1008 réponses à ce sujet

[joriandrake]

Atakuma wrote...

Mordaedil wrote...

If I wanted to play Fable, I'd just buy Fable 3 for christmas. In fact, I think I'll do that instead of getting DA2.

So long, everybody!

If you wanted to play fable then I imagine you'd be pretty bummed playing DA2

I don't think that was his original choice, but the one that was made after deciding that DA2 wasn't for him

[Xewaka]

FedericoV wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Bioware has been in to cinematic dialogue long before ME franchise. Since Kotor at least.

And it's been a mistake every single time.

Mistake? I think that Bioware would be very glad to make such mistakes in each game they realize.

In my opinion, the focus on cinematic storytelling has improved Bioware's games and set them apart from the competition. Having said that, since in your opinion they have been mistaken for something like 10 years, I really don't understand your interest in their games . Since, you know... Bioware has became *THE* developer of cinematic and storydriven RPgames.

If you want to play another Ultima V, Bioware is not the company to look at. Sure that it's not YOUR mistake?

Sometimes they still strike gold, like with Origins.

[LexXxich]

If we are to look wider, than Square Enix is *THE* developer of cinematic and story driven RPGs.

[ErichHartmann]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Bioware has been in to cinematic dialogue long before ME franchise. Since Kotor at least.

And it's been a mistake every single time.

Once again opinions are not facts. 

[errant_knight]

AlanC9 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But if you always pick nice options, what is there to think about? How many times did DAO, or any other game, offer multiple "nice" options?

Because you didn't know which choice would achieve what result. It required a little thought. Now that aspect of the game has been removed entirely. We no longer have to think at all, we just push the button indicating the effect we want to achieve.

The icons indicate tone. If you're saying that we now can instantly tell what the tone of a line is going to be rather than trying to figure it out from the text, I guess I agree. But this means that it's harder to control your character in the old system, not easier, since you don't automatically know what his tone is going to be. This seems to be the complete opposite of the usual complaint, so I'm wondering if I've completely misunderstood you.

No, I don't think you did. Yes, I liked it that you had to think about what you were saying and it didn't always work in the most predictable way--Sten was really fun to talk to. I liked it that communicating was another challenging part of the game--it was part of gameplay. That challenge has been removed, it seems, which is why I say that it's been simplified.

[errant_knight]

FedericoV wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But if you always pick nice options, what is there to think about? How many times did DAO, or any other game, offer multiple "nice" options?

Because you didn't know which choice would achieve what result. It required a little thought. Now that aspect of the game has been removed entirely. We no longer have to think at all, we just push the button indicating the effect we want to achieve.

But what you're calling "little thought" was just metagaming and not roleplaying. Choosing the best series of otpions to obtain the best result in terms of reaction of the NPCs (and bonus and xp). In games with cinematic dialogue, voiced NPCs and silent protagonist like DA:O, you allways face the same situation: to deliver the cinematic they have to stress and invest on the reactions of NPCs (because your charachter is silent and cannot deliver any cinematic at all if not raising his eyebrow).

If you add a point system on top of that with bonus and xp granted as benefit when you agree with NPCs, you obtain DA:O's system that really pushes player to metagame dialogues instead of roleplaying them.

In a game where your charachter is able to express himself visually, at least on the same level of NPCs, you are no longer a passive observer of NPC's reactions and since the player's charachter can deliver the cinematic too, the writer/devs have no longer to build all the system around the reactions of your NPCs and player are more free to roleplay  and focus on their personal reactions.  

PSI: I suppose that in term of dialogue scheme's, the writer have not changed their work at all: I'm pretty sure that even in DA:O, each dialogue option was labelled just like DA2 (I mean, "flirtly", "nice", etc. etc.).

PSII: Bioware has been in to cinematic dialogue long before ME franchise. Since Kotor at least.

I disagree that if you think about what you say to someone, it's metagaming. I frequently think before I open my mouth.

[axa89]

errant_knight wrote...
No, I don't think you did. Yes, I liked it that you had to think about what you were saying and it didn't always work in the most predictable way--Sten was really fun to talk to. I liked it that communicating was another challenging part of the game--it was part of gameplay. That challenge has been removed, it seems, which is why I say that it's been simplified.

The icon tells you what tone you're gonna use, not what the reaction of whom you're speaking to will be. Conversations such as those with Sten can be rendered with the new system just as well.

