145 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

http://www.pcgamer.c...-and-npcs-more/

 

 

 

 

 

Thoughts?

[BioWareM0d13]

I mostly agree, but didn't care for the DA2 example given in the article.

 

What made Anders so frustrating for me is that I knew he was building a bomb once the main ingredient was revealed, but Hawke was powerless to stop it. I may have liked it if he was more clever in pulling off his plot and Hawke wasn't reduced to being a bumbling patsy.

[Mdizzletr0n]

These days, there's either bumbling patsy or bumbling space Jesus when it comes to BW protagonists. Lol

[Iakus]

A player shouldn't be able to solve every minor argument or problem that comes along.

 

But if we turn the character into a complete bystander, why are we playing at all?

[RoboticWater]

A player shouldn't be able to solve every minor argument or problem that comes along.

 

But if we turn the character into a complete bystander, why are we playing at all?

The argument isn't to make the protagonist a complete bystander, but find a more reasonable balance between agent and influencer. I liked this quote specifically: “You don’t get to lead the revolution if you’re not the one being oppressed.”

 

BioWare has the tendency to make the player the singular driving force of nearly every plot and sub-plot they inject themselves into. I think it's a bit ridiculous that the player, presumably some stranger, can become not only the vanguard, but the icon for another culture's problem. It's the very epitome of the "humans are the best and solve everything," problem we keep seeing in Mass Effect. If we strip away some of that entitlement from the player, then we might actually get a more balanced plot for once.

 

While I don't think we should be relegated to being a mere participant like 80 Days seems to do, BioWare could try to limit our apparent importance to the event. For example: there's a civil war going on and you get to choose who to support. Rather than immediately (or gradually) working your way up to commander of one of the armies, you just complete some special tasks and get recognition as an aid. When the final charge happens, you can be on the front lines, but you won't be the standard bearer. When the battle is over, your name won't be chanted and you might not even be remembered, because why should you? You're just some guy who showed up to help. Your presence may have been the deciding factor in the war, but it doesn't need to seem like you're the only reason the war was won at all.

 

Hell, if BIoWare actually start phrasing large choices with "we'll take that under advisement," then players might not feel so disappointed when BioWare ultimately can't follow up on them.

[ZipZap2000]

I would literally stop buying Bioware games and look elsewhere if they did that. Plenty of other generic predetermined characters/Stories out there if you don't like making the decisions yourself. It might as well be an argument against making RPG's altogether is how I feel.

The last thing I need is some random Elcor crew member, who I don't even like let alone agree with, deciding outcomes for me.

[Mcfly616]

I would literally stop buying Bioware games and look elsewhere if they did that. Plenty of other generic predetermined characters/Stories out there if you don't like making the decisions yourself. It might as well be an argument against making RPG's altogether is how I feel

The article isn't advocating predetermined characters or the removal of player decisions.

[goishen]

Right, but he's way too insular.  He's focusing on BioWare games, nothing else.  If he wants to really expand his writing, start writing about some other games.  I can think of tons that give you no option except to solve other people's problems.  BioWare at least gives you the option (for the most part) to just walk away.

[ZipZap2000]

The article isn't advocating predetermined characters or the removal of player decisions.

Just the nerfing of them?

[Battlebloodmage]

If I want to play some powerless guy being bossed around by orders, I play real life.

 

It's a power fantasy, she's not being seen edgier or outside the box by bringing up something that obvious has a reason why it happens the way it is. There are a lot of people complain about how in DA2, their choices don't matter from taking away Merrill's shard to stopping Anders. She's like a solution to questions no one ask for. Certain formula happens the way it is because people like to feel in control, one of the biggest problems people have with Fallout 4 ending is the lack of choices that the players can make to influence for a better ending with no nuclear explosion and things like that. 

[Mcfly616]

Just the nerfing of them?

 Your decisions? No. More like your influence. 

[SardaukarElite]

Just the nerfing of them?

 

No. The point is about making choices for other characters. 80 Days is full of characters who you can meet but can't alter the direction of their lives. It still has plenty of choices, great ones, but they're about your character's journey.

 

Giving a player choice doesn't have to mean making the world their play thing. 

[Battlebloodmage]

No. The point is about making choices for other characters. 80 Days is full of characters who you can meet but can't alter the direction of their lives. It still has plenty of choices, great ones, but they're about your character's journey.

 

Giving a player choice doesn't have to mean making the world their play thing. 

Depending on the game, there are game that are about power fantasy, and player's agency. 

[straykat]

The argument isn't to make the protagonist a complete bystander, but find a more reasonable balance between agent and influencer. I liked this quote specifically: “You don’t get to lead the revolution if you’re not the one being oppressed.”

 

Yes. That first example from ME1 in the article is interesting, but I think it's most glaring with the entirety of DAI's plot. Even Shepard wasn't that bad.

 

 

I think there's plenty of room for roleplaying things directly affect you're character itself though.

[SardaukarElite]

Depending on the game, there are game that are about power fantasy, and player's agency. 

 

Neither of which require other characters to always defer important choices in their life to the player all the time. 

[AlanC9]

What made Anders so frustrating for me is that I knew he was building a bomb once the main ingredient was revealed, but Hawke was powerless to stop it. I may have liked it if he was more clever in pulling off his plot and Hawke wasn't reduced to being a bumbling patsy.

