769 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphim24]

The fact is any role playing game can be played without role-playing i see this all the time with Pen and paper games. So yes you can choose NOT to role play in a cRPG there is actually no requirement to do so but there is nothing prohibiting you from role playing in Bioware games.

 

I would quibble with this, the problem in my opinion with current Bioware games is you can't really role play you pretty much are increasingly left with no option but to play the "dark side" options or a "dark side" protagonist (ME2 and DA2 being prime examples of this). Earlier Bioware games it was like light side, dark side, perhaps whereas current Bioware games pretty much just left you no option but to "roleplay" the dark side protagonist, which isn't really roleplaying. 

 

I mean ME2 is this extremely anti-heroic archconservative romp basically. 

 

Dragon Age Inquisition amusingly(?) went so hard on that notion you actually morphed into the "Fake good guy" in many ways, which to be honest was possibly worse IMO than an honest bad guy/girl (NOT that either one was preferable to me of course). Once again, it is powerfully, almost blindingly intense super-maxed out conservatism at times. Actually though there is precedent in earlier games such as in the form of Anders and such, who is basically a male Harle Quinn. 

 

I suspect this could be due to a variety of factors, one simply being the people that enjoyed the light side RP option are quite sparse and generally in the extreme minority compared to the kingdom of edgy, at least on forums and such channels for sure. 

 

Otherwise though, I think I agree with some of your sentiments the ability of a game to channel this notion that there are "multiple paths" and such is a sign of a stronger game, and role playing, just about how it's possibly applied here. 

[AlanC9]

Dragon Age Inquisition amusingly(?) went so hard on that notion you actually morphed into the "Fake good guy" in many ways, which to be honest was possibly worse IMO than an honest bad guy/girl (NOT that either one was preferable to me of course). Once again, it is powerfully, almost blindingly intense super-maxed out conservatism at times. Actually though there is precedent in earlier games such as in the form of Anders and such, who is basically a male Harle Quinn.

Conservatism? What's being conserved? My last quizzy did a lot of damage to the existing social and political order.

[Seraphim24]

Conservatism? What's being conserved? My last quizzy did a lot of damage to the existing social and political order.

 

Well that's what conservatism "leads" to, the natural result in many instances, but it's conservative in principle, at first. 

 

Conservatism is essentially the belief that intellectual > all and that you should never do anything of any kind and just be a frozen solid stiff who follows every single rule and there is nothing good from action or anything breaking these kind of super norm of "nothing" and kind of "faux stability." 

 

Mostly because it's blind to the origins of an idea, and tends to focus on it's representations over the substance. Like, the Inquisitor upholds some philosophy from the "past" which is ill-defined and evenly less interpreted or understood, involving elves and destruction and who knows what else. The point is they don't understand it and are simply tethered to "principle" which is like worshipping a statute it's contours and all that but not the idea it stands for. 

 

It typically means a long period of quiet with absolutely nothing until it finally "breaks" in extreme chaos and destruction (although perhaps in some instances, that never happens), which leads to a path of death and destruction and generally extreme violence as the "stoic" I guess eventually learns that life is actually happening all this time. 

 

Anyway, I was also using "conservatism" in more of a generic social sense (although not tied to a party or something either), 

[Gothfather]

I would quibble with this, the problem in my opinion with current Bioware games is you can't really role play you pretty much are increasingly left with no option but to play the "dark side" options or a "dark side" protagonist (ME2 and DA2 being prime examples of this). Earlier Bioware games it was like light side, dark side, perhaps whereas current Bioware games pretty much just left you no option but to "roleplay" the dark side protagonist, which isn't really roleplaying. 

 

I mean ME2 is this extremely anti-heroic archconservative romp basically. 

 

Dragon Age Inquisition amusingly(?) went so hard on that notion you actually morphed into the "Fake good guy" in many ways, which to be honest was possibly worse IMO than an honest bad guy/girl (NOT that either one was preferable to me of course). Once again, it is powerfully, almost blindingly intense super-maxed out conservatism at times. Actually though there is precedent in earlier games such as in the form of Anders and such, who is basically a male Harle Quinn. 