[AlanC9]

errant_knight wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But if you always pick nice options, what is there to think about? How many times did DAO, or any other game, offer multiple "nice" options?

Because you didn't know which choice would achieve what result. It required a little thought. Now that aspect of the game has been removed entirely. We no longer have to think at all, we just push the button indicating the effect we want to achieve.

The icons indicate tone. If you're saying that we now can instantly tell what the tone of a line is going to be rather than trying to figure it out from the text, I guess I agree. But this means that it's harder to control your character in the old system, not easier, since you don't automatically know what his tone is going to be. This seems to be the complete opposite of the usual complaint, so I'm wondering if I've completely misunderstood you.

No, I don't think you did. Yes, I liked it that you had to think about what you were saying and it didn't always work in the most predictable way--Sten was really fun to talk to. I liked it that communicating was another challenging part of the game--it was part of gameplay. That challenge has been removed, it seems, which is why I say that it's been simplified.

I understand, I think, but now I don't agree with you about what's really going on when we pick a line in DAO. What you describe as thinking about what you were saying, I see as trying to figure out what the dialog writer was saying so I can tell which one of those lines is better for my PC. Tone icons make this easier for me to do, but it should be easy. It's a two step process -- figure out what options are available, and then figure out which one I want to use, and I don't see any value whatsoever in making the first step require effort.

As for the second step, why would dialogs with someone like Sten be any easier in a DA2 system?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Most will say they are moving forward and giving voice to characters adds a lot of depth. But there are always those resistant to change.

If the change were good, I would embrace it.

I can pretty much guarantee you BW won't be making any more voiceless character RPG's, so you have to adapt or stop playing their games.

That's not something you can credibly guarantee.  Not even the people at BioWare can credibly guarantee that.

And reardless, that doesn't mean it isn't valuable for me to point out where the voiced PC fails, thus encouraging improvement in those areas.  I would agree that a voiced PC is superior to an unvoiced PC, all else being equal.  But all else isn't equal, and until it is I'm going to say so.

[errant_knight]

AlanC9 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But if you always pick nice options, what is there to think about? How many times did DAO, or any other game, offer multiple "nice" options?

Because you didn't know which choice would achieve what result. It required a little thought. Now that aspect of the game has been removed entirely. We no longer have to think at all, we just push the button indicating the effect we want to achieve.

The icons indicate tone. If you're saying that we now can instantly tell what the tone of a line is going to be rather than trying to figure it out from the text, I guess I agree. But this means that it's harder to control your character in the old system, not easier, since you don't automatically know what his tone is going to be. This seems to be the complete opposite of the usual complaint, so I'm wondering if I've completely misunderstood you.

No, I don't think you did. Yes, I liked it that you had to think about what you were saying and it didn't always work in the most predictable way--Sten was really fun to talk to. I liked it that communicating was another challenging part of the game--it was part of gameplay. That challenge has been removed, it seems, which is why I say that it's been simplified.

I understand, I think, but now I don't agree with you about what's really going on when we pick a line in DAO. What you describe as thinking about what you were saying, I see as trying to figure out what the dialog writer was saying so I can tell which one of those lines is better for my PC. Tone icons make this easier for me to do, but it should be easy. It's a two step process -- figure out what options are available, and then figure out which one I want to use, and I don't see any value whatsoever in making the first step require effort.

As for the second step, why would dialogs with someone like Sten be any easier in a DA2 system?

I don't suppose they would, it's true. But my process is. When I'm roleplaying. I'm not thinking about the mechanics, I'm thinking about the words that I might say and the character that I'm speaking too, not the game writers, in the same way that I might choose what to say in any other context. My choices are limited, because it's a game, but I accept that as necessary. But it's more interesting to think about my words, than an icon. To me, the icon really does take me out of the game and make it mechanics, It emphasises that I'm not really that character. When you're conversing you pick your words, not your tone, having only the vaguest idea of what's going to come out of your mouth. It puts the interface between you and your characher's speech.

Modifié par errant_knight, 22 novembre 2010 - 06:07 .

[FedericoV]

errant_knight wrote...

I disagree that if you think about what you say to someone, it's metagaming. I frequently think before I open my mouth.

And you also frequently choose between six listed options decided by someone else ?

