97 réponses à ce sujet

[Midnight Bliss]

but ME never was a in-character. U always play the story of Sheperd

^^^^

[Mcfly616]

Having a fixed protagonist like Geralt allows for a more coherent story.  On the other hand it was pretty restrictive from a roleplaying perspective with either "ruthless Geralt" or "gruff but basically nice Geralt"...though there were some good impactful choices.  

 Odd. Considering the fact that role-playing Geralt had more effective range than anything Bioware provided us with in any installment of Mass Effect. (aside from letting us create our characters face)

[Gothfather]

Telling a specific story vs letting players craft their own. Clearly defined characters vs characters molded by the players will.  And of course choices, and the role they play in all of this.

 

This is a delicate balance that many games (by Bioware and others) have tried to achieve with varying degrees of success, and will no doubt be the topic of much discussion from now until well beyond ME:A's release.

 

So where do you lie on this spectrum, what would like to see in the future, and how do you think previous Bioware titles have handled these issues?

 

You have hedge this topic in a VERY biased manner.

 

What you are asking is should the game have a stronger narrative with reduced agency vs a weaker narrative with stronger agency. That is an HONEST question. But to cage this conversation is story vs role playing is BS. Actors have very little agency with their character yet their entire craft is ROLE PLAYING. The reason why they have little agency is because they have a job which is to serve the story. Serving a story does not exclude role playing.

 

If players can't role play within a game with limits on agency then they can't role play because role playing doesn't require agency to do so. Bioware has a long tradition now, since Kotor, of putting limits on a player's agency for the sake of being able to tell a strong narrative. This is not a superior or inferior way to make an RPG, it is just a style of RPG of equal validity as any type of RPG.

 

Player agency is also more illusion then substance, every RPG regardless of the system LIMITS a player. This is true with all aspects of the RPG from character creation to the mechanics of play to following the story. This includes table top systems to computer systems, I can't make a Jedi knight in Dragon age inquisition the game RESTRICTS my agency to create a character that fits within the frame work. In D&D I can not make the marvel superhero Spider-man again because the game restricts my agency. a Human GM will also restrict your agency as a player it is in fact these RESTRICTIONS on agency that create the game. Without any restrictions there is no risk, no conflict and thus no drama.

 

If people prefer a CRPG with greater freedom there are plenty of RPGs out there just don't expect Bioware to make them. Let Bioware make the RPGs THEY want to make and you as the customer decide if you are willing to pay money for their product. The strongest and loudest voice the consumer has is their wallet. If you are unhappy with bioware games don't buy them. There are Soooo many RPGs being made these last two years there is more choice now then there ever has been.

[Pearl (rip bioware)]

When you play as a character with a canonical name (one that is established from the outset of the game, anyway), you're already limiting the amount of role-playing that's possible by default. Might as well focus more on the story at that point.

[DaytonaUSAFanHH]

The game is already a story-driven experience. I'd be glad if they cut down on the role-playing.

[Joseph Warrick]

ME2 was fine. But to tell the truth at this point I can't be bothered with categories. Make the game interesting is all. If the protagonist connects with me, I don't care if they're fixed. I'm thinking Manny Calavera, Max Caulfield.

Letting players participate in the decision-making is one way to involve us. Other games use other methods. I only care that ME:A is good at what it does. A good fun game.

[Guanxii]

In every single Mass Effect game since ME1 90% of dialogue choices have been basically cosmetic and by me3 dialogue was so linear/streamlined in favor of cinematic presentation and spectacle the illusion of choice started to break down, Shepard became a stock character and it made role playing next to impossible because Shepard was no longer an extension of myself - I became a passive observer to The Shepard show watching in horror as he would constantly say and do things which I vehemently disapproved of.

Choices need to be primarily related to squad members and relationships because those are more manageable and meaningful. Galaxy shaping choices always feel ridiculously contrived and video game-y and need to go the way of boss battles.

This is a non linear story telling medium why do we even have a main quest in this day and age?

Given the strength of the me2 episodic story Buffett model did that game really need a central plot if it wasn't arbitrarily tethered to a trilogy?

