264 réponses à ce sujet

[Felya87]

I think JE had preset character models just for a tecnical limit. In DAI people react to the Dalish tatoos. So I can't see why the reactions to certain elements can't be present even with CC.

[Il Divo]

How is it nonsensical to show certain augmentations having an effect on the character's appearance? If you chop off your hand and replace it with a hook I am pretty sure people are going to notice, it is like saying it is nonsensical for a scope to be visible on a weapon that you add a scope attachment to. It would be more nonsensical for them not to have an effect on the person's appearance.

 

 

But that's a terrible example.

 

What you're describing has two issues:

 

1. Not every aug is going to have a noticeable visual component. See Barret for example and the fact that his robot arm could transform into a gun. If he had never done that in front of you, we would have never known that he could do it. Or Malik pointing out that she has a couple "under the surface" augs in place. What you're describing here is more akin to changing the color of your underwear and complaining that no one notices.

 

2. Even putting that aside, for visually noticeable augs, what you're describing here is like suggesting that the game should recognize that you have exactly 5 hooks instead of 4. Adam, right off the start, is augmented to the point where it's obvious he's extensively machine. In other words: your change in appearance has diminishing returns.  

 

Hence why I'm consistently pointing out to you that the reactivity you're asking for is at the level of Jade Empire Dragon Tattoos and Skyrim "Hail Sithis" comments. As it stands, Human Revolution does an infinitely superior job of making appearance an important component of the game, compared to Jade Empire, where appearance is strictly aesthetic, regardless of whether or not characters are able to comment on variation.

 

 

If the cereal event is something that happens in game and the player is actually able to experience it then I don't see why a character should not be able to reference it at a later point in game, the problem is not referencing past events in a character's life but referencing past events that have no relevance to the player, it would be like asking the player how their character feels about the Mage/Templar war as that is something the player is actually able to experience and learn about in game and form an opinion on. The whole aunt thing is something that is never experienced and thus has no relevance to the player.​

 

 

 I should point out even here too how problematic it is to suggest that it's acceptable for the PC to reference past events in-game, but to suggest that he shouldn't reference past events for the first 20 (or more) years of his life. What magic event happened that suddenly he's comfortable talking about the past starting from day 1 of the adventure? It gets even worse when we consider that you've criticized the Origin stories, despite the fact you do get to experience all those events first-hand for about 1.5-2 hours. Basically, if we're going to take the backstory arguments seriously, then you should be equally comfortable with playing a character in a game where no one references past events, ever, including in game events.

 

If all these events that we don't experience have no relevance, then the blank slate protagonist gives us absolutely nothing. Like I said before, what you're describing is a PC who is born the day of the adventure.

[Absafraginlootly]

I don't think having npcs make a few comments about what my character looks like is worth taking away the pleasure of getting to design my characters appearance.

[Il Divo]

 

 

People comment on each other's appearances all the time, like "Hay girfriend, did you get a haircut?" or "Oh that dress is absolutely stunning, where did you get it" and even "Oh hi Jim been working out? You seem to have lost a few pounds!", not sure what world you live in.

 

Let's draw attention to the fact that every appearance example you gave also involved referencing some sort of perceived past event. I'd say that makes my point for me, but just to reiterate: in the vast majority of scenarios, you're going to have an infinitely more difficult time getting through life without referencing decades of experience than you are without referencing physical traits, barring extremely outlandish traits (Ex: Inquisitor's glowing green hand).

 

fNo you are getting mixed up, saddling the player with a pre-defined backstory only allows for a very narrow to non-existent range of roleplaying options, allowing the player more freedom to craft their own backstory by giving them far vaguer options when it comes to talking about their backstory allows for a wider range of roleplaying options, see the difference?​

 

 

This is a bit like the "See, I can role-play a coward defense!" which people used to throw around on here for DA:O. Insisting on how the game let them play a cowardly npc in combat, despite the game making no effort to acknowledge it. Not to mention, having to go through some extreme mental gymnastics to make it work within the confines of the game. While not quite at that extreme level, the blank slate character involves the same kind of mental gymnastics, to navigate around the fact that your character isn't really able to function.

