Kabraxal
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 1,004 Likes: 2,731
inherit
3790
0
2,731
Kabraxal
1,004
Feb 23, 2017 18:40:36 GMT
February 2017
kabraxal
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Kabraxal on Oct 27, 2019 17:36:53 GMT
Have to wholly disagree on that point. Emotional reactivity is vastly important. The most important parts of a story are its characters and how they feel is one of the key components to any character, PC or NPC. If there is no emotional reactivity, the plot, reactivity or not, is utterly pointless.
I intentionally exaggerated. Of course emotional reactivity is not unimportant. Not enough to warrant inconsistency elsewhere though.
What I wanted was to express my severe aversion against sacrificing plot and world consistency on the altar of emotion. I'm fine with a game simply acknowledging emotional expression, most of the time. And if there should be a change in an NPC's attitude and there isn't, well, that's too bad but it's not usually critical for the story, at least not in a video game story like Bioware's where most NPCs are noncritical. With decisions that should make some change to the plot or the world, however, I'm not satisfied with that since I can't opt out of the story as I can - usually - opt out of dealing with specific NPCs.
Except the NPCs are critical. In fact, many people buy Bioware because of their devotion to how they handle NPCs and their reactions, not because of the story or how it may change.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
31,194
colfoley
16,546
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Oct 27, 2019 18:41:57 GMT
I intentionally exaggerated. Of course emotional reactivity is not unimportant. Not enough to warrant inconsistency elsewhere though.
What I wanted was to express my severe aversion against sacrificing plot and world consistency on the altar of emotion. I'm fine with a game simply acknowledging emotional expression, most of the time. And if there should be a change in an NPC's attitude and there isn't, well, that's too bad but it's not usually critical for the story, at least not in a video game story like Bioware's where most NPCs are noncritical. With decisions that should make some change to the plot or the world, however, I'm not satisfied with that since I can't opt out of the story as I can - usually - opt out of dealing with specific NPCs.
Except the NPCs are critical. In fact, many people buy Bioware because of their devotion to how they handle NPCs and their reactions, not because of the story or how it may change. one of the two things that they do that's unique in the industry.
|
|
inherit
4964
0
Jun 17, 2017 17:29:55 GMT
3,700
arvaarad
1,465
Mar 18, 2017 16:32:40 GMT
March 2017
arvaarad
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Jade Empire
|
Post by arvaarad on Oct 27, 2019 19:32:39 GMT
I intentionally exaggerated. Of course emotional reactivity is not unimportant. Not enough to warrant inconsistency elsewhere though.
What I wanted was to express my severe aversion against sacrificing plot and world consistency on the altar of emotion. I'm fine with a game simply acknowledging emotional expression, most of the time. And if there should be a change in an NPC's attitude and there isn't, well, that's too bad but it's not usually critical for the story, at least not in a video game story like Bioware's where most NPCs are noncritical. With decisions that should make some change to the plot or the world, however, I'm not satisfied with that since I can't opt out of the story as I can - usually - opt out of dealing with specific NPCs.
Except the NPCs are critical. In fact, many people buy Bioware because of their devotion to how they handle NPCs and their reactions, not because of the story or how it may change. Perhaps what’s being argued against is very quick/immediate reactions to choices, with no longer-term repercussions? Personally, that’s where I tend to have issues with NPC reactions. Structurally it’s much easier to throw in an immediate (but “meaningless”) NPC reaction to a choice vs. a later consequence... even if the later consequence is just “the NPC mentions that situation much later”. I’m definitely guilty of putting less weight on these quick reactions, because I can’t turn off the part of my brain that says “structurally, this reaction is decorative, because it doesn’t involve storing very much state — we quickly detour to trigger the reaction, then immediately loop back to our original path as if it never happened.” Of course it did happen, story-wise. And those can be key character moments. But in the overall flowchart of changes, it didn’t actually branch anywhere. Especially in pre-Trials DA:I, where it was very difficult to get someone to go into their rival path.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,875 Likes: 49,330
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,330
Iakus
20,875
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Oct 27, 2019 21:35:01 GMT
I intentionally exaggerated. Of course emotional reactivity is not unimportant. Not enough to warrant inconsistency elsewhere though.
What I wanted was to express my severe aversion against sacrificing plot and world consistency on the altar of emotion. I'm fine with a game simply acknowledging emotional expression, most of the time. And if there should be a change in an NPC's attitude and there isn't, well, that's too bad but it's not usually critical for the story, at least not in a video game story like Bioware's where most NPCs are noncritical. With decisions that should make some change to the plot or the world, however, I'm not satisfied with that since I can't opt out of the story as I can - usually - opt out of dealing with specific NPCs.