Let's expand on the episodic short story buffet idea with different factions with completely unique quest paths which involve the other factions. A role play experience you can sink your teeth into and explore from different points of view in repeat playthroughs.

[Little Princess Peach]

I love to roleplay sure make the story by all means Bioware but I want to choose in what direction that story goes do I want to be a jerk throughout the game but have a soft spot for a quarian sure thats my choice

 

I like to have as many choices as possible to change the story see how many outcomes there are that's why I play bioware games or at least used to they gave me the option to do as I pleased and saw diffrent results each time in me3 I felt like I was playing an interacive movie my shepard was long gone it was someone elses shepard with my name on it

[Iakus]

Roleplaying.
 
The very concept of story doesn't even make sense from an in-character perspective.
 

But the very concept of roleplaying is a form of cooperative storytelling.

[Timberley]

For me, I'd prefer a decent, coherent narrative, with plenty of options for my protagonist to show off their personality and capabilities within this story.  I'd like it if my character's responses to various scenarios changed the narrative to a degree, but given the constraints of the game, I suspect it won't be the freedom to change the narrative entirely. 

 

Tim

[xAmilli0n]

You have hedge this topic in a VERY biased manner.

 

What you are asking is should the game have a stronger narrative with reduced agency vs a weaker narrative with stronger agency. That is an HONEST question. But to cage this conversation is story vs role playing is BS. Actors have very little agency with their character yet their entire craft is ROLE PLAYING. The reason why they have little agency is because they have a job which is to serve the story. Serving a story does not exclude role playing.

 

If players can't role play within a game with limits on agency then they can't role play because role playing doesn't require agency to do so. Bioware has a long tradition now, since Kotor, of putting limits on a player's agency for the sake of being able to tell a strong narrative. This is not a superior or inferior way to make an RPG, it is just a style of RPG of equal validity as any type of RPG.

 

Player agency is also more illusion then substance, every RPG regardless of the system LIMITS a player. This is true with all aspects of the RPG from character creation to the mechanics of play to following the story. This includes table top systems to computer systems, I can't make a Jedi knight in Dragon age inquisition the game RESTRICTS my agency to create a character that fits within the frame work. In D&D I can not make the marvel superhero Spider-man again because the game restricts my agency. a Human GM will also restrict your agency as a player it is in fact these RESTRICTIONS on agency that create the game. Without any restrictions there is no risk, no conflict and thus no drama.

 

If people prefer a CRPG with greater freedom there are plenty of RPGs out there just don't expect Bioware to make them. Let Bioware make the RPGs THEY want to make and you as the customer decide if you are willing to pay money for their product. The strongest and loudest voice the consumer has is their wallet. If you are unhappy with bioware games don't buy them. There are Soooo many RPGs being made these last two years there is more choice now then there ever has been.

 

Thanks for the good post.  I actually tried my very best to lay out the topic in the most unbiased way I could, in the context of the medium we are dealing, and in the common language we all use in discussing it.  It does seem like you and others have understood my true intentions with the questions, fostering discussion about the individual preferences and expectations when it comes games and their emphasis on narrative vs player agency (to use your language).

 

This is really all I wanted, with hopes of emphasizing that it is a spectrum rather than a binary question.

 

I have not stake in this. Just another fan eagerly awaiting for a game to come out.

[Deanna Troy]

A story. If I want to craft my own story, I'll write a book. I'm buying something, so that I don't have too make up my own complete story. Yes, provide me some choices, but skimp out on a well thought out, engaging plot, and you've lost my interest.

Choice. I f I want to see a story I read a book or watch a movies, TV series and so on.  RPGs let you have choice. If you want story there are... let's see... ALL OTHER GAME GENRES.

Also as I always said here even FIFA is going to have story mode now (supposedly not the same as carrer mode), it is a reality, not my "speculation" any more, well never was, it was the obvious. Story is in EVERY game genre, even sport, puzzle, platform, anything really. Also everywhere.