 

The "freedom to craft a backstory" sounds great, in theory. But from a practical stand-point is pretty much as far from the intended goal of your typical Bioware game as it gets, with its emphasis on role-playing in the context of a focused story. Backstories are not something that Bioware (or games in general) do particularly well. It's part of the reason why I recommend pen and paper so often.

 

That is because the character is essentially born the day the adventure starts, the character has no conscience until after the game begins and you take control, they have no life before that point, sure a developer can give them a backstory to seem like they had life before that point but then so can the player.

 

 

I'd argue that's metagaming, which is a no-no. Role-playing design involves taking control of your character as the adventure starts. But your character has had a lifetime of experiences.

 

The key difference in your two scenarios is that one can be referenced, the other can't. To role-play a character, the game has to give you the faculties to make a coherent character in the first place, hence why the limited Bioware backgrounds we experience are going to win out. In terms of character design, the devs have to give us the ability to crawl before we can walk so to speak.

 

 

In the context of the game the non-existent background does not matter at all, however if you allow the player to headcanon their own backstory it will have relevance to the player when it comes to defining their own character's motivations and demeanor.

 

 

As opposed to, doing that in conversation, which again Bioware games let you do. This is a pretty huge contradiction. You're insisting that referencing pre-game events is meaningless to the player, despite having the ability to comment on how you felt about those events, but at the same time, you're insisting that pre-game events which you never experience, apparently is relevant to your motivation when choosing the same dialogue, despite never getting to reference it, in even the smallest capacity.

 

Hence my point regarding how this also flies in the face of your defense of referencing past in-game events and how I'd like a demonstration of being able to live your entire life without referencing your experiences, ever. Technically-speaking, it is possible. But it's also possible to make a role-playing game where all the characters speak in non-sequiturs. What neither scenario likely involves is a satisfying experience.   

[Ashii6]

I think I would rage a bit if we wouldn't be able to create our character in ME:A. If I play an rpg game and roleplay my character I also want to have an option to change her/his looks.
Lack of CC in Jade Empire bothered then and it bothers me now.

[Donk]

I don't think having npcs make a few comments about what my character looks like is worth taking away the pleasure of getting to design my characters appearance.

 

Agreed.

 

I'm not entirely against them having a few presets for those who suck at CC (aka me) but don't take it away. Don't really give two shits if I can't hear some NPC saying, "Lyk OMG she iz sooooooooo hawt look at dat dragon tat" (or whatever it is the OP wrote)

 

After all, this is a sci-fi RPG (or at least a shooter with RPG elements) and not Gossip Girl.

[KaiserShep]

A full-fledged CC doesn't necessary preclude the ability to flag certain settings. Example: Iron Bull and redheads. If the Inquisitor has red hair and he makes one throwaway comment about it, I'd say that the zots used for this wouldn't be much, especially since he's the only one that cares at all. I admit that I wish my gingerquisitor got a shoutout from him. Much more than that went toward gender-specific content and race options already. Just a thought.

[Queen Skadi]

But that's a terrible example.

 

What you're describing has two issues:

 

1. Not every aug is going to have a noticeable visual component. See Barret for example and the fact that his robot arm could transform into a gun. If he had never done that in front of you, we would have never known that he could do it. Or Malik pointing out that she has a couple "under the surface" augs in place. What you're describing here is more akin to changing the color of your underwear and complaining that no one notices.

 

2. Even putting that aside, for visually noticeable augs, what you're describing here is like suggesting that the game should recognize that you have exactly 5 hooks instead of 4. Adam, right off the start, is augmented to the point where it's obvious he's extensively machine. In other words: your change in appearance has diminishing returns.  

 

1. I never said every aug has to have a noticeable effect on the character's appearance, please point out where I said every aug has to have a noticeable visual component? At this point it seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing looking for whatever small nitpick you can throw at the idea no matter how irrelevant it is to the conversation. That said I am sure there would be plenty of augmentations that would have a noticeable visual component.

 

2. It does not matter if these augmentations are never mentioned by NPCs in the world the important thing is I think it would be nice to see some sort of visual change that reflects choices made by the player. Adam is already visibly augmented to the point it is obvious that he is extensively machine because that was the design decision made by the developers, they could have just as easily had Jensen change over time as he is forced to get more and more augmentations over the course of the game (of course this would require a little more work) but instead they took the lazy route and just said "oh all your augmentations are installed from the beginning only you cant use em all yet because you need to use praxis points to unlock them for some reason".

