139 réponses à ce sujet

[maxernst]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

maxernst wrote...
 That's why I compared it to voiceover in movies--it's usually used because the director can't think of a way to communicate the ideas with images and dialogue.  It's a crutch.  It may be necessary at times (I can't see any other way of covering the temporal gaps in DA2, for example), but it breaks the sense of being in the world. 

The voiceover is not always a crutch, it can be a storytelling tool.  It's a crutch when it is, as you say, used to explain things that the director can't figure out a way to show or in the case of the infamous Coleman Francis, because he didn't want to have to sync up the sound with the film.  It can also provide insight into the character's thinking and motivation.

maxernst wrote...
As far as the first-person narrative vs. third-person narrative goes, maybe it's because I come from a pen & paper background rather than a console-RPG background, but I can't really see an RPG as anything but a first-person narrative.

The problem with your argument here is the still thinly veiled presumption that someone would have to come from a different background than you to approach CRPGs a different way.  For example, I come from a tabletop background as well, and I'm in the CRPGs are stories camp.  I won't go into why because that's a "What is an RPG" discussion, so suffice to say I've always felt that CRPGs only mimic the tabletop experience and are incapable of reproducing it.  

Part of the reasons people get upset at each other on these forums needlessly is stuff like that, assuming people must have played some silly console game or must be a mouth-breathing shooter playing Neanderthal to like Mass Effect 2, and so on.  Reasons for preferences are just as diverse as those preferences themselves.

Don't you think it's inherent in the word itself "roleplaying"?  Pen & paper rpg's and most western RPG's have always been first person narrative games. While you're right that a CRPG can never reproduce the tabletop experience (although a good NWN-server with a live DM...), if a game isn't even attempting to reproduce the tabletop experience, why call it an RPG at all?  Why not call it interactive fiction?

[upsettingshorts]

maxernst wrote...
Don't you think it's inherent in the word itself "roleplaying"?  Pen & paper rpg's and most western RPG's have always been first person narrative games. While you're right that a CRPG can never reproduce the tabletop experience (although a good NWN-server with a live DM...), if a game isn't even attempting to reproduce the tabletop experience, why call it an RPG at all?  Why not call it interactive fiction?

Remember what I said about needing to derail the thread into "What is an RPG?" to explain my opinion?  Yeah, those threads get locked.  I'll go so far as to say that your counter-example of a NWN server with a live DM is an exception I've listed before and leave it at that.  

[AlanC9]

Exactly what I was looking for....

maxernst wrote...
Umm...so you didn't notice Morrigan, Alistair and Flemeth's reactions when you ask about the battle?  The people telling you in Lothering that Loghain outlawed the wardens or the people attacking you for the price on your head?
Morrigan's advice to go after Loghain right away and kill him?  You didn't notice Jowan telling you that he was hired by Loghain to kill Eamon or the Loghain flunky trying to kill you outside of Orzammar?  How about the room in the Pearl where Loghain's buddy Howe has men murdering Grey Warden supporters?  I didn't need to stop playing the game and watch a movie to learn Loghain was a bad guy (and by the way, many people are still not convinced that Loghain betrayed Cailan at Ostagar)

There are obvious problems with this.

First, since some people are not convinced that Loghain betrayed Cailan even with all the stuff you mentioned plus the cutscenes, that's not exactly an argument in favor of removing the cutscenes. If anything, that means that Bio needed more and more explicit cutscenes. Unless the design intent was to leave the player unsure as to Loghain's actions, but I don't buy that.

Second, many of those bits of evidence come up late in the game or are somewhat ambiguous. Since the player has no way of knowing what Duncan did or didn't do at Ostagar, apart from Morrigan and Flemeth's testimony, all he finds out at Lothering is that Loghain says that the Grey Wardens betrayed the king. Maybe Loghain sincerely believes that. Maybe Morrigan and Flemeth are lying and Loghain is right. Many PCs would be inclined to trust Loghain over a couple of apostates if the game hadn't already gone out of its way to make Loghain look guilty.

Jowan's the only unequivocal evidence that Loghain is a bad guy before Denerim.

[maxernst]

AlanC9 wrote...

Exactly what I was looking for....

maxernst wrote...
Umm...so you didn't notice Morrigan, Alistair and Flemeth's reactions when you ask about the battle?  The people telling you in Lothering that Loghain outlawed the wardens or the people attacking you for the price on your head?
Morrigan's advice to go after Loghain right away and kill him?  You didn't notice Jowan telling you that he was hired by Loghain to kill Eamon or the Loghain flunky trying to kill you outside of Orzammar?  How about the room in the Pearl where Loghain's buddy Howe has men murdering Grey Warden supporters?  I didn't need to stop playing the game and watch a movie to learn Loghain was a bad guy (and by the way, many people are still not convinced that Loghain betrayed Cailan at Ostagar)

There are obvious problems with this. 