 

I suspect this could be due to a variety of factors, one simply being the people that enjoyed the light side RP option are quite sparse and generally in the extreme minority compared to the kingdom of edgy, at least on forums and such channels for sure. 

 

Otherwise though, I think I agree with some of your sentiments the ability of a game to channel this notion that there are "multiple paths" and such is a sign of a stronger game, and role playing, just about how it's possibly applied here. 

 

 

Here we have a post saying you can't be a good guy and then another group of players say they can't be a bad guy.

 

People go on and on how liberal bioware and how they force progressivism on to people and you are arguing the exact opposite? That bioware is actually a conservative mouth piece?

 

It seems to me that these mutually exclusive positions that people hold shows that what people are actually complaining about is the inability to true agency of the character but this idea that agency is roleplaying is false. Limit on agency is the fundamental building block of any game, be it chess, pen and paper RPG, action RPG board game or cards. Being confined by the framework of the game is what makes the game. in an RPG making an all knowing and all power character gives you total agency but there is no game when you know and can do anything. Pen and paper rpg also limit agency they limit what you can and can not do within the frame work of the game space. in Risk I can't magically teleport my armies from Australia to Greenland. Your agency is again limited.

 

You want you character to be able to be good in a specific and with set parameters what they are you haven't elaborated so I can't comment on them in specifics but people have declared they can't be evil because they can't murder companions when they want to. The fact that you are seeing overt conservatism in a series of games that constantly get attacked for forced progressivism makes me question your perception skills or the understanding of what conservatism actually is.

 

If you find Bioware' games problematic then play other games. If their political "agenda" offends 'punish' them by not buying their products. Walmart offends me so I don't buy their products. Its really very simple.

 

I swear your explanation of conservatism was filled with random sentence fragments and if you submitted that in university they'd failure on 'principle.' I have no idea what the hell you were trying to say.

[Seraphim24]

Here we have a post saying you can't be a good guy and then another group of players say they can't be a bad guy.

 

<snip>

 

If you find Bioware' games problematic then play other games. 

 

I don't and haven't in recent times, and increasingly will likely just stop following them period, (think of it like a downward slope), although it's not because of any "agenda" I just as say find them very hyper conservative and such it's just an offering that doesn't appeal to me. If the very first game Bioware released was Dragon Age Inquisition, I likely would of never given them a second thought and just skipped over them as a developer. 

 

I perceive early Bioware games to be compassionate and liberal but yes their increasingly arch-conservative or otherwise the sort of "norm" which if you mean all your points about "objective/subjective" then you simply accept on it's face that this is my subjective opinion. 

[Gothfather]

I don't and haven't in recent times, and increasingly will likely just stop following them period, (think of it like a downward slope). If the very first game Bioware released was Dragon Age Inquisition, I likely would of never given them a second thought and just skipped over them as a developer. 

 

I perceive early Bioware games to be compassionate and liberal but yes their increasingly arch-conservative or otherwise the sort of "norm" which if you mean all your points about "objective/subjective" then you simply accept on it's face that this is my subjective opinion. 

 

If you don't believe your own philosophy, then you should really not espouse it, it's really that simple. 

 

I swear you change thought mid sentence. Your second paragraph looks like you just mashed two different and incomplete thoughts together into one sentence. I honestly have no idea what you are on about.

[Seraphim24]

I swear you change thought mid sentence. Your second paragraph looks like you just mashed two different and incomplete thoughts together into one sentence. I honestly have no idea what you are on about.

 

I perceive earlier Bioware games to be compassionate and liberal but currently very arch-conservative otherwise the sort of "norm."

 

If that's still not comprehensible I apologize I guess that's all I can do, but yeah I mean I have taken to playing other games increasingly so I guess people that like that will stick with it and people that don't can and will move on to other things. 

