769 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

No, I'm asking how you interpret the situation in the real world if you make a joke and get an unexpected reaction in response?
Are you convinced that you didn't actually tell a joke? Do you question whether you misinterpreted the intent of your writers? Of course not.
So why would you do that in-game?

As an example, take the Cousland's dialogue with Nan at Highever castle. When s/he says "Maybe *you* should be put down" when she's complaining about the Mabari, there's no way to really follow through with this line and actually kill her, even if you don't accept whatshisface to come with you to retrieve the dog. So is this line just intended to be a mean smartass remark, or do I want to RP a Warden that's a crazed murderer from the start? The only witnesses would be those silly little elves and no one would miss them. But alas, that line only really functions as being a smartass to the Warden's former nanny.

[Seraphim24]

THE MULTIQUOTE BATTLE, IT LIVES!!!

[slimgrin]

Shepard was a semi-defined protag, so VOs make sense. It'll be the same with Ryder. Besides, a TP game where the character doesn't speak look out of place. 

[Halfdan The Menace]

Shepard was a semi-defined protag, so VOs make sense. It'll be the same with Ryder. Besides, a TP game where the character doesn't speak look out of place.

What Slimgrin said.

[KaiserShep]

Shepard was a semi-defined protag, so VOs make sense. It'll be the same with Ryder. Besides, a TP game where the character doesn't speak look out of place.

In a sense, even the Warden is somewhat predefined. My Cousland Warden automatically cares about the family left behind at Highever, and clearly shows distress at the death of his/her nephew and sister in law and Bryce bleeding out on the floor.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I say, "that was a joke," or some such and move on. In a game, if that option doesn't exist after I've told an alleged misinterpreted joke, then that option likely wasn't a joke in the first place.

Of course I do. This is a game with writers. The most sensible answer isn't that Alistair only misunderstands my sarcasm for whatever reason and then never has an explanation; it's that the writers never intended for certain lines of dialog to be sarcastic.

So you're metagaming the conversations.

Well, that's your fault.

Because unlike you, I'm not a practiced mental gymnast.You're the one who always drones on about experiences that ruin the credibility of the setting. Characters acting inconsistently ruins the setting.

The inconsistency isn't discernible unless we can read their minds, which you agree we can't do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As an example, take the Cousland's dialogue with Nan at Highever castle. When s/he says "Maybe *you* should be put down" when she's complaining about the Mabari, there's no way to really follow through with this line and actually kill her, even if you don't accept whatshisface to come with you to retrieve the dog. So is this line just intended to be a mean smartass remark, or do I want to RP a Warden that's a crazed murderer from the start? The only witnesses would be those silly little elves and no one would miss them. But alas, that line only really functions as being a smartass to the Warden's former nanny.

That's a great example. Your character could just be snarky, of maybe he really does think so little of his servants that he will casually threaten to have them killed.

A different reading of that line can change it a lot. That's something the silent protagonist gives us. When the voiced protagonist gives us the same, then I will entertain the suggestion that it is adequate.

In your example, I'm just working from your description of it. Human Noble is the origin I've played the least.

[RoboticWater]

So you're metagaming the conversations.

Well, that's your fault.

Not if people agree with me.

The inconsistency isn't discernible unless we can read their minds, which you agree we can't do.

You don't need to read minds to notice inconsistent behavior. For instance, if you began to argue the silent protagonist as a poor RPG mechanic, then that behavior would be inconsistent. You may have a perfectly valid explanation for said behavior, but unless I'm able to figure that behavior out by asking you (something not allowed to us in game), that behavior will just be inconsistent.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Not if people agree with me.

You find that aspect of the silent protagonist troubling only because you are metagaming. If you stopped doing that, it would work better.

That it works less well for you is your fault.

You don't need to read minds to notice inconsistent behavior. For instance, if you began to argue the silent protagonist as a poor RPG mechanic, then that behavior would be inconsistent. You may have a perfectly valid explanation for said behavior, but unless I'm able to figure that behavior out by asking you (something not allowed to us in game), that behavior will just be inconsistent.

It would look inconsistent. Whether it actually was would be unknown to you.

[Cyonan]

That's exactly how real people act. You never know how people are going to respond, and you can't ever be sure that they've understood you correctly. At least, I don't. This is my experience of talking with people. So, from my point of view, the dialogue in BioWare's silent protagonist games mimics real world conversations just about perfectly.

 

It's not at all how the vast majority of real people act.

 

It's not about misunderstanding what I'm saying. It's about their behavioural patterns being completely messed up because you're assuming really weird tones of voice. People don't just suddenly change their behaviour without any prompt and then change back without further prompt. Not unless everybody in Thedas has some kind of multiple personality disorder.

 

In a game where we're supposed be spending all our time traveling with the party if something that major happens as to cause a shift in the character's personality, then they need to show that to us. That's why "hardened" Alistair is not a problem, because we can see the shift happen in front of us.