Now where there are engines that allow you to build your own story? That's what RPGs were supposed to be. But just to be clear, nothing against things like Mass Effect, Fallout and Inquisition being about the story, 100% action games like these should be about the story, but if Bioware ever decides to make something resembling a RPG (last one was DAO), then choice over story, undisputed.

Again: I'm not talking about the 0% RPG 100% action games like Mass Effect and Inquisition. If there is action in the game like cliff jumping and button mashing, please, destroy it by putting story all you want, it doesn't matter, it is useless from the beginning because action makes any game unplayable and undeserving of existing. So do whatever you want to these abominations, my only concern if for RPGs, meaning, games where character sheet rule everything, those should not be tainted by story, because it limits player and time/resources/money already present too many restrictions, story only make it worse, the better the story the more useless the RPG. However, when it comes to games like Inquisition and Mass Effect (0% RPG 100% action) story is the only saving grace.

The only exception for what I said above is  the godlike NWN2MotB because it is indeed perfect: Perfect story, perfect characters, perfect character building, perfect character development, perfect combat, perfect setting, perfect choices, perfect and meaningful endings, perfect perfection.

[Drakoriz]

Choice. I f I want to see a story I read a book or watch a movies, TV series and so on.  RPGs let you have choice. If you want story there are... let's see... ALL OTHER GAME GENRES.

Also as I always said here even FIFA is going to have story mode now (supposedly not the same as carrer mode), it is a reality, not my "speculation" any more, well never was, it was the obvious. Story is in EVERY game genre, even sport, puzzle, platform, anything really. Also everywhere.

Now where there are engines that allow you to build your own story? That's what RPGs were supposed to be. But just to be clear, nothing against things like Mass Effect, Fallout and Inquisition being about the story, 100% action games like these should be about the story, but if Bioware ever decides to make something resembling a RPG (last one was DAO), then choice over story, undisputed.

Again: I'm not talking about the 0% RPG 100% action games like Mass Effect and Inquisition. If there is action in the game like cliff jumping and button mashing, please, destroy it by putting story all you want, it doesn't matter, it is useless from the beginning because action makes any game unplayable and undeserving of existing. So do whatever you want to these abominations, my only concern if for RPGs, meaning, games where character sheet rule everything, those should not be tainted by story, because it limits player and time/resources/money already present too many restrictions, story only make it worse, the better the story the more useless the RPG. However, when it comes to games like Inquisition and Mass Effect (0% RPG 100% action) story is the only saving grace.

The only exception for what I said above is  the godlike NWN2MotB because it is indeed perfect: Perfect story, perfect characters, perfect character building, perfect character development, perfect combat, perfect setting, perfect choices, perfect and meaningful endings, perfect perfection.

 

really i fail to see how DAO is a RPG and no DA 2 or Inquisition or ME games.

 

What u are consider a RPG is a definition to small. RPG not only mean choices, is a alot of point that u can have or no to consider a game a RPG or no.

 

I really fail to see why Inquisition or ME 3 arent not RPG. When there are choice that carries weight on the story. U come and said that DAO was the last RPG Bioware made. Tell me, there is a option to fail to defeat the Archdeamon on the game? base on what u recruit or no? or can u become a darkspawn? (exclude the DLC since is not canon).

 

True RPG on the definition u give dont exit on video games. U cant have free choice, but u can give the player the illusion on choice that is what games do. Is like the Witcher 3 do that too. No meter what u do on the game u cant chose to fail, Geralt always win, the outcome on that win is the player choice. Same goes for ME and DA inquisition.

 

No meter the game u play this day u cant ignore the main quest and still progress trow the game, aka Witcher 3 or DA or ME. True free is left for pen and paper RPG, since u are only limited by your imagination, video games dont work like that.

[AlanC9]

Hyperbole much?