 

Hence why I'm consistently pointing out to you that the reactivity you're asking for is at the level of Jade Empire Dragon Tattoos and Skyrim "Hail Sithis" comments.

 

And I am constantly pointing out to you that the reactivity you get from pre-defined backgrounds is even more pointless and irrelevant to the player. Do you honestly not see the parallels here? At least the hail Sithis comments reflect a choice made by the player and at least comments based on visual appearance are relevant to the player as they can actually see their character's visual appearance, comments about past experiences that the player never gets to experience and does not know about until they are brought up have no relevance to the player at all and only serve as a reminded that it is not their character that they are playing.

 

If you have not figured it out by now I am not fond of forcing a pre-set character appearance from the start of the game on the player either (however I do like the idea of the character's visual appearance changing based on choices they make over the course of the game, this is something that could easily be incorporated even in a game with a character creator), but that said if you are going to force a pre-defined background on the player you might as well give them a pre-defined appearance as well, I would much rather the game give my character a pre-defined appearance that have the game imply my character should have certain connections and feelings towards characters that aren't my own. Let me decide what does and does not matter to my character.

 

I should point out even here too how problematic it is to suggest that it's acceptable for the PC to reference past events in-game, but to suggest that he shouldn't reference past events for the first 20 (or more) years of his life. What magic event happened that suddenly he's comfortable talking about the past starting from day 1 of the adventure?

 

And I should point out how problematic it is that every character still wants to jump your character's bones despite looking like this

 

 

The fact that other characters can't comment on your appearance is a concession that must be made to allow character creation, the fact that your character can't comment on specific events in their past that happen before the game begins is a concession that must be made to allow the player more freedom in defining who their character is.

 

I am pretty sure even if somebody is not willing to talk about a tragic event in their past that happened long ago it would not be much of an issue for them to talk about the things that happened the day before if they weren't traumatic, hell perhaps your character suffered a head injury that prevents him from recalling events that happen more than 2 days ago? If not being able to reference your character's past is such a problem for you I am sure there are plenty of ways you could headcanon why he isn't able to reference that past.

 

I am not sure why you think referencing the past is such a vital part of a roleplaying game? There are plenty of people who get along fine without boring everyone else about their life story at every given opportunity so I don't see why it is must that the main character should be able to bore other characters with their life story especially given how little relevance it has to the player?

 

It gets even worse when we consider that you've criticized the Origin stories, despite the fact you do get to experience all those events first-hand for about 1.5-2 hours. Basically, if we're going to take the backstory arguments seriously, then you should be equally comfortable with playing a character in a game where no one references past events, ever, including in game events.

 

I am sorry I must have missed the part where we play through the tournement described by the NPC in the Noble Origin or the part where the Inquisitor gets to dance with their drunk aunt, when does the player experience these events in game? The Origin stories serve as little more than an brief introduction to your character's backstory, you don't experience meeting Jowan for the first time and forging a friendship over the years, the game just tells you "here is Jowan, he is your friend, no you don't get to decide that you would not want to be his friend".

[Queen Skadi]

Let's draw attention to the fact that every appearance example you gave also involved referencing some sort of perceived past event. I'd say that makes my point for me, but just to reiterate: in the vast majority of scenarios, you're going to have an infinitely more difficult time getting through life without referencing decades of experience than you are without referencing physical traits, barring extremely outlandish traits (Ex: Inquisitor's glowing green hand).

 

Oh honey you don't have a point, while it is true noticing whether somebody has had a haircut or whether somebody has lost weight is dependent on noticing they look different from how they did in the past (these were meant to be real life examples not in game examples) there are plenty of ways someone can reference somebodies appearance without referencing the past, the dress example for instance does not require referencing a past event, all it requires is noticing that somebody is wearing a nice dress in the present.

 

As for getting through life without referencing decades of experience are you talking about referencing that experience in conversation or applying that experience to solve a problem? If you are applying experience to solve a problem then it is something that can easily be headcanoned as those experiences exist purely in your head, I really don't see why it is impossible to get through a conversation without referencing past events like an aunt getting drunk at a party.

