371 réponses à ce sujet

[Giantdeathrobot]

Metacritic is not a good source, remember reviews are not made in a vacuum, the time the games existed should be in account, as are the tastes and technology used back then. Favorable opinions are still simply opinions, they may form a consensus but that can change over time. For example, a movie like Casablanca was hated back in the 1940s, but has now become a classic because of changing opinons. Reevaluation happens all the time, so just because its heralded now, doesn't mean it will be later. 

 

Planescape Torment had a very good story. It also had a weak UI and mediocre combat, the saving grace was the fact that you can talk your way out of most situations in Planescape, except the Mordon Cube...**** that level. A great story makes it a great game, but every great games has flaws to it, which make it difficult to name as perfect by everyone.

 

Very much this. 

 

Metacritic is a horrible source. It's a very flawed system that only takes the means of scores with no context. I also disagree the collective opinion of a handful of guys on the internet credibly speak for the quality of a game, as if quality was measurable on a metric to begin with.

 

Planescape was indeed a great game and one of my favorite RPGs in history. But that was because the story and setting were amazing, far above and beyond any Infinity Engine game. The combat was mediocre, the UI poor, and the gameplay systems even more limiting than Inquisition's (the horror!).

[bEVEsthda]

Wouldn't that always be true for everyone?

I don't control the NPCs, so I don't have intentions with regard to their behaviour. Literally everything they could ever do would be something I didn't intend.

 

I'm not sure I'm following you here, or if there are some words missing?

 

Are you saying that everyone is always understood in a way that was not intended?  ...Well, that does seem like hard-lining things in a manner that I'm not sure is meaningful?

 

Why would one speak at all, if one didn't had some kind of intention as to the words effect?

But yes, you do not control the NPCs. What is there further to understand about that?

[UniformGreyColor]

@Sylvius the Mad, I really hate to say this man, but I think you're stuck in the dark ages.

[PhroXenGold]

This is where we disagree. I think the NPC responses tell us nothing about what tone was used by the line. There is no meaningful relationship between the tone of the line and the visible reaction it elicits.

Whatever the NPC reaction, all it does is tell me about the NPC. And that's valuable, but it does not require we have any knowledge of the tone beyond that which we invent.

Furthermore, this means we ger different NPCs each playthrough. In this playthrough, Leliana responds a certain way to stimulus A. That tells us something about her. But on the next playthrough, she responds the same way to stimulus B. That tells us something different, and possibly contradictory, about her. This means that not only can the PC be a different person from playthrough to playthrough, but so can all of the characters.
Except it can't happen if you control the tone, which you do with the silent protagonist.

 

Except you do not control the tone of the silent protagonist. You might imagine you do, but no matter what you imagine, the game does not care not does it react to you imagining the tone differently.

 

The NPC aren't reacting differently, they react exactly the same to a piece of dialogue not matter how you imagine saying it.

 

How about the inability to correct yourself after you misspeak? Or to avoid saying things you actively want to avoid saying?

It's like the PC's mouth isn't connected to his brain. I feel like I have no control at all over what Hawke and Shepard say. Every line is a mystery to me until I hear it.

 

And the same applies to the lack on tone for the silent protagonist. I have no control over the tone my character uses. It's a mystery until I see how it is interpreted by the people around my character. I see dialogue that looks like it's sarcastic. I imagine my character saying it sarcastically in a clearly sarcastic tone of voice, as that's how the text implies to me it should be said. Then I see NPCs, including those who use sarcasm frequently and therefore know exactly what it is and what a sarcastic tone of voice sounds like, reacting in a way that clearly implies my character said the dialogue in a serious tone. My character has not acted in the way I wanted him to. And imagining him saying it sarcastically doesn't help one bit when the game made it absolutely clear he didn't.

[bEVEsthda]

Except you do not control the tone of the silent protagonist. You might imagine you do, but no matter what you imagine, the game does not care not does it react to you imagining the tone differently.

 

The NPC aren't reacting differently, they react exactly the same to a piece of dialogue not matter how you imagine saying it.