[LightningPoodle]

I read all of that, Deanna Troy, and I didn't make sense of at least half of it. No matter. My response to that first paragraph, and an extension of my reasoning in my first post is: writing a book, it let's you craft it exactly how you want it. Want werewolves? Write them in. Want werewolves with guns killing robotic peasants in a medieval setting? Write that to your hearts content. It's yours. A blank sheet to do with as you please. When you buy a product however, you are not given a blank sheet of paper. You have to agree to what the game tells you, or don't but either way, you are restricted to that world, that setting and the characters that inhabit it. No matter what, we the player are never going to be given a game that let's us do with it as we please (although that Dream game - can't remember the name - may be an exception). So what are the developers to do? How do they make the game an attractive title for people to purchase and enjoy? They have to provide a story, and naturally, it's going to be their story - not ours. Instead of them trying to satisfy every single players demands by included tens of millions of "build your own story" points, they should keep them at a reasonable amount, and not sacrifice the story they want to tell in the process.

[Sylvius the Mad]

but ME never was a in-character. U always play the story of Sheperd

That doesn't even make sense. How can I make decisions for Shepard without becoming Shepard? How are Shepard's preferences being altered?

What you describe breaks the setting, rendering the entire story nonsensical.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But the very concept of roleplaying is a form of cooperative storytelling.

But the story is only visible from an out-of-character perspective. After you've done the roleplaying, you can look back and see what story you created, but the moment-to-moment decisions aren't driven by where you want the story to go. They're driven by what your character wants right then.

Storytelling, as you describe it, is metagaming.

[Andrew Lucas]

I prefer my character to have a small amount of characterization to begin with, but then be shaped by the decisions I make throughout the story. Shepard was like this in the first two games, and then became more rigid in Mass Effect 3. I felt like I had less agency as a result.

This and This. Or else we will be getting another bland Quizzy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

No meter the game u play this day u cant ignore the main quest and still progress trow the game, aka Witcher 3 or DA or ME. True free is left for pen and paper RPG, since u are only limited by your imagination, video games dont work like that.

You're presupposing that you don't roleplay by making progressing through the game your objective, and then you're concluding that you can't roleplay.

Your reasoning is circular.

I maintain that the player shouldn't be concerned with progressing through the game. The player should be concerned only with staying in character and making in-character decisions. The story is simply an account of what happens and why, and that's always going to differ across playthroughs because the main character's motives and objectives will change. Even if the character does generally the same things, why the character does them and how the character interprets the other things going in in the world will change.

Mass effect expects the player to decide, on Shepard's behalf, a wide variety of things. What skills does Shepard learn? What equipment does Shepard use? How does Shepard resolve many of the missions? How are we supposed to make those decisions without roleplaying Shepard?

And yet, the game then forces on us tolerance of squadmates (I still can't stand Ashley) or irrational concern for civilians (that kid in ME3 was one of the worst moments I've ever seen in a game calling itself an RPG).

Roleplaying isn't about freedom, it's about control. We need control of the character. Even if the character is forced to do a narrow range of things, the player needs to be the one to choose that action. ME routinely didn't allow that. That is why ME fails.

[wright1978]

I prefer my character to have a small amount of characterization to begin with, but then be shaped by the decisions I make throughout the story. Shepard was like this in the first two games, and then became more rigid in Mass Effect 3. I felt like I had less agency as a result.

Agree, felt there's was a lot of room to sculpt your own shep within the limits of rough framework of a character in the first 2 games. Unfortunately that approach wasn't there in me3 where a very rigid defined version replaced that freedom.

[Midnight Bliss]

Mass effect expects the player to decide, on Shepard's behalf, a wide variety of things. What skills does Shepard learn? What equipment does Shepard use? How does Shepard resolve many of the missions? How are we supposed to make those decisions without roleplaying Shepard?

And yet, the game then forces on us tolerance of squadmates (I still can't stand Ashley) or irrational concern for civilians (that kid in ME3 was one of the worst moments I've ever seen in a game calling itself an RPG).

Roleplaying isn't about freedom, it's about control. We need control of the character. Even if the character is forced to do a narrow range of things, the player needs to be the one to choose that action. ME routinely didn't allow that. That is why ME fails.

With Mass Effect you select a collection of characteristics and personality traits that are all "Shepard" Which let you create your interpretation of who Shepard is. However, there are some things Shepard will always/never be no matter what your interpretation of Shep is; like always being pro humanity/pro earth, never being pro Cerberus, never flat out hating any of their squadmates, never hating Anderson, always feeling guilty over the little kid dying in ME3, ect.