There is a difference between choosing sensible words and choosing the optimal option. A degree of precision of real life dialogues that games aren't able to aknowledge, voice over or not, paraphrase or not, since the dialogues are written by someone else and you're not speaking with a real person...

In a game, I prefer a dialogue system that concentrates on the expression of my charachter than a system that is based on the reactions of NPCs.

Modifié par FedericoV, 22 novembre 2010 - 06:22 .

[FedericoV]

Xewaka wrote...

Sometimes they still strike gold, like with Origins.

I have played Bioware games for something like 12 years and Origins has not a lot to do with the BG/NWN games in terms of dialogues and storytelling. Origins is 100% post-Kotor Bioware in that regard.

[AlanC9]

errant_knight wrote...

I don't suppose they would, it's true. But my process is. When I'm roleplaying. I'm not thinking about the mechanics, I'm thinking about the words that I might say and the character that I'm speaking too, not the game writers, in the same way that I might choose what to say in any other context. My choices are limited, because it's a game, but I accept that as necessary. But it's more interesting to think about my words, than an icon. To me, the icon really does take me out of the game and make it mechanics, It emphasises that I'm not really that character. When you're conversing you pick your words, not your tone, having only the vaguest idea of what's going to come out of your mouth. It puts the interface between you and your characher's speech.

But you still have to think about the substance, not just the icon. You're just assuming that the paraphrases will be meaningless, on no basis that I can see. Sure, playing just by the icon would give a bad experience, but nobody's forcing you to do that.

There's an early ME2 dialog where TIM asks how you're doing following your reconstruction. Some idiots  players have complained because the Paragon option there picks a fight with him and they intended to be co-operative. But the Renegade paraphrase is "not bad," so if you want no confrontation there you should be picking that. There's a problem here, but it's with the way ME2 gave the player incentive to play straight Paragon or Renegade, not the dialog itself.

[Sylvius the Mad]

FedericoV wrote...

I have played Bioware games for something like 12 years and Origins has not a lot to do with the BG/NWN games in terms of dialogues and storytelling. Origins is 100% post-Kotor Bioware in that regard.

I don't see meaningful differences between the non-ME BioWare games in terms of their ability to tell stories or accommodate roleplaying.

I'd say NWN and BG do just as good a job of telling a story as KotOR, JE, and DAO do.

The move to cinematic presentation has added exactly zero benefit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

But you still have to think about the substance, not just the icon. You're just assuming that the paraphrases will be meaningless, on no basis that I can see.

That ME's paraphrases were often meaningless is a valuable datapoint.

The specific example you cited had, if I recall, no meaningful difference in the paraphrase content between the Paragon and Renegade options.  There are a wide variety of possible responses to a question of "how are you?" that are all non-commital.  Were any of the options clearly not among them?

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The specific example you cited had, if I recall, no meaningful difference in the paraphrase content between the Paragon and Renegade options.  There are a wide variety of possible responses to a question of "how are you?" that are all non-commital.  Were any of the options clearly not among them?

I remember differently. The Paragon option seemed to pretty obviously be picking a fight to me. I've never hit the option myself since none of my characters have wanted to pick a fight there.

I'll see if I have a save point.

[errant_knight]

AlanC9 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

I don't suppose they would, it's true. But my process is. When I'm roleplaying. I'm not thinking about the mechanics, I'm thinking about the words that I might say and the character that I'm speaking too, not the game writers, in the same way that I might choose what to say in any other context. My choices are limited, because it's a game, but I accept that as necessary. But it's more interesting to think about my words, than an icon. To me, the icon really does take me out of the game and make it mechanics, It emphasises that I'm not really that character. When you're conversing you pick your words, not your tone, having only the vaguest idea of what's going to come out of your mouth. It puts the interface between you and your characher's speech.

But you still have to think about the substance, not just the icon. You're just assuming that the paraphrases will be meaningless, on no basis that I can see. Sure, playing just by the icon would give a bad experience, but nobody's forcing you to do that.

There's an early ME2 dialog where TIM asks how you're doing following your reconstruction. Some idiots  players have complained because the Paragon option there picks a fight with him and they intended to be co-operative. But the Renegade paraphrase is "not bad," so if you want no confrontation there you should be picking that. There's a problem here, but it's with the way ME2 gave the player incentive to play straight Paragon or Renegade, not the dialog itself.