 

Everybody has some level of predictability. As I said, if a person were ever 100% unpredictable then they would be unable to hold a basic conversation with anybody else. When a NPC starts approaching that, it makes for both bad story telling and bad roleplaying.

 

I'm not the one calling them "pure RPGs". They're just RPGs, unless they're not. And I am describing the features Mass Effect needs to have to be one.

But that next leap was entirely yours.

 

Your exact words were a "pure approach to roleplaying", so I shortened it to "pure RPGs" to denote your idea of RPG. I do not agree with it, so I do not actually call it a RPG.

 

Again the intent isn't what matters. Your behaviour is what is constant. Your reasons for doing so may be misinterpreted, but your actions don't change.

[RoboticWater]

You find that aspect of the silent protagonist troubling only because you are metagaming. If you stopped doing that, it would work better.

Would that I could, but I can't. Nor, I suspect, can most others.
 

That it works less well for you is your fault.

Any good feature disliked by the audience isn't a good feature at all. Deluding myself to the degree that you do on a regular basis is a skill that I do not possess. I'm sure you can sympathize with the notion of skill barriers impeding my enjoyment.
 

It would look inconsistent. Whether it actually was would be unknown to you.

What is is irrelevant. What seems is all we know, and if what is seems inconsistent, then I am annoyed.

[Cyonan]

Would that I could, but I can't. Nor, I suspect, can most others.

 

Hell I'm regarded as one of the best people for both actual role playing and not metagaming in my pen and paper circle and I still have the same issue with conversations in DA:O if trying to play it like Sylvius says he does.

 

It's because not being able to metagame it is merely a symptom, but the cause is the breaking of immersion. When you see Alistair acting less like a real person and more like a robot struggling to understand human behaviour, then it completely takes you out of the game.

 

and most people will struggle not to metagame once that happens.

[workforme]

XCOM is a game with epic story,good tactic gameplay,and a silent protagonist.

 

Why not play it,I know i do.

[RoboticWater]

XCOM is a game with epic story,good tactic gameplay,and a silent protagonist.

 

Why not play it,I know i do.

I like the way you think.

 

When in doubt, just play XCOM.

[workforme]

I like the way you think.

 

When in doubt, just play XCOM.

What do the DA2 says about the friendly achievement again?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Would that I could, but I can't. Nor, I suspect, can most others.

Any good feature disliked by the audience isn't a good feature at all. Deluding myself to the degree that you do on a regular basis is a skill that I do not possess. I'm sure you can sympathize with the notion of skill barriers impeding my enjoyment.

What is is irrelevant. What seems is all we know, and if what is seems inconsistent, then I am annoyed.

But people look inconsistent all the time. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that I know their thoughts well enough to conclude that they are.

People looking inconsistent isn't even particularly noteworthy. That's just what people are like.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hell I'm regarded as one of the best people for both actual role playing and not metagaming in my pen and paper circle and I still have the same issue with conversations in DA:O if trying to play it like Sylvius says he does.

It's because not being able to metagame it is merely a symptom, but the cause is the breaking of immersion. When you see Alistair acting less like a real person and more like a robot struggling to understand human behaviour, then it completely takes you out of the game.

and most people will struggle not to metagame once that happens.

Perhaps it helps that I am a robot struggling to understand human behaviour.

Actually, I no longer struggle. I've largely given up.

[RoboticWater]

But people look inconsistent all the time. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that I know their thoughts well enough to conclude that they are.

People looking inconsistent isn't even particularly noteworthy. That's just what people are like.

I never claimed to know their thoughts. That's just you desperately trying to shove those words down my throat. Quite frankly, the only arrogance here is yours, presuming that you know "what people are like," when you, by your own admission, have "largely given up" trying to understand human behavior.

 

This actually reminds me of the Turing Test. Only a human can administer it because the its purpose is not to determine if a robot is a human but if it seems to be human by another's estimation. This is precisely what a writer needs to do: create a character that seems real to anyone that interacts with it. They do so by making these characters consistent and inconsistent in just the right ways.

 

If a character's inconsistencies don't bother you, then fine. Rest assured knowing that your inability to properly understand human behavior has rendered you numb to the annoyances that bother the rest of us.

[AlanC9]

But people look inconsistent all the time. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that I know their thoughts well enough to conclude that they are.
People looking inconsistent isn't even particularly noteworthy. That's just what people are like.

The problem with this answer is that it's of no use. Once I've perceived the actual design intent of the conversation -- the writer has PC say a line with an implied tone, to which the NPC responded -- I can't un-perceive it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The problem with this answer is that it's of no use. Once I've perceived the actual design intent of the conversation -- the writer has PC say a line with an implied tone, to which the NPC responded -- I can't un-perceive it.

Of course you can. You compartmentalize.

Do you always metagame whenever possible, because you just can't help yourself? Of course not.

Compartmentalization is the basis of every thought experiment ever. Compartmentalization is required for every investigation of a hypothetical. Every method actor compartmentalizes.