But the problem here isn't with the structuring of Hawke's choices per se, it's with the information given to Hawke. I guess they were going for suspense, as Hitchcock defined it. If they have to do that, they should do it with cutscenes that the PC doesn't see.

[Sanunes]

But the problem here isn't with the structuring of Hawke's choices per se, it's with the information given to Hawke. I guess they were going for suspense, as Hitchcock defined it. If they have to do that, they should do it with cutscenes that the PC doesn't see.

 

I just wonder if people would be able to accept if there is something happening on the screen and it is for us to know and not our character. I think the interactivity of games is making that line a little fuzzy for we are still pressing buttons to interact with those scenes and especially with RPG style games were are using the character as our avatar so it is information for us to know to influence our decisions.

 

I think a better approach would have been to have us have nothing to do with Anders plot and just have him not present at times and nobody knows where he is.

[straykat]

I think a better approach would have been to have us have nothing to do with Anders plot and just have him not present at times and nobody knows where he is.

 

I'd like that..

 

But I don't recall seeing through his plan at first. Some people predict this stuff better than I do (same with movies).

[Battlebloodmage]

Neither of which require other characters to always defer important choices in their life to the player all the time. 

Yes, it does. 

[Onewomanarmy]

I'd like that..

 

But I don't recall seeing through his plan at first. Some people predict this stuff better than I do (same with movies).

 

I didn't see through his plan at first either which is very weird cause I'm usually VERY good at these things when it comes to movies, soooo good that it usually drives my surroundings insane when watching a movie together and I always have the plot all ready and good layed out before hand because it's plain obvious   

[Cyonan]

I agree that Mass Effect could be silly in that Shep could just talk to resolve pretty much any conflict between two parties. I literally solved the Geth/Quarian decades of problems with a simple paragon or renegade dialogue choice that says the same thing regardless of which one I picked.

 

Although if you're going to make me the saviour of the galaxy, then I expect that I'm going to have some influence in major events too.

 

As for Anders, I didn't see the exact "blow up the chantry" thing coming but based on how he acted I figured he was going to do something colossally stupid at some point that was going to escalate the whole situation massively.

[Eelectrica]

They make a good point.

I Still wish I could go get Anders some more dynamite though. More chantry's that could use some remodeling.

[CrutchCricket]

A player shouldn't be able to solve every minor argument or problem that comes along.

 

But if we turn the character into a complete bystander, why are we playing at all?

A better question is why are minor NPCs always coming up to us to ask us for help advice on their minor trivial problems?

 

Why is the great military commander solving a bystander's parenting dilemma? Well what the hell kind of parent thinks it's a good idea to approach the war hero and ask about smacking their kid in the first place?

 

The article also likens their point to giving advice to your friend in RL and how they might take it, they might not. Well in RL the point isn't to make the decision for them it's to be there for them and support them like a friend's supposed to do. But in a game, where everything boils down to variables? If I can't change the variable to what I want it to be then why should I care? I'm all for immersion and roleplaying but NPCs aren't my "friends", nor are they capable of registering "support".

 

The argument isn't to make the protagonist a complete bystander, but find a more reasonable balance between agent and influencer. I liked this quote specifically: “You don’t get to lead the revolution if you’re not the one being oppressed.”

 

BioWare has the tendency to make the player the singular driving force of nearly every plot and sub-plot they inject themselves into. I think it's a bit ridiculous that the player, presumably some stranger, can become not only the vanguard, but the icon for another culture's problem. It's the very epitome of the "humans are the best and solve everything," problem we keep seeing in Mass Effect. If we strip away some of that entitlement from the player, then we might actually get a more balanced plot for once.

 

While I don't think we should be relegated to being a mere participant like 80 Days seems to do, BioWare could try to limit our apparent importance to the event. For example: there's a civil war going on and you get to choose who to support. Rather than immediately (or gradually) working your way up to commander of one of the armies, you complete some special tasks and get recognition as an aid. When the final charge happens, you can be on the front lines, but you won't be the standard bearer. When the battle is over, your name won't be chanted and you might not even be remembered, because why should you? You're just some guy who showed up to help. Your presence may have been the deciding factor in the war, but it doesn't need to seem like you're the only reason the war was won at all.

 

Hell, if BIoWare actually start phrasing large choices with "we'll take that under advisement," then players might not feel so disappointed when BioWare ultimately can't follow up on those decisions.

I can kind of see your point, mostly because if we are playing some great leader, it's pretty dumb we're always in the field doing the dirty work. If we join the cause and have to do the dirty work, we probably shouldn't be playing the leader.

 

But paradoxically enough, I'd only be ok with your hypothetical in game if I had the choice to either take over the movement or keep my contribution anonymous.

 

No. The point is about making choices for other characters. 80 Days is full of characters who you can meet but can't alter the direction of their lives.

That means they don't ask though, right?

[wright1978]

I don't really agree with the thrust of the article which is about reducing the player to a cheerleader or heckler whilst an npc ignores the player and does their own thing. Having an impact on others seems a pretty essential component of these games.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

Not being a space Jesus would be pretty nice. I mean it's nice the quarians and the geth put their fight on pause just so I could get there and preach. Same with the krogan and salarians putting their fight on hold so space Jesus can save their planet by himself. Oh and we saved the entire hanar and drell navy/fleet by just disabling a virus! And don't even get me started on the ending. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if in Andromeda, your squadmates ask you permission to pee.