37007 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Luc0s wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Stories aren't told in writing, painting or conversation?  I guess no one ever told a story in the history of mankind before there was camera and film.

Nice strawman, but no, that's not what I said.

That is what you are saying, though, whether you realize it or not.

You don't know me. I pay LOTS of attention in video-games to every tiny little detail. Games are a great inspiration for me. I am a game-design student myself after all. So I have to study games to better understand them as a designer.

The fact that I don't remember any story being told in a Skyrim dungeon, only proves how bad Skyrim is at telling memoriable stories. The only story I can remember being told in a dungeon is the story about Olaf One-Eye. That's it. I can't honestly remember any other Skyrim dungeon specifically telling me a story, or specifically being part of a story.

Unlike The Witcher 2, where I remember every single side-quest and every single moment and story told.

If you can't remember any story being told in a dungeon, you either weren't paying attention or Bethesda's storytelling style is just not for you.  That's fine, but don't say it doesn't exist because you are dead wrong.  Nearly every dungeon tells a story.  Some of them are pretty moving.  Your idea of storytelling seems to be very limited.  Bethesda specializes in contextual storytelling and they are masters at it.

Fortunately for you as a prospective game designer, a lot of people seem only able to get a cinematic game and/ or just prefer them.  For the rest of us, thank the gods for Bethesda.  Their storytelling style suits me very well.  I can't stand boring cutscenes taking up half a game.

Modifié par Addai67, 19 mai 2012 - 12:57 .

[Yrkoon]

Luc0s wrote...

Way to miss the point.

I simply said that cutscenes are more succesful in telling stories than in-game dialogue. What do books have to do with that? NOTHING!

Oh I wouldn't say nothing.  For the near entirety of Human history,   mankind's most enduring (and endearing) Stories  were delivered via writing,  inert pieces of art, and  spoken word.  Not cutscenes.

Fast forward to 2012, and we've got some internet poster named  Luc0s, claiming that Cutscenes make stories more successful. and more immersive.  Sounds absolutely silly  for someone to even suggest such a thing, yes?  And that's because it IS.

Stories contained in ancient texts have been so immersive and successful that they directly affected the actions of whole civilizations.  There's yet to be a cut-scene filled video game to come close.

We're not talking about books, we're talking about what's the better way of telling a story in video-games. Books are no part of this discussion.

No sir, we're not going to move goalposts  in order to accomodate Luc0s's argument and omit everyone's elses.   We were discussing stories.   The fact of the matter is that  Stories exist in every media.  And video games are just one part of the whole. 

But to respond to your point:  You're still wrong.  Again,  Planescape: Torment and Baldur's gate 1   (which are practically void of cutscenes)  contain  better  stories than Dragon Age 2, which is cutscene driven.

If you want to argue that The Witcher's 2's story is absolutely mindbogglingly awesome, I won't dispute that.    (because it actually IS)  But when you come here and cite its cut scenes as the reason why, then that's where you fall flat on your butt.  Because  it ISN'T the reason.  The writing is the reason.  TW2's story would have been just as good in  purely text form.

Luc0s wrote...
To claim cutscenes are a lazy way of storytelling is the BIGGEST NONSENSE I've ever heard.

You're contradicting yourself.   Just a post ago you agreed with the notion, accuately pointing out that it's a lot harder to  tell a story  in a video game by using methods  other than cinematics and cut scenes.

Well?  That's true, isn't it.  Specifically, it takes a lot of hard work from multiple  teams in a development studio.  To tell a story without a cutscene,  you need  1)  Writers - to write text, and flesh out characters via non-cutscene  actions they take during gameplay;  2) level designers -to fill the world with pieces of  graphical evidence of the story;  3) and Graphics designers, to create the visuals  of the plot itself.

That's a lot of work.  a lot of coordination.  The alternative is to just make a cutscene, where you can literally spit out the plot and  all conflicts in a straight forward manner so that no one has to ponder anything.  I call that Laziness.  Don't you?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 19 mai 2012 - 01:00 .

[Addai]

IT'S NOT 'WEAK.' Your preferences are not facts. I find it more powerful than cutscenes, which are passive and really IMO lazy storytelling.

I'm sure you've seen me posting on the Witcher threads. If not, well I do. For a cinematic game, TW2 is a good game. But cinematic type games will always be weaker to me.

[Elhanan]

Luc0s wrote...

My entire point was that Skyrim's way of storytelling  is weak. The fact that I don't remember any stories from dungeons is evidence of that. You can blame it on me, but I blame it on the game.

Bethesda is not a master at contextual storytelling. You must have never played a game with an actual good story and with actual good story-telling, have you?

The fact that you do not remember really only means you do not remember; does not mean there were not meaningful stories contained within. Since many others contest this and can recall a story or two that were memorable, that seems to mean that said blame is on the Player; not the stories.