 

 

And the same applies to the lack on tone for the silent protagonist. I have no control over the tone my character uses. It's a mystery until I see how it is interpreted by the people around my character. I see dialogue that looks like it's sarcastic. I imagine my character saying it sarcastically in a clearly sarcastic tone of voice, as that's how the text implies to me it should be said. Then I see NPCs, including those who use sarcasm frequently and therefore know exactly what it is and what a sarcastic tone of voice sounds like, reacting in a way that clearly implies my character said the dialogue in a serious tone. My character has not acted in the way I wanted him to. And imagining him saying it sarcastically doesn't help one bit when the game made it absolutely clear he didn't.

 

Speaking for myself. This is not a problem at all.

That it seems a problem for you is likely because you are yet unable to separate yourself from the watching-an-interactive-movie perspective.

You perceive that your character has not acted in the way you wanted him to (or rather, by your own admission, in the way you assumed he would - and thus simultaneously also assumed you don't control the PC), because you do not believe that you control him. If you decide and believe that you control him, it's obvious that what is the factor here, is the NPCs. 

 

What can I say. The way I (and I have always assumed S t M also) play these silent protagonist games works. Regardless of how much some individuals argues that it doesn't. And we're not the only ones. There's really no lack of gamers that want to have a silent protagonist. There may be right now on this forum, but that's due to the recent history.

[UniformGreyColor]

I think it really depends on where you draw the line. I mean, having an all text game (or a game with robotic like voice actors) is not my idea of a good time, however, I don't want my actions and choices in the game to be arbitrary either. Sure, it looks like more and more gamers are looking to buy games that have fantastic voice actors in them and we are getting further and further away from a simplistic binary approach to how games are made, I'll give you that. But the thing to remember is that game development is not static but a dynamic process in the evolution of how games are interacted with. I believe it is mandatory that the player experience only mirrors these steps up in technology giving us more choices to interact with, not less.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not sure I'm following you here, or if there are some words missing?

Are you saying that everyone is always understood in a way that was not intended? ...Well, that does seem like hard-lining things in a manner that I'm not sure is meaningful?

Why would one speak at all, if one didn't had some kind of intention as to the words effect?
But yes, you do not control the NPCs. What is there further to understand about that?

One speaks to express information.

If your standard of success is based in the behavious of others, you can't ever be successful on your own merits. You would require the cooperation of others.

That seems crazy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Except you do not control the tone of the silent protagonist. You might imagine you do, but no matter what you imagine, the game does not care not does it react to you imagining the tone differently.

The NPC aren't reacting differently, they react exactly the same to a piece of dialogue not matter how you imagine saying it.

What are you talking about?

There is no "different" from within the game. Your character speaks, and the NPCs respond. There's no basis for comparison across multiple reaction events except from a metagame perspective.

To illustrate that, let's assume for a moment that you can decide yourself what the tone is. So the PC speaks with whatever tone you decide. Then the NPC reponds. There's nothing about that NPC response that can tell you you're wrong about the tone, partly because I don't think the reactions are meaningful in that way, but mostly (and this would be sufficient on its own) because we're assuming it is true. We're taking the tone as a given, and interpreting everything else through that lens.

And if we do that, the tone CAN'T get contradicted. We're basically living in a thought experiment. And I'm really good at thought experiments (perhaps because I largely perceive the world as one), so this works for me.

And the same applies to the lack on tone for the silent protagonist. I have no control over the tone my character uses. It's a mystery until I see how it is interpreted by the people around my character.

In the real world, do you rely on the reactions of others to tell you how you said something? I certainly don't. So why would I do it in a game?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Speaking for myself. This is not a problem at all.
That it seems a problem for you is likely because you are yet unable to separate yourself from the watching-an-interactive-movie perspective.
You perceive that your character has not acted in the way you wanted him to (or rather, by your own admission, in the way you assumed he would - and thus simultaneously also assumed you don't control the PC), because you do not believe that you control him. If you decide and believe that you control him, it's obvious that what is the factor here, is the NPCs.

What can I say. The way I (and I have always assumed S t M also) play these silent protagonist games works. Regardless of how much some individuals argues that it doesn't. And we're not the only ones. There's really no lack of gamers that want to have a silent protagonist. There may be right now on this forum, but that's due to the recent history.