In that circumstance, I really am thinking about the writers not my character as per the example you gave earlier. I'm no longer in the game. I'm thinking 'what might the writers intend with this tonal option/paraphrase?' You must see why I would find that bad for roleplay. In terms of the paraphrase, I'm assuming that the icons have meaning, not that they're misleading, or there for no purpose, so if one is agressive, one is diplomatic, and one is neutral, in most situations the choice will likely be clear, no matter what the paraphrase--and that will just make it more obvious. There's just too much on a platter here.

Modifié par errant_knight, 22 novembre 2010 - 06:45 .

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

I have played Bioware games for something like 12 years and Origins has not a lot to do with the BG/NWN games in terms of dialogues and storytelling. Origins is 100% post-Kotor Bioware in that regard.

I don't see meaningful differences between the non-ME BioWare games in terms of their ability to tell stories or accommodate roleplaying.

I'd say NWN and BG do just as good a job of telling a story as KotOR, JE, and DAO do.

The move to cinematic presentation has added exactly zero benefit.

Arguing about the benefits of cinematic presentation it's hard since they are mostly subjective. I would say that since those media are called videogames, visuals matters a lot for obvious reasons. Personally I feel that cinematic presentation add many layers of personality to the charachter I'm playing and to the story I'm experiencing.

Modifié par FedericoV, 22 novembre 2010 - 06:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

FedericoV wrote...

Personally I feel that cinematic presentation add many layers of personality to the charachter I'm playing and to the story I'm experiencing.

And this is why I think it's a problem.  If the game is adding layers to my character's personality, then he ceases to be my character.  He's then as much my character as Duncan is; he's someone I don't know and whose motives I don't understand.

My character's personality needs to come from me.  That's the only way I can ever know what it is and thus be able to make decisions on his behalf.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 novembre 2010 - 07:20 .

[AlanC9]

errant_knight wrote...

In that circumstance, I really am thinking about the writers not my character as per the example you gave earlier. I'm no longer in the game. I'm thinking 'what might the writers intend with this tonal option/paraphrase?' You must see why I would find that bad for roleplay.

 But you have to do the exact same thing when reading a whole line without an intent icon. Reading and understanding the line means that you know what the writers intended the line to mean unless you have misinterpreted the line. And if you have misinterpreted the lines then your character will not be saying what you intended. Either the NPCs will react to a tone you didn't realize was there, or you've misread the text itself and the line doesn't say what you thought it said.

In terms of the paraphrase, I'm assuming that the icons have meaning, not that they're misleading, or there for no purpose, so if one is agressive, one is diplomatic, and one is neutral, in most situations the choice will likely be clear, no matter what the paraphrase--and that will just make it more obvious. There's just too much on a platter here.

Again, why shouldn't it be obvious, to me, that my character is trying to be diplomatic?

Or are you saying that the traditional system serves up an illusion that you'd rather not do without?

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 novembre 2010 - 08:13 .

[errant_knight]

AlanC9 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

In that circumstance, I really am thinking about the writers not my character as per the example you gave earlier. I'm no longer in the game. I'm thinking 'what might the writers intend with this tonal option/paraphrase?' You must see why I would find that bad for roleplay.

 But you have to do the exact same thing when reading a whole line without an intent icon. Reading and understanding the line means that you know what the writers intended the line to mean unless you have misinterpreted the line. And if you have misinterpreted the lines then your character will not be saying what you intended. Either the NPCs will react to a tone you didn't realize was there, or you've misread the text itself and the line doesn't say what you thought it said.

In terms of the paraphrase, I'm assuming that the icons have meaning, not that they're misleading, or there for no purpose, so if one is agressive, one is diplomatic, and one is neutral, in most situations the choice will likely be clear, no matter what the paraphrase--and that will just make it more obvious. There's just too much on a platter here.

Again, why shouldn't it be obvious, to me, that my character is trying to be diplomatic?

Or are you saying that the traditional system serves up an illusion that you'd rather not do without?

Er, what? Look, it's pretty obvious that we come from opposite ends of the spectrum on whether the use of icons/paraphrasing is distancing and damaging to roleplay, so do we really have to keep beating this dead horse? We're not going to find common ground here, so I suggest that we agree to disagree and call it a day. We pretty much know what each other means, and really, we're just critiquing each other's semantics now.
Edit: I hope that didn't come off as snarky, I didn't mean it that way. I just don't see us coming to any kind of natural endpoint in this debate, and it just going on forever.

