77 réponses à ce sujet

[aTigerslunch]

I keep picturing a civil war canon rolling out and laying over top of a head. And it fires....of course small enough to sit on your head with no issues.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That doesn't mean it's factual.

What does "factual" even mean in this context? We're talking about a fictional world; none of it is factual. The reality you imagine might be different from the one I imagine, but they're both equally real (in that neither one is real at all).

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is not the game design bioware is going for. Roleplaying in video game rpgs has an imagination to implementation spectrum. The more you imagine, it is likely the less things were implemented cause you have to cater for all the things that could not be implemented in the game.

It doesn't matter what BioWare is "going for". All that matters is what actually gets implemented. BioWare's intent has never been relevant.

If there is space in the game for me to roleplay, I will roleplay, regardless of whether BioWare intended me to do so, and even regardless of whether BioWare intended to leave that space (even for another purpose).

It is because I so thoroughly reject authorial intent that I even deny the existence of exploits. There's no such thing as an exploit; there is merely gameplay - some of it emergent. And roleplaying is merely a type of gameplay.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Factual might mean it exists in the game world.

 

The only emotions your Warden had in the game world in DA: O were those few occasions where the character made that horrible face (like when Wynne falls during her random encounter).

 

If someone else watching observes it, you might call it "factual."

You and David are both making the implicit assertion that there is such a thing as an objective in-game reality.  I would be interested to see either of you support that assertion.

 

I do not accept that as true.  I will not without cause.

[spirosz]

Factual might mean it exists in the game world.

 

The only emotions your Warden had in the game world in DA: O were those few occasions where the character made that horrible face (like when Wynne falls during her random encounter).

 

If someone else watching observes it, you might call it "factual."

 

Yep. 

[spirosz]

I do not accept that as true.  I will not without cause.

 

And that is fine.  Just don't expect it to hold weight in regards to your outlook compared to others. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not sure how you support that assertion outside of the fact that "I see it," which would be an argument except for the assertion that we see anything.

 

Solipsism ruins everything, Sylvius.

 

But if we ignore solipsism, then that's what I would say. It is observable by others experiencing the same content.

Others can't experience the same content without reading my mind.

 

And solipsism is an overreach.  You can't be sure even that your own mind exists.

 

edit: Wait, what do you think these games are?  Do you honestly think that you're not expected to provide anything to the character?  That everything that matters about your character will be provided by the game?

 

You must have really hated the silent protagonist games.  How about earlier CRPGs, without cinematics at all?  Or text-based CRPGs?

[Lady Nuggins]

Sine I have many years of experience playing characters who were never rendered in detail on a screen where I could see them (either in pre-cinematic CRPGs or in tabletop games), I have no trouble doing the same in cinematic games. That my character is never shown to emote on screen does not mean that he never emotes. I simply headcanon those emotions as I always have. From a roleplaying point of view, nothing has changed.

 

In this particular situation, though, the protagonist's lack of emotion actually overrode any opportunity I could have had to imagine emotion in its place.  She inappropriately gloated over the fight (shouting the same catchphrases like she always does, but here it was highly out of place), and then acted like nothing happened.  I can and do insert my own ideas of what my character does when she's off-screen, but when she's on screen and doing absolutely nothing, the visuals override that.  I can't pretend she's not staring blankly into space while everyone around her is acting like a living person.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

In this particular situation, though, the protagonist's lack of emotion actually overrode any opportunity I could have had to imagine emotion in its place.  She inappropriately gloated over the fight (shouting the same catchphrases like she always does, but here it was highly out of place), and then acted like nothing happened.  I can and do insert my own ideas of what my character does when she's off-screen, but when she's on screen and doing absolutely nothing, the visuals override that.  I can't pretend she's not staring blankly into space while everyone around her is acting like a living person.  

I would like to say that I do exactly that, but I mostly don't.  I think standing blankly is a perfectly appropriate thing for people to do.  I like to play stoic, cerebral characters.

 

To me, what makes my characters interesting and distinct from each other isn't their emotions, but their ideas.  Roleplaying, for me, is a largely intellectual exercise (like most things I do).

[DooomCookie]

Why do people want to give their inquisitors emotions like this?  Mass Effect is a different series to Dragon Age with a different team and is (ideologically, I feel) more linear and Shepard is more of a set character.  Dragon Age is a classic RPG: your character should be anything you want them to be and not every player will want their character to be stressed.

[In Exile]

I would like to say that I do exactly that, but I mostly don't.  I think standing blankly is a perfectly appropriate thing for people to do.  I like to play stoic, cerebral characters.

 

To me, what makes my characters interesting and distinct from each other isn't their emotions, but their ideas.  Roleplaying, for me, is a largely intellectual exercise (like most things I do).

 

Even if blank staring were appropriate, it still leaves the problem that this is not a state people would always like to exhibit. 

[naddaya]

Besides, there's stares and stares. Iris texture/eyebrows emoting/little eye movements can make a big difference. The Warden's gaze was more about "I'm on heavy drugs and I haven't pooped in two weeks" than "I'm calmly and stoically considering the situation".

[AlanC9]

You and David are both making the implicit assertion that there is such a thing as an objective in-game reality.  I would be interested to see either of you support that assertion.
 
I do not accept that as true.  I will not without cause.

One might also assert that the devs' own interpretation of the game-world is privileged, and personal interpretations are better or worse depending on how closely they approximate that interpretation. Sort of the way Clarence Thomas approaches the Constitution.

[Vallasch]

Why do people want to give their inquisitors emotions like this?  Mass Effect is a different series to Dragon Age with a different team and is (ideologically, I feel) more linear and Shepard is more of a set character.  Dragon Age is a classic RPG: your character should be anything you want them to be and not every player will want their character to be stressed.

 

You have somewhat answered your own question. Personally, my desire to see a character become stressed is a desire for them to appear fallible and therefore human.

 

Anyhow, this thread has become a hot topic, but largely, I feel, for the wrong reason. Note that my subject title was the, "Possibility" of having a character exhibit stress in regard to their situation. ME3 was given as an example of its representation rather than implementation. Apologies if anyone perceived it to mean that such a reaction should be mandatory. A reaction wheel sounds like it can only be a good thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

One might also assert that the devs' own interpretation of the game-world is privileged, and personal interpretations are better or worse depending on how closely they approximate that interpretation. Sort of the way Clarence Thomas approaches the Constitution.

One can assert that, sure. But without support, the assertion is valueless (much like Justice Thomas's).

Why should any given player care about the devs' interpretation?

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Game Dev's vision is the most important driving force behind the design of the game. The devs might get outside opinion but in a more general sense most of these choices are influenced by the devs outlook on what the game should be like.

Shows many parallels with film and auteur theory

But that parallel isn't relevant. No one is denying that the developers' vision drives the games development. The question is whether that vision need constrain interpretation of the finished product.

[The Hierophant]

So long as this is optional.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Even if blank staring were appropriate, it still leaves the problem that this is not a state people would always like to exhibit.

Granted. But as I do quote like it, I would like the blank stare to remain an option.

Thw developers should not assume that everyone perceives the blank stare as a suboptimal response. The blank stare is exactly what I want most of the time. Even IRL, the blank stare is a powerful tool because it doesn't convey anything.