Unless the design intent was to leave the player unsure as to Loghain's actions, but I don't buy that.

Here I have to disagree with you, based on what they did with Return to Ostagar and also from Gaider's comments on the site.  If anything, I think the original game was less ambiguous than they wanted it to be.

[Reaverwind]

AlanC9 wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...

The cutscenes were inserted for one reason only: to provoke an emotional response that ends up feeling cheap and actually pulls me out of the story, since a) they distance you from your character and apparently what is shown is suspect - see raging debate on Loghain's actions.

I don't take that debate all too seriously.

But it's an interesting point. Does anyone remember how our characters know that Loghain pulled out and left Cailan to die? It comes up in the post-Tower convos, obviously, but how? Are we taking Flemeth and Morrigan's word for it?

One doesn't really need to accept all that Flemeth and Morrigan say to know that the battle went terribly wrong. There's Alistair's reaction - and the reaction of various NPC's in Lothering. Imo, what Bioware should have done was stop with the scene where your party is overwhlemed in the Tower of Ishaal. I can accept having a cutscene there, since a scripted sequence at that point can be difficult to pull off without overly confusing and frustrating the player. The rest of the cutscene was meta-gaming knowledge which ended up detracting from the story. You're spoon-fed 3rd-person knowledge - when it would have added more emotional impact to the story to leave the player in the dark and allow the PC to slowly piece together what happened.

[upsettingshorts]

Reaverwind wrote...
You're spoon-fed 3rd-person knowledge - when it would have added more emotional impact to the story to leave the player in the dark and allow the PC to slowly piece together what happened.

What is it with this needless demeaning language?  People who enjoy the third person narrative are not babies incapable of feeding themselves.  

We get it.  You prefer the limited view of the 1st person narrative because it immerses you more in your character.  Those who prefer the third person narrative like it more because it immerses them more in the story.  That's it.  Neither is some juvenile mouthbreather who can't follow a story.

[maxernst]

Reaverwind wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...

The cutscenes were inserted for one reason only: to provoke an emotional response that ends up feeling cheap and actually pulls me out of the story, since a) they distance you from your character and apparently what is shown is suspect - see raging debate on Loghain's actions.

I don't take that debate all too seriously.

But it's an interesting point. Does anyone remember how our characters know that Loghain pulled out and left Cailan to die? It comes up in the post-Tower convos, obviously, but how? Are we taking Flemeth and Morrigan's word for it?

One doesn't really need to accept all that Flemeth and Morrigan say to know that the battle went terribly wrong. There's Alistair's reaction - and the reaction of various NPC's in Lothering. Imo, what Bioware should have done was stop with the scene where your party is overwhlemed in the Tower of Ishaal. I can accept having a cutscene there, since a scripted sequence at that point can be difficult to pull off without overly confusing and frustrating the player. The rest of the cutscene was meta-gaming knowledge which ended up detracting from the story. You're spoon-fed 3rd-person knowledge - when it would have added more emotional impact to the story to leave the player in the dark and allow the PC to slowly piece together what happened.

My thoughts exactly.  If you didn't trust Flemeth's account, you would hear in Lothering that Loghain had left the battlefield...and surely very few PC's will credit Loghain's claim that the Grey Wardens betrayed Cailan?  Hardly anybody else seems to believe it, even the people who try to kill you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

But it's an interesting point. Does anyone remember how our characters know that Loghain pulled out and left Cailan to die? It comes up in the post-Tower convos, obviously, but how? Are we taking Flemeth and Morrigan's word for it?

That is literally all the information our characters get.  Anyone who trusts Morrigan and Flemeth would presumably believe them, while it's very strange that Alistair does (given how stand-offish me was when he first met Morrigan),

We should probably distinguish between cutscenes that give information that the characters don't have and cutscenes that don't really give you anything that would change your  PC's actions.

I agree.

The only real problem is when the designers assume that you'll be taking cutscene information into account, even if your character doesn't know about it.  The Loghain betrayal is a terrific example, I think, as there is no option at any point to claim Morrigan and Flemeth are lying (which would make perfect sense for a great many characters - even one who fears what they say is true, as lashing out at people who try to help is a common aspect of grief).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 30 octobre 2010 - 08:43 .

[Mr. Man]

Reaverwind wrote...