 

At any rate, lost in these grandstanding intellectual battles in current ME games, is the apparently lost forgotten fact the boss of MDK2 was literally named Schwing Shwang, who terrorized the world out of sheer boredom. 

 

It certainly didn't take itself nearly as seriously. 

[dewayne31]

as much as miss my silence bluehair wc1 and wc2. i think those days are pretty much over

[Seraphim24]

Ok I think maybe people are confused because I used "conservative" which is just way too loaded a term. 

 

I'll just stick with, I perceive earlier Bioware games to be more like "humanistic?" "Friendly" Whereas current ones are arch-intellectual and extremely cold? Is that better? 

 

I think current Bioware games are loaded with super comic villains and CSI villains and just kind of Villania? 

 

I equate arch-intellectualism with "conservatism" in a very general sense, or just the notion that one should never do anything and kind of live hyper-delicately. Then I proceeded to say that it is not necessarily passive... or rather it is "intellectual" a lot of the time but then suddenly active and such, kind of like a volcano. 

 

Even more to the point, it's recurring popularity illustrates, well, that it's still a thing you respect I guess. 

 

Well anyway, even if that doesn't make sense, I don't really know how else to say it. 

 

One way or another, hopefully we can agree yes it's true there are other games that offer different ideas and I find myself gravitating towards them, and if what it is given is not desirable by me personally I can easily go elsewhere. 

 

But I hope you might agree that, one way or another, Bioware games have changed somewhat significantly over time, whatever you want to call the first and the later editions, they certainly aren't really the same, and to my mind, are quite far apart. 

 

How this relates to what other people perceive them as or label them as or whatever past or present I couldn't even really tell you, this is simply my subjective personal opinion. 

 

Maybe I should just simplify and leave aside all the jargon.

 

I just don't think modern Bioware games are very good, that's honestly maybe what I should of just said. Whereas in general older games depending yes well that would be very good or quite good, depending. 

 

As to your "buy other games" done and done and all that but it's been like a gradual process, there was no sudden moment when in my subjective opinion they became that way, it was just kind of this downward trend over time. 

 

Anyway, to the thread topic integral in that earlier quality was the silent protagonist IMHO. 

[Gothfather]

Ok I think maybe people are confused because I used "conservative" which is just way too loaded a term. 

 

I'll just stick with, I perceive earlier Bioware games to be more like "humanistic?" "Friendly" Whereas current ones are arch-intellectual and extremely cold? Is that better? 

 

I think current Bioware games are loaded with super comic villains and CSI villains and just kind of Villania? 

 

I equate arch-intellectualism with "conservatism" in a very general sense, or just the notion that one should never do anything and kind of live hyper-delicately. Then I proceeded to say that it is not necessarily passive... or rather it is "intellectual" a lot of the time but then suddenly active and such, kind of like a volcano. 

 

Even more to the point, it's recurring popularity illustrates, well, that it's still a thing you respect I guess. 

 

Well anyway, even if that doesn't make sense, I don't really know how else to say it. 

 

One way or another, hopefully we can agree yes it's true there are other games that offer different ideas and I find myself gravitating towards them, and if what it is given is not desirable by me personally I can easily go elsewhere. 

 

 

I really don't know for sure what you mean and i am not trying to be an ass here.

 

You seem to use words without understanding their actual meanings. You talk about past bioware games being more 'humanistic' but they have become more "arch- intellectual" but humanism's ethical/moral positions are based on critical thinking and evidence or to put it another way intellectualism. So your critique doesn't make any sense. I think your confusion is thinking that humanism is about emotions and feelings when really it is about being rational about morality or intellectual about ethical considerations instead of taking a position based on dogma and superstition.

 

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.

 

But...