 

This is a bit like the "See, I can role-play a coward defense!" which people used to throw around on here for DA:O. Insisting on how the game let them play a cowardly npc in combat, despite the game making no effort to acknowledge it. Not to mention, having to go through some extreme mental gymnastics to make it work within the confines of the game. While not quite at that extreme level, the blank slate character involves the same kind of mental gymnastics, to navigate around the fact that your character isn't really able to function.

 

Not at all, I totally get that many games only allow for a certain amount of roleplaying options with some being impossible to pull off (like a coward in DA:O) but not saddling the character with a pre-defined backstory and not trying to imply that the character has pre-defined disposition to certain other characters in the game will still allow for a wider range of roleplaying options.

 

Still not sure why constantly gabbing about inconsequential events in a person's life is absolutely vital to that person's ability to function? Plenty of people get along fine without constantly gabbing about their past, do you have some sort of involuntary tick that forces you to constantly bring up events in your past?

 

I'd argue that's metagaming, which is a no-no. Role-playing design involves taking control of your character as the adventure starts. But your character has had a lifetime of experiences.

 

It is simply the truth, the character simply does not exist until after the game begins even if the developers do give the character a pre-defined backstory, the backstory only gives the illusion that the character existed before that point which is an illusion that can just as easily be created by the player by headcanoning their own backstory.

 

As opposed to, doing that in conversation, which again Bioware games let you do. This is a pretty huge contradiction. You're insisting that referencing pre-game events is meaningless to the player, despite having the ability to comment on how you felt about those events

 

How can the player feel anything about events that never happen that they never experience? That is the point I am trying to get through to you, these are video games not movies, the player is an important part of the equation, they are the ones controlling the thoughts and actions of the player so you need to make sure the options they are given are relevant to the player, past events and experiences never experienced by the player have no relevance to them so asking them how they feel about them is pointless.

[Iakus]

In DAI people react to the Dalish tatoos. So I can't see why the reactions to certain elements can't be present even with CC.

It's really just a reaction to choosing "elf" in the CC, though.  All Inquisitor elves are Dalish, and all Dalish have tattoos.  There are no reactions to which god's tattoos the Elfquisitor has, after all.  Also note that not all qunari have horns, thus there is not a single reference to the Inquisitor having them, whether Qunquizzie has horns or not.

 

Similarly, no other race has references to having tattoos, despite the option to give them one.

[Felya87]

It's really just a reaction to choosing "elf" in the CC, though. All Inquisitor elves are Dalish, and all Dalish have tattoos. There are no reactions to which god's tattoos the Elfquisitor has, after all. Also note that not all qunari have horns, thus there is not a single reference to the Inquisitor having them, whether Qunquizzie has horns or not.

Similarly, no other race has references to having tattoos, despite the option to give them one.

Yet there are reaction to have or not the tatoo

Spoiler

since a solas romance elf who let him take away the tats is noticed

And recognization of races is not already a CC recognization? Probably more important than what type of vallaslin have on a Dalish (that usually only others Dalish recognize or care to know the meaning of) or what horns have a qunari Inquisitor?

[Queen Skadi]

Yet there are reaction to have or not the tatoo

Spoiler

since a solas romance elf who let him take away the tats is noticed

And recognization of races is not already a CC recognization? Probably more important than what type of vallaslin have on a Dalish (that usually only others Dalish recognize or care to know the meaning of) or what horns have a qunari Inquisitor?

 

One would think whether or not your Qunari has horns would play a big role in how other Qunari view them as apparently hornless Qunari for some stupid reason are considered more dangerous than ones that do have horns in Qunari society.

[Felya87]

One would think whether or not your Qunari has horns would play a big role in how other Qunari view them as apparently hornless Qunari for some reason are considered more dangerous than ones that do have horns in Qunari society.

If our character was part of the Qun, maybe. But Qunari Inquisitor is Vashot, so s/he doesn't even have a soul for "real" Qunari, after all.
And many Vashot broke their own horns to be even more apart from the Qun. So is just logical a Qunari may not care about someone outside the Qun being hornless.