One doesn't really need to accept all that Flemeth and Morrigan say to know that the battle went terribly wrong. There's Alistair's reaction - and the reaction of various NPC's in Lothering. Imo, what Bioware should have done was stop with the scene where your party is overwhlemed in the Tower of Ishaal. I can accept having a cutscene there, since a scripted sequence at that point can be difficult to pull off without overly confusing and frustrating the player. The rest of the cutscene was meta-gaming knowledge which ended up detracting from the story. You're spoon-fed 3rd-person knowledge - when it would have added more emotional impact to the story to leave the player in the dark and allow the PC to slowly piece together what happened.

Now we are being spoon-fed 3rd person knowledge? I love how you first person advocates act all elitist and think those who like cinematics are simply action-craving rabble. This isn't the case, I simply realize that being in the dark and not understanding whats going on around you is boring and confusing. Story-telling is supposed to mean actually telling a story (through interactive cut-scenes I prefer) not a lack thereof, which seems to be what you want. Have you played Farcry 2, you may like it; weak story and you never leave the first person.

[Mr. Man]

Capt. Obvious wrote...

Dalira Montanti wrote...

omg Assassins creed was very rubbish I do like the cut-scenes from dragon age a lot more just hope there not scripted in DA2 or I will just eat my own hat

Assassin's Creed is not rubbish.

 The scripted sequences were. But overall the game was fun

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Since the player has no way of knowing what Duncan did or didn't do at Ostagar, apart from Morrigan and Flemeth's testimony, all he finds out at Lothering is that Loghain says that the Grey Wardens betrayed the king. Maybe Loghain sincerely believes that.

Even the PC could credibly believe that.  His only real exposure to the Wardens so far has been the joining, and that involved the brutal murder of a pretty nice guy.

For all the PC knows, the Grey Wardens did betray and kill Cailan.  Sure, Alistair wouldn't believe that, but that he accepts Flemeth's story without question suggests that he's not handing the trauma of battle very well.

[upsettingshorts]

Unless of course, the Warden and Alistair had time to look out the window before they got ambushed. If there were windows. I mean, if Loghain and Duncan can see the beacon, provided there's a window I imagine the Warden and Alistair are capable of looking down and seeing a huge army leaving the field.

But since we never actually saw them looking out a window, it's entirely speculative.

That being said, the Warden has the opportunity to ask Morrigan what happened, so either he didn't actually see it, did see the withdrawal but didn't see the Wardens and the King get overwhelmed and defeated and may have thought they pulled it off, or is simply experiencing trauma and isn't able to remember.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 octobre 2010 - 08:53 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I doubt he could make out those details on the ground from atop the tower.

Loghain might have performed a strategic withdrawal in response to the Wardens killing Cailan. The Wardens were an important part if Loghain's batle plan; if they've gone rogue his best option is to retreat and regroup elsewhere.

[upsettingshorts]

Well, it'd be simple enough to deduce that the plan was for Loghain to intervene at the moment the beacon was lit, and he didn't.



You're right though in that it is open to a number of interpretations to a neutral observer, but it would explain why Alistair would be open to a description of events from Flemeth that indicated that Loghain betrayed the Wardens.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But it also allows for the PC not to do that.

There's no reason why any character's opinion needs to match the in-game truth. People can be mistaken.

[upsettingshorts]

Oh I know, I was just saying that it was possible, not demanded.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Even the PC could credibly believe that.  His only real exposure to the Wardens so far has been the joining, and that involved the brutal murder of a pretty nice guy.

For all the PC knows, the Grey Wardens did betray and kill Cailan.  Sure, Alistair wouldn't believe that, but that he accepts Flemeth's story without question suggests that he's not handing the trauma of battle very well.

Though there is a believability problem with Loghain's story. Betraying the king is one thing, doing it in a manner that gets you all killed is quite another.

Maybe we should talk about a different cutscene instead. This is a part of DAO where the storytelling doesn't work too well in the first place.

[Nerevar-as]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Even the PC could credibly believe that.  His only real exposure to the Wardens so far has been the joining, and that involved the brutal murder of a pretty nice guy.

For all the PC knows, the Grey Wardens did betray and kill Cailan.  Sure, Alistair wouldn't believe that, but that he accepts Flemeth's story without question suggests that he's not handing the trauma of battle very well.

Though there is a believability problem with Loghain's story. Betraying the king is one thing, doing it in a manner that gets you all killed is quite another.

Maybe we should talk about a different cutscene instead. This is a part of DAO where the storytelling doesn't work too well in the first place.

I would say that plan A was remove the GW and put Cailan in line before he sold Ferelden to Orlais, but Cailan put himself in front line and Loghain didn´t think it worth saving him. RtO hints heavily the battle was lost anyway. Without the cutscene we would have Morrigan and Flemeth´s account of the retreat, and later Wynne´s. It´s more likely just a storytelling choice.
I prefer knowing things the character shouldn´t  rather than the character we play learns info we don´t. Shepard probably knows much more about Keiji Okuda´s info on the Alliance than we do.