 

If you are saying before Bioware made more emotional based choices and now they are coldly rational then I begin to understand your position. I disagree with it Bioware seems to continue to make emotional based choices and story it seems to me all the choices about the genophage and the Rachni were more governed by emotion then any kind of rational reasoning. And there was more than a little QQing over Bioware killing off a child in the prologue of ME3 and using that memory of that child as being emotionally manipulative. It has been a while since i have played DA:I  and I haven't played the DLCs yet but according to origin I have played 434 hours of inquisition (no multiplayer) and I don't see any significant change in the ability to be emotionally driven in your decision making. So I am not even sure this is what you mean.

[Cyonan]

I would quibble with this, the problem in my opinion with current Bioware games is you can't really role play you pretty much are increasingly left with no option but to play the "dark side" options or a "dark side" protagonist (ME2 and DA2 being prime examples of this). Earlier Bioware games it was like light side, dark side, perhaps whereas current Bioware games pretty much just left you no option but to "roleplay" the dark side protagonist, which isn't really roleplaying. 

 

Neither my Hawke nor my Shep in ME2 were dark side characters.

 

I mean Mass Effect always only had 2 main personalities to choose from, but I don't see how dark is the only option for ME2.

[Seraphim24]

If you are saying before Bioware made more emotional based choices and now they are coldly rational then I begin to understand your position. I disagree with it Bioware seems to continue to make emotional based choices and story it seems to me all the choices about the genophage and the Rachni were more governed by emotion then any kind of rational reasoning. And there was more than a little QQing over Bioware killing off a child in the prologue of ME3 and using that memory of that child as being emotionally manipulative. It has been a while since i have played DA:I  and I haven't played the DLCs yet but according to origin I have played 434 hours of inquisition (no multiplayer) and I don't see any significant change in the ability to be emotionally driven in your decision making. So I am not even 100% this is what you mean.

 

Well lets just stick with this then since it stuck. 

 

I find the genophage/Rachni and all those things to be things that were designed and as experienced during the game as essentially transmitting powerful emotional things in theory (involving massive loss of life and such) but the decision making process and everything about the process all felt like extreme rationality at play. 

 

Like I think of "emotional manipulation" as oxymoronic manipulation being intellectual in all cases, emotional impact being by definition like warmth and non-manipulative, empowering, etc.

 

I also think of emotional warmth or whatever as being essentially resolution, you can't have something that divides the spirit or body or mind be "emotional" even if it seeks to label itself as such it's still rational. 

 

So in short, everyone and everything that claims to be a master of emotions or chess player of emotions or playing on people's emotions or whatever those phrases are is in short conflating rationality with emotional understanding and in truth likely possesses a very limited knowledge of it whatsoever, in my opinion. 

 

Whether or not generic schools of philosphies accord with the meanings I assign to terms is likely in question, but being that most philosophies are simply extensions of Greco-Roman ideologies transmigrated over a few mountains or across a sea it's not surprising to me.. not meeting one criteria means likely not meeting any of them. 

 

Again, as per the topic, manipulation is less likely in the case of a (more) silent protagonist.

[Seraphim24]

Neither my Hawke nor my Shep in ME2 were dark side characters.

 

I mean Mass Effect always only had 2 main personalities to choose from, but I don't see how dark is the only option for ME2.

 

Cerberus is pretty much pure chaotic evil, as far as I can tell, they certainly were in 1 but I don't think that really changed in 2. 

[Cyonan]

Cerberus is pretty much pure chaotic evil, as far as I can tell, they certainly were in 1 but I don't think that really changed in 2. 

 

Having dealing with a chaotic evil organization and actually being chaotic evil are two different things. The complaint of being forced to work with Cerberus is a valid, and often mentioned, one but I don't see how Shep needs to follow the same alignment.

 

That would be like saying you can only play a neutral character in Dragon Age: Origins, because the Grey Wardens are a neutral faction.

[Seraphim24]

Having dealing with a chaotic evil organization and actually being chaotic evil are two different things.

 

 

So by that logic, dealing with a chaotic good organization and actually being chaotic good are two very different things? 

