Drool wrote: ↑
March 9th, 2019, 2:51 pm
Gizmo wrote: ↑
March 7th, 2019, 3:53 pm
Why would I ever do that? It's an RPG, I am not fighting a dragon, and that's part of the problem with the latter two Witcher games—Geralt has become a puppet, and I am expected to decide for him how best to fight; but Geralt is the professional monster hunter. This is a case of the player impeding the character; why would I want to roleplay myself in Geralt's place?
(Is that not like standing in for Bruce Lee in a street fight?)
Then why play any
game? I'm not a tomb raider, Lara is. I'm not post-apocalyptic explorer, the Vault Dweller is. I don't eat ghosts, PacMan does.
Tomb raider is not an RPG. It's basically an evolved arcade game. There are Indiana Jones games a plenty, but none are RPGs AFAIK, and they play like post-millennial Pitfall, or they use Scumm
gameplay. But if you make a "Raiders of the Lost Ark" RPG, then the character's psyche should come into play, and be accounted for in the narrative choices you have in the new scenarios. A chance for Indy to show his quality... or whomever other PC the player makes, if it is not Indiana himself; the game could use Indiana as a quest giver, using colleague and promising students for —"go to the Temple of such-n-such, and find the idol for me", type quests; though probably it would start out more mundanely..."Go to the library and look up the Temple of Such-n-Such, and find details on the Idol for me".
When I play the Witcher, I certainly don't put myself in Geralt's shoes, I extrapolate how a Geralt might react in a situation, given what I know of him (and shown in the game; his ethics, temperament, and past training, and experience). I do that with any RPG, which is why I have zero qualms with an assigned PC—so long as they are well described. In games where I can make my own PC, I do, and I am equally fine with them... though RPGs I have played that allow totally arbitrary PC generation, tend to only manage generic reactions to them, because they can't really know what applies to an unknown PC.
Highwayman667 wrote: ↑
March 9th, 2019, 11:43 am
No matter what amazing background and story you may concoct for your Grey Warden in Dragon Age: Origins, he or she will never have more of a personality than Witty Hawke. Why ? Because the latter feels, hears and acts like a person, whereas the former is a doll, a fun doll... but a doll, and no amount of lines will make up for that; as far as it concerns me at least.
I understand your meaning. In my case (and in some other's too, I think) The paper-doll is selectively not seen. By remaining silent, the PC is out of the player's way in times of information exchange. When I play Dragon Age, and my character stands there bobbing his head, I am not even looking at him; I am processing the dialog choices for PC appropriate reactions. It's not cinematic—but it offers something you can't get from the cinema.
One time I recognized a fellow (on the bus) that I had gone to school with, and I hadn't seen in the years since. While we talked, I mentioned having seen a [recent block buster] movie. He had not seen it, and asked about it. I said that it was spectacular, but that it was not as good as the book. He didn't seem to understand. I came to realize that he didn't understand how such an incredulous thing was even possible.
He said, "How!?", "Movies have action, sound; and they move! Books just sit there, words on paper.
As many know, it is possible to read a novel like you'd read a soup can, but that's not the best way to do it. In his case what he got out of books (it seemed) was the mechanical act of reading, and remembering a bit of what he read. If he didn't see it, and hear it, then for him it didn't happen.
I have seen posts by players that seem to share this view with respect to games; even say things like "If I wanted to read a book, I would have, and not played a game instead". They play a game like Fallout, and for them it is utterly the sum of its parts. They get nothing out of it that wasn't put into it.
...And they are adversely affected by anything seen as —gamey or abstract (which includes some graphic art styles); some of them even to the point hiding the GUI because it wouldn't be there in real life.
In the extreme cases they will actually deride the aspects of the game that they deem pathetic. Turn based game mechanics (for instance) —some really, actually, truly, perceive it as if
—their PC just stands there and taking hits from everyone without even so much as trying to dodge or defend themselves, and they think this is worthy of ridicule.
fellow who I used to see post on the Bethsoft forums: (he made this himself) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmm3kEVDR_M
You try explaining it to them, and it's as though you were trying to convince them of pixies and Smurfs on the Moon—they just don't get abstraction or accept it as valid; it contradicts their perception of fun, and has to
be bogus. It's like trying to tell kids that Brussels Sprouts taste good; they laugh at you inside.
Honest question though: In games like the Witcher series, do you perceive it as (even slightly
) detrimental if Geralt makes an awkwardly long pause in the conversation? Meaning that you did not choose your response fast enough... and he just stands there wobbling his head; indistinguishable from Dragon Age. Because I do not.
For me, when the PC pauses in silence during a conversation—where the player is expected to decide a response, I don't even notice them at the time—for me it's a timeless state, detached from the situation. It's a pause while the player makes a decision about how this character would respond in the present context; a pause with a reply that I don't need to hear parroted back at me in the PC's voice. I decided it already... for me it has already been said, and I just want the response.