[maxernst]

Mr. Man wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...


One doesn't really need to accept all that Flemeth and Morrigan say to know that the battle went terribly wrong. There's Alistair's reaction - and the reaction of various NPC's in Lothering. Imo, what Bioware should have done was stop with the scene where your party is overwhlemed in the Tower of Ishaal. I can accept having a cutscene there, since a scripted sequence at that point can be difficult to pull off without overly confusing and frustrating the player. The rest of the cutscene was meta-gaming knowledge which ended up detracting from the story. You're spoon-fed 3rd-person knowledge - when it would have added more emotional impact to the story to leave the player in the dark and allow the PC to slowly piece together what happened.

Now we are being spoon-fed 3rd person knowledge? I love how you first person advocates act all elitist and think those who like cinematics are simply action-craving rabble. This isn't the case, I simply realize that being in the dark and not understanding whats going on around you is boring and confusing. Story-telling is supposed to mean actually telling a story (through interactive cut-scenes I prefer) not a lack thereof, which seems to be what you want. Have you played Farcry 2, you may like it; weak story and you never leave the first person.

Excuse me, but you're the guy who ,keeps telling those of us who actually want to play our characters and feel like we're in their world should go play action games.  The thing is I don't want to be TOLD a story, I want to experience a story, I want to be part of a story.  There are other media which are better for pure story telling--films, books, theatre.  I realize that finding things out for yourself is more satisfying than passively being told them.  No one is saying they don't want story, but I want to experience the story not watch it play out on the screen in front of me.

[soteria]

Maybe we should talk about a different cutscene instead. This is a part of DAO where the storytelling doesn't work too well in the first place.

Riordan's leap?

[Mr. Man]

maxernst wrote...

Mr. Man wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...


One doesn't really need to accept all that Flemeth and Morrigan say to know that the battle went terribly wrong. There's Alistair's reaction - and the reaction of various NPC's in Lothering. Imo, what Bioware should have done was stop with the scene where your party is overwhlemed in the Tower of Ishaal. I can accept having a cutscene there, since a scripted sequence at that point can be difficult to pull off without overly confusing and frustrating the player. The rest of the cutscene was meta-gaming knowledge which ended up detracting from the story. You're spoon-fed 3rd-person knowledge - when it would have added more emotional impact to the story to leave the player in the dark and allow the PC to slowly piece together what happened.

Now we are being spoon-fed 3rd person knowledge? I love how you first person advocates act all elitist and think those who like cinematics are simply action-craving rabble. This isn't the case, I simply realize that being in the dark and not understanding whats going on around you is boring and confusing. Story-telling is supposed to mean actually telling a story (through interactive cut-scenes I prefer) not a lack thereof, which seems to be what you want. Have you played Farcry 2, you may like it; weak story and you never leave the first person.

Excuse me, but you're the guy who ,keeps telling those of us who actually want to play our characters and feel like we're in their world should go play action games.  The thing is I don't want to be TOLD a story, I want to experience a story, I want to be part of a story.  There are other media which are better for pure story telling--films, books, theatre.  I realize that finding things out for yourself is more satisfying than passively being told them.  No one is saying they don't want story, but I want to experience the story not watch it play out on the screen in front of me.

How do you experience a story without being told it. If they don't tell you a story there can be no story, considering it's fiction and your not the writer, somebody is always going to have to be telling you the story.

[upsettingshorts]

soteria wrote...

Maybe we should talk about a different cutscene instead. This is a part of DAO where the storytelling doesn't work too well in the first place.

Riordan's leap?

Well, the most purely 3rd person totally-messes-up-the-perspective-of-the-player example is seeing Zevran get hired by Loghain and Howe to kill The Warden. 

[soteria]

Actually, in practice I don't know how much it messed up RP. The cutscene basically tells you Loghain has hired an assassin (Zevran) to kill you. The Warden is already aware at this point that Loghain wants you dead. The cutscene doesn't tell you that Zevran is a recruitable ally--all you really know is that he is an assassin. When you interrogate him, he pretty much tells your character what the player already knows, adding that he'd be willing to join you.

If anything, what really messes up the perspective is going into the game knowing Zevran is recruitable. Not knowing that would make it a lot easier to just kill him outright.

[upsettingshorts]

soteria wrote...
When If you interrogate him

I cut that elf's throat.   It was really tough for me to ever justify keeping him alive without metagaming.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 octobre 2010 - 11:28 .