Yes, you can't un-perceive it, but you can think and act as if you haven't. But even more importantly, why would you choose to perceive it in the first place? I was quite annoyed when someone pointed out that the dialogue options in KotOR were nearly always sorted the same way. It was easier to play the game when I didn't know that, sure, but I still manage. And learning how to ignore the order even after I knew about it turned out to be good practice for the dialogue wheel, where I ignore both position and tone icons.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I never claimed to know their thoughts.

Indirectly, yes you did. You said they were inconsistent, something you can't know without reading their thoughts. Modus tollens.

That's just you desperately trying to shove those words down my throat. Quite frankly, the only arrogance here is yours, presuming that you know "what people are like," when you, by your own admission, have "largely given up" trying to understand human behavior.

What they are like is unpredictable by me. I would argue that I'm the best judge of what I can't reliably predict.

This actually reminds me of the Turing Test. Only a human can administer it because the its purpose is not to determine if a robot is a human but if it seems to be human by another's estimation. This is precisely what a writer needs to do: create a character that seems real to anyone that interacts with it. They do so by making these characters consistent and inconsistent in just the right ways.

When the NPCs are predictable, they fail that test (as administered by me).

If a character's inconsistencies don't bother you, then fine. Rest assured knowing that your inability to properly understand human behavior has rendered you numb to the annoyances that bother the rest of us.

A character's apparent inconsistencies don't bother me, because I see the same thing in nearly all people.

You're the one making the leap of logic that the characters are actually inconsistent.

[Cyonan]

You're the one making the leap of logic that the characters are actually inconsistent.

 

The only leap of logic here is your own in saying that because we can't know the mind of another person that means they're completely unpredictable.

 

You're arguing against decades of scientific research and evidence on this one. You might as well argue that gravity doesn't exist, which you can believe all you want but you're still stuck on this planet.

 

The fact is that you've already admitted to not understanding Human behaviour and no longer trying to understand it, which means that any argument about it that you make is going to be applicable to you and only you.

 

So that doesn't defeat my original argument: Being able to choose tone of voice isn't a benefit of silent protagonists. It's just easier to say that than to add "Unless you're Sylvius" or "for the vast majority of people" at the end of it every single time I type it, so I'm not going to do that.

[RoboticWater]

Indirectly, yes you did. You said they were inconsistent, something you can't know without reading their thoughts. Modus tollens.

Convenient how you deny the existence of implication until it suits your needs.

Regardless, I've explained to you time and again: people may not be inconsistent, but they may seem inconsistent. People form conceptions of others by aggregating perceived behavior. We then attempt to integrate every new piece of observed behavior back into that conception. For behavior that doesn't fit the pattern we formed, we attempt to find a reason for it (i.e. a gun to their head), and any unexplained behavior that remains will appear inconsistent.
 

What they are like is unpredictable by me. I would argue that I'm the best judge of what I can't reliably predict.

I'm certain that you are your own best judge. However, given that you have given up on studying human behavior, you are quite possibly the worst judge for everyone else. Hence why "that's just what people are like," isn't a phrase you can rightly use.
 

When the NPCs are predictable, they fail that test (as administered by me).

But the Turing Test doesn't exist to prove that a machine seems human to Sylvius the Mad, it exists to prove that a machine seems human to people. What BioWare have to do is make a character that seems human to most people.
 

A character's apparent inconsistencies don't bother me, because I see the same thing in nearly all people.

So? You of all people should know that you can't generalize your opinions to the entire population, especially those regarding human behavior.
 

You're the one making the leap of logic that the characters are actually inconsistent.

There is no leap. I form my conception of another, and any behavior I can't reasonably integrate into that conception, seems inconsistent. That you can't sympathize with my perspective is unfortunate but irrelevant. All I have to do is prove that many people are irked by perceived inconsistencies produced by inventing tone. By the size of your opposition, I'd say that I've done that
 

Of course you can. You compartmentalize.

Do you always metagame whenever possible, because you just can't help yourself? Of course not.

Compartmentalization is the basis of every thought experiment ever. Compartmentalization is required for every investigation of a hypothetical. Every method actor compartmentalizes.

Yes, you can't un-perceive it, but you can think and act as if you haven't. But even more importantly, why would you choose to perceive it in the first place? I was quite annoyed when someone pointed out that the dialogue options in KotOR were nearly always sorted the same way. It was easier to play the game when I didn't know that, sure, but I still manage. And learning how to ignore the order even after I knew about it turned out to be good practice for the dialogue wheel, where I ignore both position and tone icons.

I thought a good RPG didn't require any player skill.

[capn233]

Voiced protagonist makes the most sense for this series.

 

And for most games like this at current technology levels.

[Il Divo]

 

 

Everybody has some level of predictability. As I said, if a person were ever 100% unpredictable then they would be unable to hold a basic conversation with anybody else. When a NPC starts approaching that, it makes for both bad story telling and bad roleplaying.

 

 

I think this point deserves much more attention. It's true that it can be difficult to understand another human being. But if we didn't have any faculties to try to predict human behavior, at least to some extent, the world would be a much more chaotic place, from an interaction stand-point.