I can't seem to like this, so I'll respond instead.

I completely agree. When I'm playing my character, I inhabit his mind. I don't perceive in-game events from the perspective of the player. And I don't perceive them as in-game events. I see them from my character's perspective, and he thinks the world he lives in is real. And he thinks he's a real person who has control over what he says and does. I'm not watching my character; I am my character. I can't learn anything about my character while playing the game, because I already know literally everything there is to know about him. And every piece of evidence the game world provides is interpreted through that filter.

Because that's what I think roleplaying is. And that informs all of my game design preferences.

[pdusen]

I do NOT want that! I want to create and roleplay my character. It would never occur to me to assume anything, or in any way relate to the character, dialogue or game in that manner, because I decide!  I don't need to be able to tell the tone. I decide it!

 

No, you absolutely do not. Characters don't react to the tone you've "decided", they react to the tone that the writer's intended, and you don't get a chance to clarify or backtrack like you would in any real-life misunderstanding. Trying to headcanon the tone like that makes half of the NPCs you talk to seem completely insane.

[pdusen]

One speaks to express information.

If your standard of success is based in the behavious of others, you can't ever be successful on your own merits. You would require the cooperation of others.

That seems crazy.

 

One also speaks to elicit a reaction. You cannot divorce content and tone. Literally no conversation ever works that way. That's why it's so easy for people to get into fights over the internet without intending to.

[bEVEsthda]

No, you absolutely do not. Characters don't react to the tone you've "decided", they react to the tone that the writer's intended, and you don't get a chance to clarify or backtrack like you would in any real-life misunderstanding. Trying to headcanon the tone like that makes half of the NPCs you talk to seem completely insane.

 

Claims like yours are not new here. But I'm still puzzled why some people try to argue that people do not / cannot do something that people actually do. And no, half the NPC do not seem completely insane at all. Don't invent problems from things which actually can be handled most of the time. 

[AlanC9]

One speaks to express information.
If your standard of success is based in the behavious of others, you can't ever be successful on your own merits. You would require the cooperation of others.
That seems crazy.

Huh? Many activities require the cooperation of others to be successful. A football quarterback has to depend on his receivers to not drop the passes, a general has to rely on his soldiers to not run away.

[AlanC9]

You perceive that your character has not acted in the way you wanted him to (or rather, by your own admission, in the way you assumed he would - and thus simultaneously also assumed you don't control the PC), because you do not believe that you control him. If you decide and believe that you control him, it's obvious that what is the factor here, is the NPCs. 

But we all actually know that we don't control the PC. Every PC line is written by someone at Bio, with a tone which that writer makes the NPCs respond to..

Though if pretending otherwise makes the games more fun... go for it.

[Chrom72]

I don't mind the voiced protagonist, though a problem I have is that the voice itself can range from perfect to terrible for the character I'm roleplaying. Multiple voice options would help, but it's just not really feasible yet to have 8 different voices per gender, though I suspect one day it will be. Assuming a voiced protagonist, my ideal system would include both the tone and the full text of what is being said. Likewise, an ideal non-voiced protagonist system would also include tone.

 

Tone and nonverbal cues are a major part of communication. In fact, I would argue that your tone and body language/gestures are even more important than the words themselves at times, at least in regards to finding out how a person feels about something. How someone interprets what you say is just as important as how you meant it to come across. One of the few flaws of the non-voiced protagonist is that you have no definite control of tone. Granted I rarely experienced this problem, but it did happen at times, and you don't usually have the option of clarifying. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

One also speaks to elicit a reaction. You cannot divorce content and tone. Literally no conversation ever works that way. That's why it's so easy for people to get into fights over the internet without intending to.

I'm not claiming that the tone doesn't matter (though given the frequency with which my tone is misinterpreted in the real world, I do wonder). I'm saying that the apparent relationship between your tone and the reaction of your listener is sufficently tenuous to support the immersive playstyle I describe.

You don't have to play that way, but I do, because it works for me. And I've explained in great detail how others could do the same, if they wanted.

[AlanC9]

If they wanted.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Huh? Many activities require the cooperation of others to be successful. A football quarterback has to depend on his receivers to not drop the passes, a general has to rely on his soldiers to not run away.

