353 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

Following the development of this chess analogy is far more interesting than the broken-record, angsty complaints found throughout this topic.

[Felya87]

 

I don't think Hawke was inept. On the contrary, I think this comes to show how spoiled Bioware has us. Hawke is a relatively normal person, all things considered. It's the other PCs who are unrealistic in how much they impact everything around them. I'll grant maybe DA2's approach was a bit too much, but given the choice I'd rather have that than another ME power trip.

 

The problem was that the entire game say otherwise. Hawke is exeptional, Hawke is the Noble, Hawke is the Champion, Hawke is the only mage tha magically make templar go retarded and not see her trowing fire balls etc etc...but we have mostly the failings to see. We rarely see Hawke being a winner, or at least deserving of all the worship people trow at her. Already the second act, being called by the viscount to help him with a very important thing, is incredibly annoyng, since is clear she have created herself a good reputation. Reputation we never saw Hawke gain or deserving.

[Ahglock]

I don't understand what you mean here. If you're referring to finishing a game (or beating a game) in the traditional sense, I don't always do that.

But I still play, and I still enjoy it, even though I'm not pursuing the objectives the designers set out for me.

Furthermore, completing those objectives is largely incidental. Again, my character might be trying to achieve those objectives, but I'm not. You're conflating the motives of the player and character.

 

I agree. Playing to WIN is so counter intuitive to what RPGs are it baffles me.  You play for the experience, to have fun, to role play the character.  That is what the game is about, it isn't about did you beat the boss, did you save the day. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

-What percentage of potential ME:A purchasers would view their character's dying in Act 1 as a win?

Even I don't view character deaths as a win.  I'm indifferent to character deaths.

 

You don't seem to understand my position.

-Would a game designed by developers who viewed such character deaths as wins sell 1,000 copies?

As long as such a view wasn't required on the part of the players, I don't see why not.

 

I'm not suggesting that everyone should play the way I play.  I'm suggesting that a gameplay approach like mine - a pure roleplaying approach - should be supported by the game.  BioWare has generally done this (though not in the ME series).

 

Not everyone plays the same way.  The game shouldn't force everyone to play the same way.  The game shouldn't expect everyone to play the same way.

[LinksOcarina]

I don't understand what you mean here. If you're referring to finishing a game (or beating a game) in the traditional sense, I don't always do that.

But I still play, and I still enjoy it, even though I'm not pursuing the objectives the designers set out for me.

Furthermore, completing those objectives is largely incidental. Again, my character might be trying to achieve those objectives, but I'm not. You're conflating the motives of the player and character.

 

So when your character dies do you always restart the game?

 

After all, their death based on their decisions would mean there is longer any adventure to follow at that point.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So when your character dies do you always restart the game?

If he dies as a result of a roleplaying decision, I accept his death as the result.

After all, their death based on their decisions would mean there is longer any adventure to follow at that point.

While my character is constrained by linear time, I'm not.  Sometimes I'll back up part way and change one of his decisions to see what happens.  Sometimes I'll never play that character again.  It depends whether I think there's still interesting roleplaying to do.

[78stonewobble]

Of course. The player succeeds by making in-character decisions. If those decisions lead to the character's death, then the player has had a short, but still successful, playthrough.

My favourite Warden in DAO didn't live to see the Landsmeet. He was great fun to play, and then he died when Sten killed him in a duel.

 

Uhm... you mean it's a success according to your "metagaming" success criteria... For all intents and purposes, you've failed at the ingame success criteria... 

 

Didn't you say you tried to avoid out of game information and to roleplay characters like they had no information about how eg. decisions would turn out? Why would you then do the opposite with the success criteria? 

 

That... makes no sense... 

[78stonewobble]

Following the development of this chess analogy is far more interesting than the broken-record, angsty complaints found throughout this topic.

 

*lol* oh you fanboys... I needed this demonstration of reading comprehension and good arguments. 

 

*snicker* 

[78stonewobble]

Who's the"you" there? The PC can fail for making a decision that doesn't actually lead to accomplishing his goals, sure.

Is that a fail for the player? Sometimes. A player who picks Refuse because he thinks that the allied forces have a chance of winning has failed to comprehend the situation; if anything, we need more opportunities to fail that way. A player who understands the situation and picks Refuse anyway, because his Shepard would rather lose than win that way, has not failed; his Shepard may or may not have failed, depending on the character.

 

We weren't really given the chance to ask hacket, whether it's ok to get everyone killed off because of principles, but... I'm pretty sure that would constitute a fail, in regards to carrying out hacket's intentions...

 

There are plenty of chances of doing that... You can quit playing the game, go into the game and never do anything... go out in a blaze of glory and just not reload. 