[Iakus]

Yet there are reaction to have or not the tatoo

Spoiler

since a solas romance elf who let him take away the tats is noticed

And recognization of races is not already a CC recognization? Probably more important than what type of vallaslin have on a Dalish (that usually only others Dalish recognize or care to know the meaning of) or what horns have a qunari Inquisitor?

That' more of a

Spoiler

romance flag

then, isn' t it?

 

Recognition of race is a very, very basic CC recognition.  Like I said, your Cadash is never recognized as having tattoos, despite having some really really glaringly conspicuous options.  Nor does the qunari horns or lack thereof ever come up.  Nor do the scars or tattoos of any Inquisitor.  Simply because there are too many potential variables to keep track of.

 

If our character was part of the Qun, maybe. But Qunari Inquisitor is Vashot, so s/he doesn't even have a soul for "real" Qunari, after all.
And many Vashot broke their own horns to be even more apart from the Qun. So is just logical a Qunari may not care about someone outside the Qun being hornless.

And for reactivity all of that would have to be accounted for:  Horns, broken horns, no horns at all, or just plain not being qunari.  THen there's Dalish tattoos, optional scars and tattoos, etc

[Felya87]

That' more of a

Spoiler

romance flag

then, isn' ******?

 

 

Not anymore than the recognization of renegade Shepard's scars.

[Iakus]

Not anymore than the recognization of renegade Shepard's scars.

Really?  I mean this isn't the game recognizing you've hit a particular conversation or choice with a Solas romance?  Much like getting Mordin to sing in ME3 requires having a particular conversation with him being flagged.

 

Are Shepard's renegade scars mentioned anywhere at all?

[Felya87]

 

Are Shepard's renegade scars mentioned anywhere at all?

 

Yes. FemShep, Citadel DLC. I don't know of others, since I never played a full scarred renegade Shepard.

[KaiserShep]

Are Shepard's renegade scars mentioned anywhere at all?

I'm pretty sure it's acknowledged in the Citadel DLC. ME3 also flags the operation Shepard can get in ME2 with Chakwas' dialogue. Honestly it just looks so dumb that I can't even care about it though.

[Kappa Neko]

ME:A needs adaptive auto-dialogue like DA2. Depending on Hawke's personality (most frequently used by the player) some of the auto-dialogue changed to reflect it.

 

Brilliant!

 

Honestly, one of the best ideas Bioware ever had.

Too bad Hawke asked all questions in a sweet voice. That is certainly not working for an aggressive personality. The game switching between annoyed  (player) and gentle (game) breaks immersion. But the idea is great. They need to bring it back and refine it!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yeah because Skyrim is the ultimate example of what a roleplaying game can be?

No, tabletop is, and that is the standard to which these games should aspire.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Does the Inquisitor's drunken aunt (that you never get to meet and has no effect on the game whatsoever) change how other character's react to your character?

It can. If it affects how you have the character behaves, it will then have an indirect effect on NPC reactions.

But so can the headcanon backgrounds created for a blank slate protagonist, so there's no real benefit to having them pre-written.

[Iakus]

No, tabletop is, and that is the standard to which these games should aspire.

This is true, though we should make some allowances for technical limitations.  Thus why we can't play a coward Warden, and such.

[KaiserShep]

ME:A needs adaptive auto-dialogue like DA2. Depending on Hawke's personality (most frequently used by the player) some of the auto-dialogue changed to reflect it.

Brilliant!

Honestly, one of the best ideas Bioware ever had.
Too bad Hawke asked all questions in a sweet voice. That is certainly not working for an aggressive personality. The game switching between annoyed (player) and gentle (game) breaks immersion. But the idea is great. They need to bring it back and refine it!

I kinda enjoyed the constrast between the tones of inquiries and total snark-outs. Like, this joker's gonna make fun of you and/or kill you at any moment. I love Hawke, man.

[Sylvius the Mad]

People comment on each other's appearances all the time, like "Hay girfriend, did you get a haircut?" or "Oh that dress is absolutely stunning, where did you get it" and even "Oh hi Jim been working out? You seem to have lost a few pounds!", not sure what world you live in.

If the real world were like that, I would never go outside again.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is true, though we should make some allowances for technical limitations. Thus why we can't play a coward Warden, and such.

But we can. I did. He was my favourite Warden.

Yes, some allowances need to be made, but that isn't one of them.