially Duncan and Cailan. Their manner of death is impossible in gameplay. 

[Bob from Accounting]

Have you considered never playing video games? I think that might solve your problem.

[In Exile]

You get to shape your character though. Self inserts are tougher if you like that kind of thing, but I find voiced characters more interesting (provided the voice is good and there's not much autodialogue). You give them directions and create a general personality, but they partially grow on their own and seem more alive than silent ones. I end up being fond of most of my characters for this reason, they're like babies. I found Hawke more likable than the warden.

 

I think it's the opposite. I find a self-insert impossible unless there is VO, because a silent PC makes a huge number of personalities impossible (part because of how the language works) and part because of how passive Bioware likes to make their silent PCs vs. their voiced PCs. Not to mention how much information Bioware hides with a silent PC compared to VO. 

[The Elder King]

[/quote]

And I objected to every one.  I remember complaining about the look of horror on the Warden's face when Daveth died during the Joining.  That shouldn't have been here.

I was mostly referring to the fact that with voiced PCs we got forced facial expressions. I'm against them as it force the character to express a certain emotion (regardless of the fact that they could fit some of my characters), but it's something Bioware did from the start of the IP, with a silent protagonist.
I hope that with the reaction wheel this situation will be solved.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Because we have clear evidence that the gameplay is incongruous with the setting, the best example being the scripted death scenes at Ostagar. Jowry, but especially Duncan and Cailan. Their manner of death is impossible in gameplay. 

We're talking about different things.  I'm talking about the possibility of designing a game that isn't incongruent in this way.  At no point did I claim that DAO passed this test.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think it's the opposite. I find a self-insert impossible unless there is VO, because a silent PC makes a huge number of personalities impossible (part because of how the language works) and part because of how passive Bioware likes to make their silent PCs vs. their voiced PCs. Not to mention how much information Bioware hides with a silent PC compared to VO. 

That information isn't hidden.  It's not there at all.

[In Exile]

We're talking about different things.  I'm talking about the possibility of designing a game that isn't incongruent in this way.  At no point did I claim that DAO passed this test.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood your phrasing. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "That it is encouraged by gameplay is evidence that it isn't considered wrong within that setting. ". 

[JadePrince]

I guess it just comes down to different players wanting different things. Some of us want a total blank slate, no voice, no expressions, so we can imagine/insert whatever we want into those moments. And some of us want the character to feel a little more alive, to have a voice and expressions even if they might not be 100% under the player's control at all time. 

 

Personally, I liked how DA2 handled it, where Hawke's reactions/expressions were dependent on 2 things: 1)Whatever dialogue option you chose. In these instances, you WERE choosing his expressions, because the tone/mood of the dialogue came with an expression that fit that tone. And 2)in cutscenes where you weren't actively controlling Hawke, his expressions/reactions were largely dependent on what type of Hawke you'd been playing-- diplomatic, charming/sarcastic, or aggressive. So in a sense, you HAD shaped the character, and the engine was just carrying on with the type of Hawke you'd been playing. Sure it wasn't perfect, but all in all, for me, those moments took me out of the narrative/out of the moment LESS than when I played my Warden (especially during romance stuff-- like wow, my Warden was a total cold fish. Not even a little smile when you tell someone how you feel about them? Creepy). It made the times my Warden DID have those couple of expressions feel really odd and out of place with the rest. 

 

But again, it all just comes down to personal preference. I'm not going to be able to convince someone who hates not having 100% total player control that the way DA2 did it is best, and they aren't going to be able to convince me that it's a bad thing to sacrifice some control for the sake of playing a character who feels alive, who feels like they're really truly ENGAGING with the other characters.

[naddaya]

I think it's the opposite. I find a self-insert impossible unless there is VO, because a silent PC makes a huge number of personalities impossible (part because of how the language works) and part because of how passive Bioware likes to make their silent PCs vs. their voiced PCs. Not to mention how much information Bioware hides with a silent PC compared to VO. 

 

There are usually fewer dialogue choices with a voiced protagonist, and they're paraphrased. His personality is more defined, his voice isn't yours, it seems more difficult to me for a player to identify with him. I'm not a fan of self-inserts though, so I've never even tried, it might work for some people.

