258 réponses à ce sujet

[LPPrince]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Please keep in mind Sylvius has a rather.... unique look at RPG video games and what should or should not be included.

Sylvius(noun) sylviusly(adverb) sylviuses(verb) a sylvius(adjective) thread.

[zahra]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Please keep in mind Sylvius has a rather.... unique look at RPG video games and what should or should not be included.

"Remember children, Sylvius is "special"!"

[ErichHartmann]

LOL at this thread.

[Anarya]

He is a precious and unique snowflake to be sure.

[Inside_Joke]

I'm just gonna say it just made it more cinematic.

I got to watch and play. I like. *It's a lovely interactive movie, and I love my movies*



Hmm, let's think about it this way:

Showing Loghain send out assassins after the warden still left that suspense of when they'd strike. If they just randomly showed up, it would seem more like a random encounter moment, and I myself probably would have just killed Zevran off. Knowing that Loghain sent him, I wanted to interrogate him.



Same with other cut scenes - we got to see that there was conflict beyond what the Warden saw. And no plot holes >.>

Just my opinion though, and all that.

[Ulicus]

I cannot disagree with Sylvius enough, on this. When I play a CRPG, I'm more than capable of RPing a character without allowing my metagame knowledge to taint their decisions. So why would I want to trade in the very thing that allows a video game's narrative to be all the more cinematic and compelling for, essentially, the sake of my first -- and only my first -- playthrough?

After all, a single-player CRPG isn't an ongoing pen and paper campaign, which could conceivably have no end, nor can it ever be. It tells a specific story with specific bounderies... and if we want more, we have to play through that story again. The minute you start up a second playthrough, any and all attempts to limit metagame knowledge are rendered null and void... so why go to such extremes? Seriously. Especially when it actually detracts from the experience.

Would KotOR, which I loved, have been improved by removing all the cutscenes that featured Darth Malak? Hell no. No more than the Star Wars trilogy would have been improved had Lucas removed every scene that didn't feature one of the protagonists. And, while I also loved Mass Effect, I can't pretend that the game's narrative wouldn't have been made more cinematic and interesting with cutscenes featuring Saren after the completion of each plot world (as after Eden Prime).

So... yeah.

Modifié par Ulicus, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:59 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

DarthCaine wrote...

Just look at the Joker in The Dark Knight. Just think how much the movie would have sucked if we only saw him in places where Batman was present. Hell, look at ANY antagonist and how much less character they would've had if they were present only in scenes where the protagonist was present.

But we're not some third-party observer.  We're Batman.

And Batman only knows of Joker what he sees of Joker.  By showing us that extra information it only make it harder for us to roleplay our characters properly.

David Gaider wrote...

And then there's the ones that are needed to communicate things to the player, as oppose to Hawke. Who are different people, you know.

Yes, but how does that even work?  Those things told to the player can't impact the PC's behaviour if the player is making any effort to roleplay, so why bother?

And how does the player know what's directed at him?  Is it just information that isn't available to Hawke?

Dave of Canada wrote...

I disagree. Many of these cutscenes invoke emotion in the player. How do you think people would've felt after you find out Loghain fled the field and apparently Cailan / Duncan died? They would've shrugged, most likely expecting them to return since we didn't see them die onscreen and it would've went into the bus crash trope.

Again, from a gameplay perspective it makes no difference.  The PC learns of Loghain's betrayal second-hand from an unreliable source.  There's no reason for him to have a visceral reaction to the event.  I've had characters not believe Morrigan and Flemeth, for example, and wait for confirmation in Lothering.

But this extra information invites, and possibly even encourages meta-gaming, but more importantly I think it makes it harder for the designers to ensure they've allowed coherent roleplaying opportunities.  They now need to keep track not only of what the player knows, but of what the character knows.  Otherwise they run the risk of requiring nonsensical character behaviour based on information only the player has.

The Warden in DAO has no idea that Loghain was reluctant to send an assassin.  So why build sympathy for him like that?

[21121313]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

On one level it's like reading a book or watching a movie. Sometimes you find out things that the main character doesn't/shouldn't know, even if you're envisioning yourself in the role of the main character. It doesn't bother me at all. I like getting glimpses of what other major characters are doing - it doesn't ruin things for me.

Well said.

[Herr Uhl]

Some meta-knowledge works, as long as it isn't something that you wouldn't find out about momentarily anyways.



That said, I prefer it being kept to a minimum.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JohnEpler wrote...

I think you could feasibly suggest that anything Varric isn't present for is being told by him with the implicit knowledge that it's something he heard after the fact. Even if he wasn't present for it, he could've asked other people who were, in fact, involved.

Even if Varric was there, there's no reason for the player to assume that he's a reliable narrator.

The problem with the cutscenes of the sort I'm talking about is that they are reliable.  They're showing things that are actually taking place.  And we shouldn't ever know those things.

If, however, some NPC was retelling the story, and that story was told to the player in the form of a cutscene, that would still allow that the story might not be accurate.

[SirShreK]

David Gaider wrote...

The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...
I think I agree with Sylvius on this.

Agree all you like. If you wish to write a story completely from a first-person perspective, be my guest.

Modifié par SirShreK, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:06 .