It is noteworthy that Bioware did fully voice the Dragon Age NPCs, and did engineer it so that the various other party members would often contribute, or comment during a conversation, so I don't think that it was a cost saving measure to not voice the PC. They did that for some other reason, and I think it more than likely to have been because this allows the player to imagine their a voice for their own character—rather than be penned into using the two (or three?) Bioware could have provided.
I am fine without a voiced PC, because it is not without a voice; it's whatever voice I choose. Does any one here NOT read Schwarzenegger quotes in a parody of his own voice?
The lack of technical restriction from a voiced PC means that the developers have more narrative freedom—at least in theory... not if they choose the easier/mediocre/ less branching path.
My issue, in reality, is that I don't think it's as effective nor as engaging as people think it is. We know most dialogue choices follow predetermined paths that developers already planned out, so for the moment I'd rather my characters behaved as close as they can to actual people.
It's certainly a matter of personal preference.
My preference does not extend to a 1:1 play-by-play of their actions, because I am comfortable assuming all but the most plot-crucial ones.
Mentioning PC bathroom breaks is a low hanging fruit—so no need for that.
I am sure that none of us wants, or needs to see that in order to assume that it occurred (somewhere along the way).
Gizmo wrote: ↑
March 7th, 2019, 3:53 pm
demanding, because Witcher 1, and the Gothic series didn't have that problem; nor BG 1&2, nor Fallout 1 & 2—to name a few.
You'll have to elaborate further here, I believe I don't understand your point.
I only meant that in those games—unlike their later sequels, the PC could handle themselves in a fight. In Witcher (and Fallout 1 & 2), you merely indicate whom to attack, and he automatically does his absolute best attempt; not so in W2&3, and FO3&4.
My main character in Skyrim is a nord thief called Johann, who swore a vow to never return to the homeland he always hated. He discovers he has the voice, and decides to heed Parthurnax and the Greybeards' call to stop Alduin. He slays the dragon and brings about a new age for Skyrim, in the meantime becoming a member of both The Companions and the College of Winterhold, while secretly running his own crime ring as Guild Master of the Thieves Guild. He even serves on the Dawnguard, travels to Solstheim and... begrudgingly... joins the Imperial Legion in a bid to end the Civil War.
How exactly am I not roleplaying there ?
You... are, but how does the game know any of that? I remember reading about Oblivion players who would man a shift at guards post in the city, because that's what guards would do—and they wanted to play guards by standing around for an hour; but the game is blind to it. The only thing a game can know is what's in the character sheet——and we don't have [any?] games that parse user created biographies, and reflect them in the narrative, but if we did, I bet they would only tackle it with text dialog.
I can understand the argument that Skyrim might be a shallow RPG, I agree, but IT IS an RPG. The mechanics and systems it uses may be a bit loose and arbitrary. But may I remind you that you can create a warrior/mage/thief in BG, which is not exactly a restricting thing in some people's minds, and a criticism that is often launched at Skyrim.
That's not the criticism I have seen. Skyrim is known as an inch deep Ocean; (because it is only concerned with the veneer of its world simulation). If you make a mage/fighter/thief in BG, first off the PC is not human, second off, the PC will develop sloooow as molases, because their character level is divided among their classes. In In TES (IIRC) these are just bolt-on abilities. In TES a fighter PC can become the grand high leader of the Mage guild—and vice versa. The game is a costumed ego simulator, concerned with the appearance of being whatever the player wants... with no consequences, and no [affecting] commitments.
Also, I haven't yet seen Quantum Leap.
A gem in the rough; one of Scott Bakula's early shows. He played a scientist stuck in time, who in each episode woke up in someone else's body—and for the duration of the episode he decided their actions. Premise being that something was wrong with time (or in general), and he needed to fix the situation. It was a lighthearted show, but in essence it benignly depicted demonic possession/exorcist style.
Graphics mister, we're talking about graphics here
I am a commercial artist. I appreciate fantastic visuals; the more the better IMO. Great visuals can come in myriad styles. Good graphics by themselves will not redeem a poorly designed (or just boring) game. Good graphics would be described by some, as subjective. I would certainly list Disciples series as having good graphics, but most of those are 2D isometric, and of the 3D sequels, I mostly mean of their user interface; though the character models are good too.
*Funny, but it is not this way with comic books; where fantastic visuals will
excuse a poor script, and that unappealing art can ruin the even best of scripts.
Yes, graphics as well
Again, I am not sure what you mean— or even which game you mean... because there are TWO retail Neverwinter Nights video games; and I don't mean Neverwinter Nights 2, by Obsidian, and I don't mean NWN:Online... that would make four NWN games.
I am going to guess that you mean Bioware's game, but then I don't see what you mean graphics-wise; unless you just mean relative model complexity.
**Another fun fact (that I would love to learn the real answer to it):
It would appear that the 3D supermutant and ghoul models used in FO3 (and NV) are less detailed (and certainly of less character) than the one used in Fallout 1&2.