The success of the team is determined by the behaviour of its constituent players working together.

The success of the quarterback is determined by the quarterback.

You see this a lot in baseball analysis. I recommend reading about Defence-Independent Pitching Statistics, or DIPS. It illustrates how the proper way to measure performance is based on what that person actually did, and the results over which he had demonstrable control.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If they wanted.

Yes.

This conversation started because I was pointing out the deficiencies of the voiced protagonist, and the response was that the silent protagonist had comparable deficiencies. This is important, as the response concedes the deficiencies of the voiced protagonist.

I then showed how some of the supposed deficiencies of the silent protagonist can be overcome by adopting a more roleplaying-centeic playstyle.

Some people might not want to do that, and that's fine, but that's not a fault of the system. It is not a flaw in a fishing rod that it is ineffective at hunting ducks. If you want your fishing rod to be useful, you should maybe try to fish with it.

[UniformGreyColor]

Yes.

This conversation started because I was pointing out the deficiencies of the voiced protagonist, and the response was that the silent protagonist had comparable deficiencies. This is important, as the response concedes the deficiencies of the voiced protagonist.

I then showed how some of the supposed deficiencies of the silent protagonist can be overcome by adopting a more roleplaying-centeic playstyle.

Some people might not want to do that, and that's fine, but that's not a fault of the system. It is not a flaw in a fishing rod that it is ineffective at hunting ducks. If you want your fishing rod to be useful, you should maybe try to fish with it.

 

I agree with you here to a large extent, but at the same time people are mostly just reactionary and aren't maybe as methodical as you are. You can't expect all people everywhere to play in a logical way; sometimes people just do whatever they feel like at the time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I agree with you here to a large extent, but at the same time people are mostly just reactionary and aren't maybe as methodical as you are. You can't expect all people everywhere to play in a logical way; sometimes people just do whatever they feel like at the time.

I don't expect that. I even said so.

I'm not making normative claims, here. I'm just giving people options.

[theflyingzamboni]

Sylvius, do you P&P? Because that seems like the best option for what you look for in an RPG. That's the only thing that can give you the amount of control you seem to want over your character, since even silent-protagonist type games have limits on how you can imagine your reaction based on the words. Not being snarky here.

Also, you might want to keep your eyes open for the new Torment game coming out... some day. If you aren't already. Dunno when it comes out, since it's a Kickstarter project.

[UniformGreyColor]

I don't expect that. I even said so.

I'm not making normative claims, here. I'm just giving people options.

 

Forgive me if this sounds offensive in any way but why do you insist on companies making games catering to your specific style of play then? And don't say to create consistency because Devs can only make a game consistent internally as opposed to how consistent games are from a previous time period to the current one.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius, do you P&P? Because that seems like the best option for what you look for in an RPG. That's the only thing that can give you the amount of control you seem to want over your character, since even silent-protagonist type games have limits on how you can imagine your reaction based on the words. Not being snarky here.

Also, you might want to keep your eyes open for the new Torment game coming out... some day. If you aren't already. Dunno when it comes out, since it's a Kickstarter project.

 

Sylvius the Mad does P & P. In fact I remember in one of his posts I believe a family member gave him a new set of the reprinted D & D 2.0 rules. Actually many of the older crpgs gave Sylvius the kind of control he is looking for and they also allowed for emergent gameplay and story. 

Sylvius roleplays his characters by selecting the line that fits the character he envisions and assigning the tone to the line irrespective of what the writer's intent may be. Therefore the reaction that the NPCs have will be seen as a misinterpretation of what his character said or the reaction will be in line with what the character intended. (Correct me if I am off base Sylvius.) 

 

Also Sylvius has been keeping his eyes (as I have) on many of the Kickstarter projects like Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2 etc. I started playing crpgs before Ultima 1 (I started with Colossal Cave Adventure, Eamon and Sword Thrust)

 

Also DAO as Sylvius has stated before did not greatly hinder how he wanted to play and roleplay the game. DA2 was a different story. He will have to wait like all of us to form an opinion of DAI.

 

No Bioware game has been open world even DAI will not be open world like the Elder Scroll series.