[DarthCaine]

Listen Sylvius, you seem to have a problem with everything BioWare does, so go play Bethesda's games although I doubt even their games can suit your "special" needs

[Dave of Canada]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Warden in DAO has no idea that Loghain was reluctant to send an assassin.  So why build sympathy for him like that?

It adds more character depth, though. Metagaming won't make the player go "OH HE FEELS BAD FOR SENDING AN ASSASSIN, SO I SHOULD SPARE HIM". It just humanizes a character.

[Faz432]

They just need to be well thought out. There shouldn't be any that would purposely guide our decisions one way or the other.

Modifié par Faz432, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:07 .

[DarthCaine]

SirShreK wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...
I think I agree with Sylvius on this.

Agree all you like. If you wish to write a story completely from a first-person perspective, be my guest.

http://www.desktopexchange.com/gallery/albums/Video-Game-Wallpapers/Half_Life2.jpg

WTF? HL's barely has a story and it sucks ass. Only BioShock has ever managed to deliver a good story in a FPS

Modifié par DarthCaine, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:05 .

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes, but how does that even work?  Those things told to the player can't impact the PC's behaviour if the player is making any effort to roleplay, so why bother?

Because we're telling a story? One that is being communicated to the player as much as to your PC? Your PC isn't expected to react to what's being relayed there-- the player is.

I don't doubt we could do a story just fine without cut-away scenes. We had to make do in the NWN OC, for instance, because the cutscene capability was extremely limited. This just isn't one of those stories, and it's not going to be.

And how does the player know what's directed at him?  Is it just information that isn't available to Hawke?

Seriously? 

Are cut-aways that complicated a notion?

Sorry, this is one element of your pedantic nature I'm going to have to take a pass on, Sylvius. What seems good in theory doesn't always make for a good implementation in practice.

[SirShreK]

DarthCaine wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...
I think I agree with Sylvius on this.

Agree all you like. If you wish to write a story completely from a first-person perspective, be my guest.

http://www.desktopex.../Half_Life2.jpg

WTF? HL's barely has a story and it sucks ass. Only BioShock has ever managed to deliver a good story in a FPS

.....

One word. Metacritic.

[LPPrince]

Anarya wrote...

He is a precious and unique snowflake to be sure.

You don't even know the half of it.

[DarthCaine]

SirShreK wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

WTF? HL's barely has a story and it sucks ass. Only BioShock has ever managed to deliver a good story in a FPS

.....

One word. Metacritic.

I never said the game isn't good or it's gameplay which is the ONLY reason why people like it. HL barely has a story

[lv12medic]

I could see a video game working with this idea. DA2, I doubt it. Though, I suppose, with the framed narrative everything technically all ready happened. As the way the story is told, Varric would know after the fact that some assasin (for an example) was sent after Hawke when he is telling the story. Over the course of time, Varric and Hawke probably found out how he was hired etc before Varric even starts telling the story.

[the_one_54321]

Third person narrative is sometimes necessary. If we want to get to know the characters as players, we have to see more than we would if we only knew about the characters as one of the characters. Good story telling is not always in the first person. As an RPG is useless when the story is told badly, even if the perspective is perfectly maintained, it is necessary to change perspective to give needed story info at times. I think that DA:O would have been... "less," had it not gotten away from perfect perspective adherence from time to time.

Addendum: if you don't want to metagame, then don't metagame.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:08 .

[SirShreK]

DarthCaine wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

WTF? HL's barely has a story and it sucks ass. Only BioShock has ever managed to deliver a good story in a FPS

.....

One word. Metacritic.

I never said the game isn't good or it's gameplay which is the ONLY reason why people like it. HL barely has a story

.....

Sure. Say what you like.

[David Gaider]

SirShreK wrote...

And? A first-person game tells a first-person story.

I didn't say such a story was impossible, I said be my guest if you'd like to write one-- or play one. Complaining that an apple isn't an orange is great fun, I'm sure, but don't expect us to give you one.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:08 .

[SirShreK]

David Gaider wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

And? A first-person game tells a first-person story.

?????

I didn't say such a story was impossible, I said be my guest if you'd like to write one-- or play one. Complaining that an apple isn't an orange is great fun, I'm sure, but don't expect us to give you one.

I love DA story. I make no excuses for Half-Life.

[Dhiro]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes, but how does that even work?  Those things told to the player can't impact the PC's behaviour if the player is making any effort to roleplay, so why bother?

Because we're telling a story? One that is being communicated to the player as much as to your PC? Your PC isn't expected to react to what's being relayed there-- the player is.

I don't doubt we could do a story just fine without cut-away scenes. We had to make do in the NWN OC, for instance, because the cutscene capability was extremely limited. This just isn't one of those stories, and it's not going to be.

And how does the player know what's directed at him?  Is it just information that isn't available to Hawke?

Seriously? 

Are cut-aways that complicated a notion?

Sorry, this is one element of your pedantic nature I'm going to have to take a pass on, Sylvius. What seems good in theory doesn't always make for a good implementation in practice.

I so feel like writing a GaiderxSylvius after that.

I really said this out loud?

Anyway, I do undertand your point, Sylvius, but even if the cutscenes doesn't mean anything to the PC, like the cutscene with Loghain, I don't see why sould mean nothing for the player. Loghain is a good character, see him in only some scenes looks like a waste to me. I like to know who is my enemy is. I don't think I made sense, but anyway.