Except the NPCs are critical. In fact, many people buy Bioware because of their devotion to how they handle NPCs and their reactions, not because of the story or how it may change. I guess the big question is really "do you prefer the story to affect the character personally, or affect more 'big picture' changes?"
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,162
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,820
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Oct 27, 2019 21:37:50 GMT
That depends on how the interactions are structured. You could get into a relationship death spiral in DA:O with some characters since a bad relationship score would lock out some positive interactions. Although in practice you could just abuse the gift mechanism and get out of it.
But yeah, stock DAI is too forgiving.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
31,194
colfoley
16,546
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Oct 28, 2019 0:09:40 GMT
Except the NPCs are critical. In fact, many people buy Bioware because of their devotion to how they handle NPCs and their reactions, not because of the story or how it may change. I guess the big question is really "do you prefer the story to affect the character personally, or affect more 'big picture' changes?" both? Neither? I lean more towards characters changing over a narrative one way or another. While it was cool to have the fate of Empires in my hand in DAI Hawkes journey was far more satisfying.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Apr 19, 2024 15:24:55 GMT
30,241
Hanako Ikezawa
22,352
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Oct 28, 2019 1:14:50 GMT
I guess the big question is really "do you prefer the story to affect the character personally, or affect more 'big picture' changes?" both? Neither? I lean more towards characters changing over a narrative one way or another. While it was cool to have the fate of Empires in my hand in DAI Hawkes journey was far more satisfying.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
31,194
colfoley
16,546
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Oct 28, 2019 1:30:31 GMT
both? Neither? I lean more towards characters changing over a narrative one way or another. While it was cool to have the fate of Empires in my hand in DAI Hawkes journey was far more satisfying.feck I meant to write DA2. I think I had Inquisition on the brain.
|
|
inherit
529
0
7,815
Nightscrawl
3,266
August 2016
nightscrawl
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Nightscrawl on Oct 28, 2019 1:46:42 GMT
You could get into a relationship death spiral in DA:O with some characters since a bad relationship score would lock out some positive interactions. Although in practice you could just abuse the gift mechanism and get out of it. I redid my canon last year and replayed DAO. I didn't use gifts at all* and just rolled with it, good or bad. I think Alistair never got beyond +10 or so? Perhaps less. The characters I did increase naturally through dialogue turned out to feel very rewarding in the end. The process increased my connection to them and helped make that play like the most satisfying DAO run I've ever had. If someone disliked my Warden and I didn't get then personal quest, then that's how it was.
The only gifts I did obtain were those mentioned to me, like Lelina and the nug. Alistair never got high enough to mention the amulet, so I didn't give it.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Oct 30, 2019 9:26:52 GMT
Except the NPCs are critical. In fact, many people buy Bioware because of their devotion to how they handle NPCs and their reactions, not because of the story or how it may change. I guess the big question is really "do you prefer the story to affect the character personally, or affect more 'big picture' changes?" Why not have both? Being involved in big-picture events and affecting large-scale change is unlikely to leave you unchanged after all?
With regard to the earlier argument, I now realize I was trying to argue not so much against strong emotional moments of a story as such, but against overstressing its interpersonal moment as a motivating passion. The question of "why is my character doing all this", and there I can easily find a purely interpersonal motivation lacking. I actually have some significant aversion to "family stuff" in stories because I find it boring. Can't they find something actually interesting to motivate the character? You can be passionate about many things, but love and family? Again? As a side-issue its fine because we care about all that because we're human, but as the motivation for a story it's usually not enough for me.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,875 Likes: 49,330
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,330
Iakus
20,875
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Oct 30, 2019 16:24:20 GMT
I guess the big question is really "do you prefer the story to affect the character personally, or affect more 'big picture' changes?" Why not have both? Being involved in big-picture events and affecting large-scale change is unlikely to leave you unchanged after all?
With regard to the earlier argument, I now realize I was trying to argue not so much against strong emotional moments of a story as such, but against overstressing its interpersonal moment as a motivating passion. The question of "why is my character doing all this", and there I can easily find a purely interpersonal motivation lacking. I actually have some significant aversion to "family stuff" in stories because I find it boring. Can't they find something actually interesting to motivate the character? You can be passionate about many things, but love and family? Again? As a side-issue its fine because we care about all that because we're human, but as the motivation for a story it's usually not enough for me.