 

Heck, you can do that within minutes of the game starting... But I suspect most people wouldn't find that very satisfying or good value for money, but you can do exactly what you asked for in a number of ways. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Uhm... you mean it's a success according to your "metagaming" success criteria... For all intents and purposes, you've failed at the ingame success criteria...

The player can't have in-game success criteria. The player doesn't exist in-game.

Ideally, when roleplaying, I am unaware of my own existence. Only the character and the world in which he lives should be real. And he's not aware that he lives in a game.

Didn't you say you tried to avoid out of game information and to roleplay characters like they had no information about how eg. decisions would turn out? Why would you then do the opposite with the success criteria?

You're talking about two different things. I am not my character. My character is not me.

We're not governed by the same success criteria.

[Iakus]

I agree. Playing to WIN is so counter intuitive to what RPGs are it baffles me.  You play for the experience, to have fun, to role play the character.  That is what the game is about, it isn't about did you beat the boss, did you save the day. 

Most RPGs that I have played (yes, including P&P RPGs) do at least have goals for the player.  Even if those goals are an agenda made up by the players themselves.  And it is in fulfilling those goals that you "win" an RPG.

 

I've done plenty of sessions where we've just wandered around bs-ing and looking for trouble.  And that's fun.  But the really fun experiences are where we ended a session feeling like we've accomplished something.

[78stonewobble]

The player can't have in-game success criteria. The player doesn't exist in-game.

Ideally, when roleplaying, I am unaware of my own existence. Only the character and the world in which he lives should be real. And he's not aware that he lives in a game.
You're talking about two different things. I am not my character. My character is not me.

We're not governed by the same success criteria.

 

No, I'm talking about your ingame character failing.

 

Was the objective for the character to die in a duel? If not he/she failed... and well... as a player you failed your ingame character.

 

That's the player putting a "metagaming objective/success criteria" upon the characters shoulders. That it's a "success" to let your character fail his/her's ingame objectives, for the sake of the players roleplaying objective/success criteria. 

 

Or put in another way as an example: In me3, hacket more or less asks the character to save the world (paraphrasing). That's the character's objective... and if you refuse...  the character is failing. 

 

The player might roleplay the character as someone who will refuse to save the world. Let's say a nihilist shep, but why not then just suicide yourself on the first enemy? And it's kinda inconsistent with getting asked to save the world.

 

Or put in yet another way... Yes, mass effect is a roleplaying game... but it's a roleplaying game with confines for the "out there" roleplaying... If you wanna roleplay so waaaay outta the box (eg. a character so different, that it's likelyhood of being asked to be the hero is nil), then maybe these aren't the games for you. 

[AlanC9]

*lol* oh you fanboys... I needed this demonstration of reading comprehension and good arguments. 
 
*snicker*

Huh? dreamgazer wasn't making an argument there, he was stating personal taste. And it looks like his reading comprehension was spot-on, while yours is questionable.

[AlanC9]

We weren't really given the chance to ask hacket, whether it's ok to get everyone killed off because of principles, but... I'm pretty sure that would constitute a fail, in regards to carrying out hacket's intentions...

That's only relevant if Shepard thinks that orders should be followed under any circumstances. If Shepard believes that, given the newly-known facts of the situation, using the Crucible is grossly immoral, should a order to use the Crucible be carried out? Under the laws of most militaries, an order to commit a crime is not a legitimate order, and must not be carried out. (Though I'm not sure there's a statute that covers turning people into organic-synthetic hybrids, or establishing an AI copy of yourself as an all-powerful dictator.)

[Sylvius the Mad]

No, I'm talking about your ingame character failing.

That happens all the time. It's hard for a character to be so perfect that he never fails while still being relatable. Look at Superman.

Was the objective for the character to die in a duel? If not he/she failed... and well... as a player you failed your ingame character.

Are you asking about his objective, of my objecrive for him?

My objective was that he be a character with that specific personality I designed, and he was that. That personality led him to make a lot of questionable decisions (because he lacked both self-awareness and forethought), and when he finally found himself in an unavoidable combat situation where he had to rely on the results of his past decisions, he died. Fairly quickly.

His objective was an ill-defined standard of greatness. He thought that he could think his way out of any problem and never put effort into anything. He was wrong about that.

That's the player putting a "metagaming objective/success criteria" upon the characters shoulders. That it's a "success" to let your character fail his/her's ingame objectives, for the sake of the players roleplaying objective/success criteria.

The player is a metagame entity.

Or put in another way as an example: In me3, hacket more or less asks the character to save the world (paraphrasing). That's the character's objective... and if you refuse... the character is failing.