 

Incidentally, whether that logic is true or not, it seems inconsistently applied. Chaotic evil organizations tend not to distinguish between the "good" or "bad" members, viewing all is equally dispensable. 

 

Neither would preclude the suggestion I've made which is that in my opinion the more "heroic" options in ME1 (not as a part of an evil organization, but instead actively fighting it) are part of why it's simply a better game. 

[Cyonan]

So by that logic, dealing with a chaotic good organization and actually being chaotic good are two very different things? 

 

Incidentally, whether that logic is true or not, it seems inconsistently applied. Chaotic evil organizations tend not to distinguish between the "good" or "bad" members, viewing all is equally dispensable.

 

Neither would preclude the suggestion I've made which is that in my opinion the more "heroic" options in ME1 (neither as a part of an evil organization, but instead, actively destroying it) are part of why it's simply a better game. 

 

They are very different things, because a character is not automatically the same alignment of the groups they have dealings with.

 

How is it inconsistent? Cerberus never forces Shep to carry out any chaotic evil acts. You can even get mad at TIM over him recklessly sending the Normandy into danger and almost getting destroyed again with the disabled Collector vessel that he knew was a trap.

 

It would have been interesting to have been able to go against Cerberus from the start, but that would require a lot of resources to accommodate both groups of people.

 

Mass Effect 1 also lacked evil options for things like the Cerberus side mission. Mass Effect in general has never really let Shep be all that evil, since Renegade isn't actually evil.

[Seraphim24]

They are very different things, because a character is not automatically the same alignment of the groups they have dealings with.

 

I was just wondering why anyone would ever apply that to an "evil" organization which by definition isn't going to be drawing distinctions or making nuances like that? 

 

I don't know why Cerberus, in other words, considering they would be likely not to make such distinctions, is entitled to those distinctions. 

 

Look in principle, I agree with the idea, but if you were against an organization that refused to carry on that very same logic, how could you excuse supporting it? 

 

It's precisely Cerberus's inability to make that distinction that is the problem. 

 

The question isn't my ability to incorporate that notion, it's how to deal with those that can't. 

[Seraphim24]

I mean, obviously in the context of the game itself, you simply play a Paragon Cerberus Shepard, it's true, oxymoronic though it may be. 

 

But I'm pretty sure my original point was that it's not "silent protagonist early Bioware" character it's heavily influenced by the notion that you are a Cerberus man/woman. 

 

But moreover, I mean we're not constrained to simply playing ME2 or not playing in ME2 in a more practical sense we can just, well, go and play ME1 over again or a different game entirely. 

[correctamundo]

Shep don't necessarily work for cerberus. Cerberus works for Shep. Unless of course you want your Shep to work for Cerberus.

[Cyonan]

I was just wondering why anyone would ever apply that to an "evil" organization which by definition isn't going to be drawing distinctions or making nuances like that? 

 

I don't know why Cerberus, in other words, considering they would be likely not to make such distinctions, is entitled to those distinctions. 

 

Look in principle, I agree with the idea, but if you were against an organization that refused to carry on that very same logic, how could you excuse supporting it? 

 

It's precisely Cerberus's inability to make that distinction that is the problem. 

 

The question isn't my ability to incorporate that notion, it's how to deal with those that can't. 

 

The distinction is for Shep, not for Cerberus so the fact that Cerberus doesn't care doesn't really factor into it.

 

I mean, Miranda and Jacob both aren't chaotic evil in Mass Effect 2 and they're Cerberus. They were simply tricked into thinking Cerberus was more chaotic good. Mass Effect 3 suggests that they attempted the same trickery on Shep.

 

I can't really say why Shep would work with them because they're intended to give the player at least a little bit of roleplaying capacity even if it's rather limited. Why your Shep does things and why my Shep does things aren't the same reasons. My Shep would go with them simply because they have the resources and are willing to give me the freedom to get the job done, but it was fully expected I would be betrayed at some point after seeing them in Mass Effect 1.

