399 réponses à ce sujet

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

There's the confused aimless wandering in BG

That confusion - that lack of awareness of what's happening and why - that's BG's story.  And because that confusion will be so specific to the PC's personality, that's what makes it a great RPG.

The plot in BG is actually very threadbare until very close to the end.

This is a massive strength of the game.

Exactly, also areas of the world aren't all confined to a 24x24 space with the "EPIC GRAPHICS"  A forest in BG or BG2 actually has the size and feel of a forest which makes the scope of the game that much better. They just don't make RPG's like that anymore, and it makes me a sad panda.

And the Post of the Day Award goes to you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Masked Rog wrote...

That right there completely cut me out of the game. I had little idea of what I should do.

How do you get through life without someone telling you what you should do? 

"What should I do?" is the wrong question.  In an RPG, the question should be, "What reaction is my character having to this event?"

I well recall my first character in BG.  With Gorion's advice to go to the Friendly Arm Inn fresh in my mind, but also aware that Gorion had just led us directly into an ambush, all I wanted to do was get off the road.  So I immediately travelled south to the next zone.  What followed was a lot of in-character panic.

That was great fun.

[Herr Uhl]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Exactly, also areas of the world aren't all confined to a 24x24 space with the "EPIC GRAPHICS"  A forest in BG or BG2 actually has the size and feel of a forest which makes the scope of the game that much better. They just don't make RPG's like that anymore, and it makes me a sad panda.

At the time it was released, that was pretty "EPIC GRAPHICS".

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Masked Rog wrote...

What about the dead trenches in DA:O. NOw that was a large area. Not that I really enjoyed it, too much walking around fighting and not enough meaty plot sequences or cool cutscenes.

I'm on record that the Deep Roads could have been improved by making them twice as big, but without adding any more encounters or content.  Just more space through which to walk.

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

Herr Uhl wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Exactly, also areas of the world aren't all confined to a 24x24 space with the "EPIC GRAPHICS"  A forest in BG or BG2 actually has the size and feel of a forest which makes the scope of the game that much better. They just don't make RPG's like that anymore, and it makes me a sad panda.

At the time it was released, that was pretty "EPIC GRAPHICS".

It is still quite epic, ser.

[Brockololly]

JohnEpler wrote...
 At least on the Cinematic Design side, I feel as though we treat both series differently. It's hard to describe without spoiling something that will get me a stern talkin' to, but in a more general sense - the writing teams are still very distinct. Both series have their own flavour in both dialogue and cinematically.

All I ask on the cinematics side is to avoid any goofy ME2 style facepalm inducing camera angles in the conversations- like the infamous Miranda conversation in ME2 where you're talking about her sister and yet the camera is zoomed in on her butt.

JohnEpler wrote...
I think what it comes down to, honestly, is the idea of being immersed in the story versus the idea of being immersed in the PC. The former will be far more accepting of a voiced protagonist, as the thing they're the most interested in is not their own PC, but rather the characters and story as a whole. The latter attaches a lot more importance to their own character - it serves as a representation of 'themselves' within the world that the game creates. They tend to be more leery of a voiced PC - after all, it's not their voice, and that can cause some dissonance.

Thats probably about right. But as an RPG, especially a first person one like I presume DA2 is supposed to be, I think its all about viewing the story and other NPCs through the perspective of your own customized player character and having the world, story and characters react to your PC. I feel like i've posted this a million times elsewhere but Chris Avellone sums it up here:

What, in your opinion, are the crucial elements for a good RPG these days?

The range of character development and customization, and reactivity to  that character choice and development within the game world. The more  you can do to bring story, world, and characters into the equation, the
better, but ultimately, players want to build the character they want,  customize their character, and then have the world respond appropriately through dialogue choices, ways to solve quests, or even NPC's reactions to your character's purple mohawk.

The whole silent PC deal seems to be working out pretty good for Bethesda

JohnEpler wrote...
But I don't think that using a voiced protagonist in DA2 is a sign that we're going to turn all our games into the same sort of thing. I still feel that ME2 and DA2 (to use the most recent examples) are fundamentally different - and I've spent about a year and a half with both franchises at this point. So I feel like I can make that judgment

Fair enough- but I'll eat my hat if we start seeing more BioWare games go the silent PC route over the VO route. I guess I'll just have to take your word for it until we can see some non bootleg shaky cam footage of the game.

Modifié par Brockololly, 13 octobre 2010 - 05:38 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dalira Montanti wrote...

who ever posted that "It's not a game it's an rpg"
RPG STANDS FOR ROLE PLAYING GAME THUS ITS STILL A GAME end of line

This discussion has gone on at great length in other threads.  I'm not having it again here.

[The Masked Rog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

That right there completely cut me out of the game. I had little idea of what I should do.