 

Hawke was basically an NPC.  I never got to know him, and as such I was completely indifferent to him or to the fate of the world in which he lived.  I felt much the same about Shepard.  I didn't care whether Hawke succeeded or failed.  I didn't understand his motives or goals.

 

But I knew the Warden's intimately, because I'd carefully crafted them in excruciating detail (before the game even started).

 

I didn't feel attached to Shepard either, but because of how much autodialogue and railroading they added in ME2 and ME3. It's not really about the protagonist being voiced, it's about how much choice they give you in shaping him anyway.

 

I think they did a fine job with Hawke because I could relate to her. She came out fairly complex because I didn't stick to a single voice, she was mainly snarky but it varied depending on the situation. I liked her deadpan humor, her strength, her bickering with Carver, her snapping at her mother and friends out of frustration only to feel guilty about it. I liked her responses and I felt like I understood her. But that's me. I got lucky because I found the personality they let me create appealing, but there were fewer choices with Hawke than with the warden.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sorry, I misunderstood your phrasing. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "That it is encouraged by gameplay is evidence that it isn't considered wrong within that setting. ". 

If it's considered wrong within the setting, we should see some disincentive to do it.  We don't.  People are happy to buy things we looted from corpses.  There are whole quests about looting corpses.

 

Why do you think it's considered wrong within the setting?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think they did a fine job with Hawke because I could relate to her. She came out fairly complex because I didn't stick to a single voice, she was mainly snarky but it varied depending on the situation. I liked her deadpan humor, her strength, her bickering with Carver, her snapping at her mother and friends out of frustration only to feel guilty about it. I liked her responses and I felt like I understood her. But that's me. I got lucky because I found the personality they let me create appealing, but there were fewer choices with Hawke than with the warden.

When I choose a dialogue option, I determine exactly why my character is saying that.  I need to know that before I select the option in order to know that it's the right option.  And also so that I can be in my character's frame of mind to interpret any reaction in real time.

 

With the paraphrases, I couldn't tell what my character was going to say.  Any effort on my part to determine why she was saying it was usually ruined by the actual thing she said (which was incompatible with my very specific motives).

 

My characters don't come out complex.  They start complex, and then I model that complexity through their choices during the game.  I can't be getting to know my character during the game, because that means I didn't know her well enough at the start to be able to make choices on her behalf.

[In Exile]

There are usually fewer dialogue choices with a voiced protagonist, and they're paraphrased. His personality is more defined, his voice isn't yours, it seems more difficult to me for a player to identify with him. I'm not a fan of self-inserts though, so I've never even tried, it might work for some people.

This is side-tracking the conversation, but suffice it to say that I disagree that (a) it is possible to have your own voice in a game or ( that voice-over changes how defined the character is, because that's a result of the writing and the dialogue options. Self-interests are not about pretending that a line was said in some particular tone despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

[In Exile]

If it's considered wrong within the setting, we should see some disincentive to do it.  We don't.  People are happy to buy things we looted from corpses.  There are whole quests about looting corpses.

 

Why do you think it's considered wrong within the setting?

 

IRL, disincentives come from social organization. There's no metaphysical force that stops you from committing theft, for example. It is the combination of laws and law enforcement that does that. This is the problem that exists in Skyrim and other TES games - because there is no functional system of law enforcement, there exists no actual penalty or deterrent for criminal behaviour, making the complexity of that society in light of any rule of law principle impossible and incoherent. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

I would disagree and suggest that IRL people start out fairly simple, making blanket broad-sweeping choices, and over time as they discover themselves their choices change, gain a nuance. This happens to everyone (I recall your statements about a circumstance or moment in your life where you changed your logical direction to what it currently is).

Yes, but I'd like to play a character who has already passed that stage of development.

[Sylvius the Mad]

IRL, disincentives come from social organization. There's no metaphysical force that stops you from committing theft, for example. It is the combination of laws and law enforcement that does that. This is the problem that exists in Skyrim and other TES games - because there is no functional system of law enforcement, there exists no actual penalty or deterrent for criminal behaviour, making the complexity of that society in light of any rule of law principle impossible and incoherent. 

And shared morality.  If there's a shared morality that discourages theft, theft will be uncommon (there's actually good empirical data for this - people who believe in a retributive deity are less likely to steal things).  Then, if your character doesn't share that morality, you can steal things.