By contrast, the fantasy of DAI is that the Inquisitor can have virtually any backstory and any personality so long as they don't conflict with the linear pre determined character backstories. H/she can be virtually anything, can have extremely negative (or even nonexistent) relationships with subordinates, and even be quite a bit less than "good". This fantasy ultimately fails because of nonexistent consequence of choice, not really feeling truly powerful until Trespasser and too many character fantasy breaking scenes like Lelianna's meltdown and a mirad of other stuff. But nevertheless that's the fantasy of DAI, and apparently fantasy was enough to sell the game to alot of players.

 

Mass Effect doesn't fail at anything except ME3 doing a poor job at transitioning the old dialogue style to the more cinematic style, and not giving proper followup to enough of the characteristics from previous titles to prevent some people from feeling like their interpretation of Shep got lost in translation between ME2 and ME3. Though, I wonder how many people who said Shep got "ruined" In ME3 were wrongfully trying to self insert and had their dream run over with a monster truck when ME3 came round. Because my Shep was about as 50/50 morally as I think one could achieve and she translated perfectly in ME3, and I noticed few instances of "weird" Dialogue, and never anything that was blatantly OOC. Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones? But whatever.

[Iakus]

But the story is only visible from an out-of-character perspective. After you've done the roleplaying, you can look back and see what story you created, but the moment-to-moment decisions aren't driven by where you want the story to go. They're driven by what your character wants right then.

Storytelling, as you describe it, is metagaming.

in a sense, it is.  But I believe it is a rare individual who can completely shut out all outside knowledge of events and operate purely on what the character knows.  On a certain level, we are not just operating on how the character would react, but on the direction we want to take the story.

[Drakoriz]

You're presupposing that you don't roleplay by making progressing through the game your objective, and then you're concluding that you can't roleplay.

Your reasoning is circular.

I maintain that the player shouldn't be concerned with progressing through the game. The player should be concerned only with staying in character and making in-character decisions. The story is simply an account of what happens and why, and that's always going to differ across playthroughs because the main character's motives and objectives will change. Even if the character does generally the same things, why the character does them and how the character interprets the other things going in in the world will change.

Mass effect expects the player to decide, on Shepard's behalf, a wide variety of things. What skills does Shepard learn? What equipment does Shepard use? How does Shepard resolve many of the missions? How are we supposed to make those decisions without roleplaying Shepard?

And yet, the game then forces on us tolerance of squadmates (I still can't stand Ashley) or irrational concern for civilians (that kid in ME3 was one of the worst moments I've ever seen in a game calling itself an RPG).

Roleplaying isn't about freedom, it's about control. We need control of the character. Even if the character is forced to do a narrow range of things, the player needs to be the one to choose that action. ME routinely didn't allow that. That is why ME fails.

 

i have never play any RPG the way u describe. Like on Fallout 1, i hate Harold. could i kill him? no, he was part of the main quest. Same goes for some character on NV or Baldur Gate. 

 

U never controlling on a game u have the illusion of it. That why i fail to see the rage on game like ME or DA. The decision u take on a game will always be A or B or C or D. And the outcome of that decision are preset. u never have true control or freedom.

 

That why when someone on this post say if u want to true control or freedom go write a book he/she was right, games arent about freedom or control, games are about telling a preset story, they are like "choose your own story" books.

[Il Divo]

in a sense, it is.  But I believe it is a rare individual who can completely shut out all outside knowledge of events and operate purely on what the character knows.  On a certain level, we are not just operating on how the character would react, but on the direction we want to take the story.

 

Seconded. 

[Il Divo]

But the story is only visible from an out-of-character perspective. After you've done the roleplaying, you can look back and see what story you created, but the moment-to-moment decisions aren't driven by where you want the story to go. They're driven by what your character wants right then.

Storytelling, as you describe it, is metagaming.

 

That's not metagaming, that's simply acknowledging the nature of the medium. Your DM might metagame for the creation of the narrative, since he is essentially the all-powerful creator, but that doesn't negate that you're working towards a common goal from an in character stand point.