Modifié par errant_knight, 22 novembre 2010 - 08:39 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Either the NPCs will react to a tone you didn't realize was there

Not possible.  In DAO the tone doesn't exist within the game.

[Qset]

long time lurker, not posted before

errant knight, for what it is worth I completely understand you point of view here and I feel the same way
I also can see where Alan is coming from although that style of play doesn't match mine. My playthroughs in DAO are pretty long affairs as I spend a lot of time with the dialogue and making sure choose the options that fit the role I want to play. Often you need to read carefully and choose wisely
Done 4 full playthroughs now (3 orgins, 4 romances, 4 endings) and have 4 others in various states (3 more orgins to do all the way through at a minimum plus a solo playthrough after exhausting the NPC content - is that possible? ). My first was over way over 120 hours and my 4th was 90 - the reduction in time is due in the main to familarity with game and fight mechanics and the optimum order of doing stuff - I still spend ages talking to the NPC's....

Comparing this with ME2 - at 1.7 playthoughs and can't really face finishing playthough 2 - the NPCs just seem so shallow in comparison to the characters in DAO for me, no offense to those ME2 lovers - I did enjoy the game but it doesn't have as much replay appeal as DAO for me.

For me personally, if I could see the full dialogue options rather than a paraphrase then I would feel much happier. The tone icon would then just be adding more information over and above this.
It was this that frustrated me somewhat about ME2. Tone and content are not always closely related. You can say the same content with different tones after all. Many dialogue options in DAO were moral choices and shades of grey and my guess is that a paraphrase won't cover these fully - I found it an issue with ME. Obviously, I could just take the easy option and choose blue or red but that wasn't much fun to be honest. I am not saying that it will be like this in DA2 - I don't actually know what it will be like based on the information I have read on these forums but I know it is different to DAO
I play these games partly for the excellent writing, dialogue and NPC character depth so choosing a colour rather than taking the time to enjoy that content and read the words doesn't work for me.

I don't mind the voiced or non voiced PC, I would prefer a choice of voices if we do have a voiced PC but I can understand why that won't be possible. As an aside I hope there is the option to show the words said visually as they are spoken like there is in DAO.By the way, am I the only one who  hears my character saying the dialogue in my head? I certainly didn't feel my character was wooden in DAO.

Anyway, just some thoughts on this discussion.

Modifié par Qset, 22 novembre 2010 - 09:42 .

[Qset]

The cinematic content/presentation discussion reminds me of a similar discussion I had a little while back on the relative merits of black and white, colour and 3D cinema.

Plot, character depth and well executed acting are vital for a good movie in my opinion. Colour and 3D effects add nothing without these.

The same can be true of cinematic presentation in games. I actually liked a lot of the cinematics in DAO and ME2 and they did add to the overall experience and helped me bond with the NPC's. They are not the only way of doing that though - as long as you don't end up relying on cinematics to the expense of the other key items.

I bonded pretty well with the BG NPC's as well and cinematics were very limited there - the dialogue was superb.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if I can have superb plot, writing and character depth and cinematics in that order then great

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Personally I feel that cinematic presentation add many layers of personality to the charachter I'm playing and to the story I'm experiencing.

And this is why I think it's a problem.  If the game is adding layers to my character's personality, then he ceases to be my character.  He's then as much my character as Duncan is; he's someone I don't know and whose motives I don't understand.

My character's personality needs to come from me.  That's the only way I can ever know what it is and thus be able to make decisions on his behalf.

I see your point and respect it. You know, for me Bioware games are like storydriven RPGs sessions where the master gives you a charachter he has created. The charachter it's not yours but you have room to charachterize him and roleplay him still and choose what to do with him to a point. You loose some freedom but you gain connection with the story and the other charachters, focus, purpose and lots of RP possibilities because of those strongest connections. It's still roleplaying even if the charachter is not yours. Cinematic help the process if you can decide. It's just a different kind of roleplaying, the one I prefer even in pen and paper.

Having said that, there are charachters and charachters. Hawke do not seem as defined as Sheppard for example. And most of all, we can agree or not, but that's the kind of games Bioware likes to make as now. Given that, I think that it's more usefull to discuss how to improve the current dialogue system Bioware use, instead of discussing wich system is our ideal one.

Modifié par FedericoV, 22 novembre 2010 - 10:17 .