How do you get through life without someone telling you what you should do? 

"What should I do?" is the wrong question.  In an RPG, the question should be, "What reaction is my character having to this event?"

I well recall my first character in BG.  With Gorion's advice to go to the Friendly Arm Inn fresh in my mind, but also aware that Gorion had just led us directly into an ambush, all I wanted to do was get off the road.  So I immediately travelled south to the next zone.  What followed was a lot of in-character panic.

That was great fun.

In real life? Sure, we are all lost. I just don't like it in my games. I kind of play them to relax from the challenges of real life, not to face them again. In a game I like to have an idea of what I should do next. I like to have a very strong plot that gives my character something to  fight about and think about, rather than imagining it all in my head. I can do that without a video game. Sure I like that my character can choose his path. But the possible paths should be there. I should not have to search for alternatives, they should be clearly presented to me. In BG you really didn't have an alternative. You could skip the Friendly's Arm inn but that would pretty much make you fail. And that sucked.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Herr Uhl wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Exactly, also areas of the world aren't all confined to a 24x24 space with the "EPIC GRAPHICS"  A forest in BG or BG2 actually has the size and feel of a forest which makes the scope of the game that much better. They just don't make RPG's like that anymore, and it makes me a sad panda.

At the time it was released, that was pretty "EPIC GRAPHICS".

My point was that these days, because of the high fidelity it seems like we're not allowed to have areas any bigger than the smalish maps in DAO or ME2 due to hardware restrictions, either that or Bioware's engines just don't scale up all that well, what with all the load screens and all. Thats the one thing I actually like about Bethesda's Gamebryo engine (even though its starting to feel a little dated) is it allows for these vast open areas that really make you feel like you're in a real world, rather than just a map.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dalira Montanti wrote...

who ever posted that "It's not a game it's an rpg"
RPG STANDS FOR ROLE PLAYING GAME THUS ITS STILL A GAME end of line

This discussion has gone on at great length in other threads.  I'm not having it again here.

Perhaps you shouldn't have posted "It's not a game, it's an RPG" if you didn't want to have that discussion. I mean, exactly what did you expect to happen there?

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Perhaps you shouldn't have posted "It's not a game, it's an RPG" if you didn't want to have that discussion. I mean, exactly what did you expect to happen there?

I was responding to someone familiar with the previous debate, and his post highlighted the distinction I'd been trying to make.

[John Epler]

To address your points, Brockololly:



On the Miranda camera angle: Different cinematic design teams have different styles. I'm not about to comment on the angle in question, but the person who did the work on Miranda is not working on DA2. It's entirely possible someone else might adopt a similar style, but if you're expecting that sort of camera work to be imported wholesale - I doubt it. Everyone has their own peculiarities, and if you spent a week with each cinematic designer, you'd probably be able to pick out their work in the game with a fair amount of accuracy



As to your second point - I don't feel as though our customization options are lacking. To me, the real importance is whether or not other characters react to what we do or say, not the voice we use to say it. Of course, this is one of those points where I feel we'll agree to disagree. Unless you don't agree with that. But I feel we gain more than we lose by using the voiced protagonist. That's my opinion, of course - and I don't expect everyone to agree!



As to your third point - well, Bethesda has different design goals and philosophies than we do. I enjoy their games, and I know a few people who work there who enjoy our games Silent protagonist works well for them!



As to your fourth point - I can't say one way or another if we'll have silent protagonists ever again. That's the kind of decision made at a level far, far above my pay grade I'm here to make conversations look interesting and dynamic.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Masked Rog wrote...

In real life? Sure, we are all lost. I just don't like it in my games. I kind of play them to relax from the challenges of real life, not to face them again. In a game I like to have an idea of what I should do next. 

Then I would suggest that you don't enjoy roleplaying.

Because that's what roleplaying is.

You could skip the Friendly's Arm inn but that would pretty much make you fail.

No it wouldn't.  There were plenty of other companions you might meet.  Xzar and Montaron (who told you to go the same place Khalid and Jahiera would have) were right there (though I didn't see them before travelling south).  Kivan isn't far from the road.  Edwin and Minsc are both easy to find (and quite conspicuous).  Branwen is presented like a plot hook.  You'll meet both Xan and Coran on the main quest line.

The Friendly Arm isn't mandatory at all.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 octobre 2010 - 05:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

double post

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 octobre 2010 - 05:55 .

[The Masked Rog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

In real life? Sure, we are all lost. I just don't like it in my games. I kind of play them to relax from the challenges of real life, not to face them again. In a game I like to have an idea of what I should do next. 

Then I would suggest that you don't enjoy roleplaying.

Because that's what roleplaying is.