Both would be ideal. But I assumed the question was which you'd prefer if it became a one-or-the-other matter.
|
|
inherit
7754
0
Apr 18, 2024 17:10:28 GMT
3,397
biggydx
Finished Dissertation long ago lol. Now happily employed :D
2,202
Apr 17, 2017 16:08:05 GMT
April 2017
biggydx
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by biggydx on Oct 30, 2019 21:00:32 GMT
Why not have both? Being involved in big-picture events and affecting large-scale change is unlikely to leave you unchanged after all?
With regard to the earlier argument, I now realize I was trying to argue not so much against strong emotional moments of a story as such, but against overstressing its interpersonal moment as a motivating passion. The question of "why is my character doing all this", and there I can easily find a purely interpersonal motivation lacking. I actually have some significant aversion to "family stuff" in stories because I find it boring. Can't they find something actually interesting to motivate the character? You can be passionate about many things, but love and family? Again? As a side-issue its fine because we care about all that because we're human, but as the motivation for a story it's usually not enough for me.
Both would be ideal. But I assumed the question was which you'd prefer if it became a one-or-the-other matter. I think OP probably should have left it as an either/or option, instead of giving a middle-ground option. The latter just seems more reasonable when given the opportunity. On the topic itself, I think there's been a few moments in Mass Effect where Shepard is heavily influenced by an event. The most obvious one is him having nightmares about the child that was killed by the Destroyer in ME3. Another one, IIRC, is when he is having a conversation with his LI after the final romance scene (also in ME3). I think he/she makes a statement akin to, "Who's gonna save me when the time comes?" or something like that (it basically amounts to, "who can I rally behind when I need it?"). It showcases a sense of unease, worry, and to a lesser degree, hopelessness.
|
|
inherit
401
0
1
41,503
DragonKingReborn
20,498
August 2016
dragonkingreborn
http://bsn.boards.net/threads/recent/143
https://i.imgur.com/1myVt9D.jpg
DragonKingReborn
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
887
590
|
Post by DragonKingReborn on Oct 30, 2019 23:19:09 GMT
I think OP probably should have left it as an either/or option, instead of giving a middle-ground option. The latter just seems more reasonable when given the opportunity. Yeah, I definitely worded that option poorly (or vastly misunderstood what the community might favour). For clarity - although the horse has largely bolted, I guess - the "middle ground" option was meant to be 'nothing changes, RP/reactivity remain exactly as they are/have been in DA games and maintain the same balance between the two. The two "something changes" options were both - the path not taken stays the same quality as before. i.e. If one chose RP, then that would increasing markedly while reactivity stayed exactly as it is. I just assumed that people would want more of one or the other, since they wouldn't lose anything from what they didn't select.
|
|
inherit
7754
0
Apr 18, 2024 17:10:28 GMT
3,397
biggydx
Finished Dissertation long ago lol. Now happily employed :D
2,202
Apr 17, 2017 16:08:05 GMT
April 2017
biggydx
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by biggydx on Oct 31, 2019 0:38:42 GMT
I think OP probably should have left it as an either/or option, instead of giving a middle-ground option. The latter just seems more reasonable when given the opportunity. Yeah, I definitely worded that option poorly (or vastly misunderstood what the community might favour). For clarity - although the horse has largely bolted, I guess - the "middle ground" option was meant to be 'nothing changes, RP/reactivity remain exactly as they are/have been in DA games and maintain the same balance between the two. The two "something changes" options were both - the path not taken stays the same quality as before. i.e. If one chose RP, then that would increasing markedly while reactivity stayed exactly as it is. I just assumed that people would want more of one or the other, since they wouldn't lose anything from what they didn't select. I gotcha.
|
|
Dukemon
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: Dukemon11
PSN: dukemon09
Posts: 486 Likes: 280
inherit
1139
0
280
Dukemon
486
Aug 22, 2016 22:50:07 GMT
August 2016
dukemon
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Dukemon11
dukemon09
|
Post by Dukemon on Nov 5, 2019 0:38:40 GMT
I don't know exactly to name it but I want the Dragon Age 2 way back with more possibilities. And I don't want situations with various conclusions or options to go farther and then realise the game/developers actually wanted another decision or reaction from the player. Like they did with Liams companions quest in Andromeda. You as player has not really a way to let act Ryder as supervisor of Liam. Someone who is pissed of his stupidly own way without saying anything to Ryder. Even when you choose the option "Rejection speech" and Ryders acting in this scene you can reading Between the rows somehow something is missing. Compared to "understanding Ryder"
|
|