That's the character's objective if the player decides it is. The character might have a different objective that is only tangentially related to the Reapers.

The game can't tell you what your character is thinking. Only you know that.

Now, ME3 isn't a great example, because it grants the player remarkably few opprtunities to make meaningful decisions.

The ME games may well not be for me. Casey Hudson told me that explicitly after ME2. I thoroughly dislike both ME2 and ME3. They're lousy roleplaying games.

[78stonewobble]

Huh? dreamgazer wasn't making an argument there, he was stating personal taste. And it looks like his reading comprehension was spot-on, while yours is questionable.

 

No, the reading comprehension failure on behalf of stargazer was proven when every opposing argument was reduced to stemming from being "angsty". 

 

Soooo, barring any real argument and the condescending tone of "ooooh I have taste tooo"... I wrote it off like a blind obtuse fanboy, not worth listening to, but worth condescending. 

[AlanC9]

No, I'm talking about your ingame character failing.
 
Was the objective for the character to die in a duel? If not he/she failed... and well... as a player you failed your ingame character.

Do you think Sylvius actually cares about that?

[AlanC9]

No, the reading comprehension failure on behalf of stargazer was proven when every opposing argument was reduced to stemming from being "angsty".

They don't? You sure about that?

Anyway, "angsty" describes the arguments and their presentation. It doesn't describe the thought-process that led to their creation.

BTW, it's "dreamgazer." If you're gonna play a comprehension game, you really should get the details right.

[78stonewobble]

That's only relevant if Shepard thinks that orders should be followed under any circumstances. If Shepard believes that, given the newly-known facts of the situation, using the Crucible is grossly immoral, should a order to use the Crucible be carried out? Under the laws of most militaries, an order to commit a crime is not a legitimate order, and must not be carried out. (Though I'm not sure there's a statute that covers turning people into organic-synthetic hybrids, or establishing an AI copy of yourself as an all-powerful dictator.)

 

There might be an argument there, but shepard haven't really officially been in favor of dictatorships (featuring his / herself), so ... with that in mind, would we ask a shep that was like that to save the world? 

 

You are basically arguing for the validity of hacket asking any old moron/douchebag to save the world to be a perfectly acceptable premise for the story. 

[78stonewobble]

Do you think Sylvius actually cares about that?

 

I don't think sylvious knows, what he cares about. Against metagaming until metagaming. *smarts*

[78stonewobble]

They don't? You sure about that?

Anyway, "angsty" describes the arguments and their presentation. It doesn't describe the thought-process that led to their creation.

BTW, it's "dreamgazer." If you're gonna play a comprehension game, you really should get the details right.

 

Yes and since im not angsty fanboy number 2 and 3, it's more objective and valid.

 

So? 

 

Oh I can never tell you guys apart... 

[AlanC9]

Now, ME3 isn't a great example, because it grants the player remarkably few opprtunities to make meaningful decisions.

Though the few it does offer are fairly big. But yeah, too much of the wordcount had to be burned to handle divergent ME2 imports.

[AlanC9]

I don't think sylvious knows, what he cares about. Against metagaming until metagaming. *smarts*

You really shouldn't be playing a comprehension game.

[AlanC9]

There might be an argument there, but shepard haven't really officially been in favor of dictatorships (featuring his / herself), so ... with that in mind, would we ask a shep that was like that to save the world?

You are basically arguing for the validity of hacket asking any old moron/douchebag to save the world to be a perfectly acceptable premise for the story.

Sure. Hackett has to go with the Shepard he's got, rather than the Shepard he'd like to have. Anyway, how could Hackett know what Shepard herself likely didn't know? It's not like Shepard spent any time thinking about personally controlling the Reapers. She can consider whether control's possible, but nobody's talking about handing the keys to her at that time.

[LinksOcarina]

If he dies as a result of a roleplaying decision, I accept his death as the result.

 

 

While my character is constrained by linear time, I'm not.  Sometimes I'll back up part way and change one of his decisions to see what happens.  Sometimes I'll never play that character again.  It depends whether I think there's still interesting roleplaying to do.

 

But any time you do re-load you contradict your own logic. Your character is constrained to your decisions in that way; you screw up or you die, there is no reason to re-load, you effectively fail to separate yourself and your goals with your character when you do that. 

 

Not to mention that death as a result of a role-playing decision is vague at best. Failing to use the right move or combination of moves in a combat situation, for example, or challenging people to a fight you can't win, are one in the same in this regard, so even then there would be no reason to re-do it. Your character, for whatever role-play logic you decide, is done. Your personal stake to it should not matter in that case.

 

It is here where it seems like you do metagame the game, for a ulterior goal outside of what the game is about. This feels like a major contradiction.