I enjoyed roleplaying my wardens and the Bhaalspawn in BGII. There was a defined path but room was left for me to make my choices. My character wasn't completely thrown to the dogs so to speak.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Masked Rog wrote...

There was a defined path but room was left for me to make my choices.

Except to leave the path, which seems to me to be a pretty big choice.

That's like saying you're allowed to choose your profession, as long as you choose to be an accountant.

[The Masked Rog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

There was a defined path but room was left for me to make my choices.

Except to leave the path, which seems to me to be a pretty big choice.

That's like saying you're allowed to choose your profession, as long as you choose to be an accountant.

More like saying "Look we have a really cool story, with an interesting plot and characters that will react to you decision. So what do you want to be? A plumber, teacher or accountant." Much more fun than "choose any profession you want. It won't be reflected in the world and nobody will address you as having that profession, thus making the choice irrelevant" Sure you can imagine you are of a given profession, but if it isn't reflected on the game it doesn't really matter.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Masked Rog wrote...

More like saying "Look we have a really cool story, with an interesting plot and characters that will react to you decision. So what do you want to be? A plumber, teacher or accountant."

I was still allowing you to chosoe what sort of accountant to be.  You could be a financial analyst, or a general accountant.  You could advise people on their investments.  You might have ambition to be the CFO of a major corporation.

But you'd still be an accountant.

Much more fun than "choose any profession you want. It won't be reflected in the world and nobody will address you as having that profession, thus making the choice irrelevant" Sure you can imagine you are of a given profession, but if it isn't reflected on the game it doesn't really matter.

If I cross the street to buy a sandwich, no one there cares whether I'm an accountant (I'm not).  Does that mean my choice didn't matter?

[The Masked Rog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If I cross the street to buy a sandwich, no one there cares whether I'm an accountant (I'm not).  Does that mean my choice didn't matter?

Sure there are irrelevant choices. I think Origins made a pretty good job on eliminating them, leaving only choices that can have a small or great impact on the world. No point in having a choice in game if nothing changes because of it. Might as well imagine I am making them, with the added benefit that my imagination is limitless and thus I can choose the ingredients on the sandwich, which I probably wouldn't in game. The large choices still warrant world and character chages, though.

[maxernst]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

There's the confused aimless wandering in BG

That confusion - that lack of awareness of what's happening and why - that's BG's story.  And because that confusion will be so specific to the PC's personality, that's what makes it a great RPG.

The plot in BG is actually very threadbare until very close to the end.

This is a massive strength of the game.

Exactly, also areas of the world aren't all confined to a 24x24 space with the "EPIC GRAPHICS"  A forest in BG or BG2 actually has the size and feel of a forest which makes the scope of the game that much better. They just don't make RPG's like that anymore, and it makes me a sad panda.

Huh? Baldur's Gate's "forests" were meadows with occasional clumps of trees.  And they really weren't all that big either.

[Merced256]

JohnEpler wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
The problem is that Bioware seems to have decided that some snowflakes are flakier than others.

I'm certainly not discounting the idea that non-VO'd characters have merit. In some games, certainly. I can think of at least a few titles where I either greatly enjoyed the lack of VO, or I felt that the VO was unnecessary to my enjoyment and ended up skipping a lot of it.

For DA2, however, we've decided that VO fits what we want to do with the title. I'm not saying you should never disagree with us (because what fun would a forum be where everyone agreed all the time?) but in this case, we will have to agree to disagree. Which isn't to say you should stop sharing your opinion - far from it! I do enjoy reading what everyone has to say, and I know I'm not alone.

I get what you're saying but from the outside looking in at BioWare it sure seems that you're trying to make full VO with the dialogue wheel and pushing the whole "cinematic" angle into each of your games now. And thats fine, but for myself its a bit disappointing as one of the reasons I enjoyed Origins so much was that it played differently than ME and presented itself differently than ME. I don't think DA2 will be some ME clone, but when TOR and now DA2 adopt ME's "cinematic" angle with voiced PC and everything, you'll have to pardon my skepticism that I think you guys will ever go back to the silent PC. And its that loss of diversity in how the game is presented that disappoints me most.

And that's certainly a fair concern. Homogeneity in game design is not, for most people in the industry, a desireable goal. Though I think that, aside from the introduction of the dialogue wheel, DA2 and the ME series are still rather distinct in presentation. At least on the Cinematic Design side, I feel as though we treat both series differently. It's hard to describe without spoiling something that will get me a stern talkin' to, but in a more general sense - the writing teams are still very distinct. Both series have their own flavour in both dialogue and cinematically.