 

The main issue with ME2 is that you can't play a Shep who refuses to work with Cerberus, so you can't take the route of "I disagree with your organization so much I'm going to refuse your offer".

[Seraphim24]

Ok so given the situation, Shepard is able to navigate the channels by opting for a "Paragon" existence in a "Renegade" world.  

 

In the game world it works I guess, in the sense of I feel overall the world and competing artistic alternatives? That's where I'm kinda eh.....

 

Obviously plenty of people still like it for exactly what it is at any rate. 

 

Conservatism? What's being conserved? My last quizzy did a lot of damage to the existing social and political order.

 

You know in retrospect I feel as though I treated this comment perhaps too seriously, as it is, indeed, somewhat humorous in it's forthrightness... less the kind of chaos of DA:I (despite the labels of "Inquisitor" and supposed themes don't go over everyones heads)

 

[Sanunes]

The main issue with ME2 is that you can't play a Shep who refuses to work with Cerberus, so you can't take the route of "I disagree with your organization so much I'm going to refuse your offer".

 

I wonder if they did add that to the game, but it was an instant game over for whatever reason BioWare wanted how people would react? Personally I think people would have just been equally upset, because you couldn't play the entire game that way and to me that would be recreating at least a quarter of the game as it was released to accommodate that.  Personally I rather have more content in game then have something feel like how returning companions were handled in Mass Effect 3. In a lot of ways it reminds me of this particular thread by wanting BioWare to change the game to work within the requests of a group of people which at the very least is a divided group.

[Seraphim24]

I wonder if they did add that to the game, but it was an instant game over for whatever reason BioWare wanted how people would react? Personally I think people would have just been equally upset, because you couldn't play the entire game that way and to me that would be recreating at least a quarter of the game as it was released to accommodate that.  Personally I rather have more content in game then have something feel like how returning companions were handled in Mass Effect 3. In a lot of ways it reminds me of this particular thread by wanting BioWare to change the game to work within the requests of a group of people which at the very least is a divided group.

 

There's actually literally nothing divided about the thread, there's like 4-5 people going yes (including me) and like 100 going nay.

[Pasquale1234]

No it isn't. It may be for you but that just means you have to work on your RP-skillz.

Per Gothfather's description (the post to which I was responding), yes it is.

If role-playing is what an actor does when s/he plays a role, then the voice actor / animators are doing the role-play.
 

Not in the way you usually mean. But if a player somehow gets the impression that role-playing is not possible because of a voiced protagonist I very much suspect that player should hone their RP-skills.

I don't believe I ever stated that it is not possible.

I will, however, state that unless you're willing to ignore the behavior of the MC in the plethora of cut-scenes presented, it is impossible to role-play some personality types.

Like this one, for example:
 

That said, the first Shepard I designed was supposed to be flamboyant and playful, and the first time he spoke I knew that wasn't going to work with Mark Meer's VO.

Imagining who a character is and making decisions based on what they know and what they believe is the essence acting out a role or role playing.

So the role-player does exactly that, and then selects the paraphrase that they believe will reflect that response, only to see the character do or say something completely contrary to their expectations. Then what?
 

When you engage is sexy role playing your appearance is set, you can only change is superficially and so is your voice your voice is your voice. Most of us can't really change our voice effectively without is sounding bad. Yet magically people are able to role play in the bedroom successfully. How? using your logic is is impossible. How do people do it?

By actually, you know... doing it.

They're not selecting a paraphrase and then watching a previously recorded performer act it out.

[correctamundo]

Per Gothfather's description (the post to which I was responding), yes it is.

If role-playing is what an actor does when s/he plays a role, then the voice actor / animators are doing the role-play.

I don't believe I ever stated that it is not possible.

I will, however, state that unless you're willing to ignore the behavior of the MC in the plethora of cut-scenes presented, it is impossible to role-play some personality types.

 

Voice or no voice doesn't change that.