I think what it comes down to, honestly, is the idea of being immersed in the story versus the idea of being immersed in the PC. The former will be far more accepting of a voiced protagonist, as the thing they're the most interested in is not their own PC, but rather the characters and story as a whole. The latter attaches a lot more importance to their own character - it serves as a representation of 'themselves' within the world that the game creates. They tend to be more leery of a voiced PC - after all, it's not their voice, and that can cause some dissonance.

Of course, I could be completely off-base  But I don't think that using a voiced protagonist in DA2 is a sign that we're going to turn all our games into the same sort of thing. I still feel that ME2 and DA2 (to use the most recent examples) are fundamentally different - and I've spent about a year and a half with both franchises at this point. So I feel like I can make that judgment  I'm rambling at this point, though.

But i think the overriding point though, is that if we eat nothing but icecream all day wouldn't that get pretty old even if we were able to switch between cookies & cream and fudge brownie? They are both still icecream afterall. And while i'm keenly aware that the analogy can be extrapolated to games being icecream and flavors the distinction among them i don't think it fits within the context we've established.

I do think you're absolutely spot on in your analysis of the two fan bases with in this genre. Personally i fall in to the "immersed in the PC" category. But thats not to say that i, or we as a crowd, don't put just as much importance on the story as the "immersed in the story" crowd. I agree whole heartedly though that a VO makes for a more immersive story, but i think thats all it does and often at the cost to the "immersed in the PC" crowd's enjoyment.

To touch on the last thing you mentioned; i disagree. Would you say that if functionally the two games opperated very similarly but retained completely different stories and even method of story delivery that they would still be two "distinct" games? I don't, a game isn't just a story though many would disagree. A game is a combination of story and the systems that make up the gameplay. Some people want the game to be deduced down to a interactive story. I abhor the very thought because i think at that point it stops being a game.

Modifié par Merced256, 13 octobre 2010 - 06:15 .

[Brockololly]

JohnEpler wrote...
To me, the real importance is whether or not other characters react to what we do or say, not the voice we use to say it. Of course, this is one of those points where I feel we'll agree to disagree.

Well, I'd say that one of my favorite moments in all of DA was in Witch Hunt when Ariane actually noticed my PC, who romanced Morrigan, was still wearing the ring Morrigan gave him. And that was an awesome, unexpected moment where you had the game/world/story/characters reacting to the PC. So in terms of that sort of reactivity, I think we agree. What I'd argue is that having a voiced PC takes away from the customization of the PC- it lumps you into using one stock voice. Much like Addai mentioned earlier, I cannot stand either Shep voice in ME2 and that really kills my ability to really give a damn about Shep right from the get go. Thats a totally subjective thing, so maybe Hawke's voice ends up being exactly how I thought it in my head- who knows?

JohnEpler wrote...
But I feel we gain more than we lose by using the voiced protagonist.

Agree to disagree, and all that!

JohnEpler wrote...
Silent protagonist works well for them!

Heck yes it doesB)

JohnEpler wrote...
As to your fourth point - I can't say one way or another if we'll have silent protagonists ever again. That's the kind of decision made at a level far, far above my pay grade I'm here to make conversations look interesting and dynamic.

Oh, I understand that you devs aren't some amorphous all knowing BioWare Blob of knowledge about everything going on there. I just would have liked to have seen  an evolution in the silent PC approach rather than seemingly ditching that (for good?) in favor of the ME approach in making every single thing all voice acted and "cinematic." So it goes.

Modifié par Brockololly, 13 octobre 2010 - 07:45 .

[AllThatJazz]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Exactly, also areas of the world aren't all confined to a 24x24 space with the "EPIC GRAPHICS"  A forest in BG or BG2 actually has the size and feel of a forest which makes the scope of the game that much better. They just don't make RPG's like that anymore, and it makes me a sad panda.

At the time it was released, that was pretty "EPIC GRAPHICS".

My point was that these days, because of the high fidelity it seems like we're not allowed to have areas any bigger than the smalish maps in DAO or ME2 due to hardware restrictions, either that or Bioware's engines just don't scale up all that well, what with all the load screens and all. Thats the one thing I actually like about Bethesda's Gamebryo engine (even though its starting to feel a little dated) is it allows for these vast open areas that really make you feel like you're in a real world, rather than just a map.

Just wanted to say I completely, totally and utterly agree with this, and with what you've said about Baldur's Gate in general. I love the BG games <3

Sorry for going off-topic. Ahem.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Masked Rog wrote...

No point in having a choice in game if nothing changes because of it.

This is where we disagree.  First, I think it's the decision-making itself that is the core of the gameplay, so eliminating decision-making opportunities from the gameplay is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Second, you can't really know what choices are going to affect the game.  The game might not react to the choices, but that you made that choice earlier may well affect a later choice you make, and that second choice (regardless of whether the game acknowledges it) is thus a demonstrable consequence of the first.