Skyrim Moment: When discovering a runaway child in Windhelm wishes to hire an Assassin to kill the abusive women that runs the orphange in Riften. Initially, I went out to speak to her and hear her side of things, but managed to hide and listen to her rantings, then waited in the house for several IG hours until the kids were asleep and take care of things personally. Plus I returned the payment platter to a drawer; was glad to do it by that time. Maybe the DB was not as informed as they thought.

Modifié par Elhanan, 19 mai 2012 - 01:25 .

[Yrkoon]

Luc0s wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

That's like 1 tiny part of the game.

You mean it's part of the main plot.

And what's this "it's only a tiny part of the game"  crap you keep responding with?  Show me ANY dungeon in Skyrim  and I'll show you a tiny part of the game.

I'm right though. That fetchquest for Saskia's cure was indeed 1 tiny part of The Witcher 2, nothing more. Dungeon-delving is not a common theme in The Witcher 2.

Upon further contemplation, I'd have to say that, no, you're not right at all.   ^this is probably  the most demonstrably false claim you've made on this thread.

In the witcher 2, in the prologue, you're set in a dungeon you must escape from.  Then when you get to chapter 1, you could skip the bandit cave, Iorveth's cave, the Nekker cave and  the insane asylum, but you most definitely can't skip the Elven ruin. 

Then we've got Chapter 2, Ioveth's path.  You must do the Dwarven mine.  You must  do the burial crypt, and you must do the Harpy lair.  Roche's path requires you to do the  cave under the camp.  Roche's path  also requires you to dream your way through Letho's hideout

Chapter 3....  Iorveth's path  sees you begin by traversing a dungeon to get into the city.  And while you can skip the gargoyle contract  (which sees you delving, excuse me, fetch-questing  into 4(?)  identical gargoyle crypts),   You must choose to either Infiltrate a Nilfgaardian fortress to save Triss, or go after Hensalt's officers in the sewers.

Sounds like the game is INDEED dungeon delving epic.   I believe the primary reason why your mind interprets it as radically different than Skyrim's plot system is that TW2 just weaves those dungeons so closely  into the political storyline that its easy to forget that you are, in fact, actually dungeon delving for dungeon-delvings sake.  While skyrim just makes no bones about it for the simple fact that  they don't feel the need to.   Dungeon-delving is friggin AWESOME.    it's a Plus in a fantasy RPG, not a negative.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 19 mai 2012 - 01:45 .

[Yrkoon]

^Ha. Behold folks. simplistic line-by-line denial without any sort of actual rebuttal to any of the points being made.
  And  he ends it by saying: "waaah!  I can't take you on by myself so I'm gonna run back to my tribe and get some help.  meet me there!


I think we're done here. You're just trolling/spamming now. And I'm  finished boring myself by accommodating you.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 19 mai 2012 - 01:44 .

[slimgrin]

Addai67 wrote...

IT'S NOT 'WEAK.' Your preferences are not facts. I find it more powerful than cutscenes, which are passive and really IMO lazy storytelling.

I'm sure you've seen me posting on the Witcher threads. If not, well I do. For a cinematic game, TW2 is a good game. But cinematic type games will always be weaker to me.

How do you propose dialog options and conversation be presented? Would it make a difference if it was in the conventional game camera? In which case we'd miss a host of expressions and visual cues. I personally like a mix of both.

Modifié par slimgrin, 19 mai 2012 - 01:57 .

[Barbarossa2010]

OK, well maybe cut scenes aren't so bad after all. 
 
But seriously, I hope and pray this is the only sort of "cut scene" Bethesda ever buys into (VATS-like animations). I agree with Addai and Yrkoon on this one.  I don't want this in an ES or FO experience. They sure didn't have to rely on them to sell (What?) over 12 million copies.  I hope that makes more of an impression on the wider game industry to be honest.

Not a fan of cut scenes.  Well, I'm probably more indifferent than anything else.  I certainly don't see anything inherently superior (probably because I'm a little older than the average bear I suppose) in their use any more than seeing movies as somehow more emotionally stirring and immersive than a well-written book.  I'd personally say that's absolute horse s#!+.  PJ did a splendid job with LotR movies, but if I were given an either/or choice forever closing off the other to me after choosing...it's a no-brainer...I definitely would choose the books.

In story based games, I suppose they work fine for that interactive movie sort of experience, but to say they're more immersive...well, that's just a preference.  Anyone is free to argue that cut scenes are the cat's meow until they're blue in the face...just don't expect me or anyone else who might not share that preferences to agree because you think so.

I don't want interactive movies necessarily (I mean, sure, they're fine on occasion), I want content that keeps me glued to that mouse and keyboard for hundreds of hours if it's got the balls to keep me there.

EDIT: Format

Modifié par Barbarossa2010, 19 mai 2012 - 01:47 .

[slimgrin]

I get the sense cinematic is deemed inferior, at least the way Addai uses it. But to me extensive cut scenes that can be skipped but also contain dialog and therefore tell story, qualify as gameplay elements. I also treasure the efforts of animators bringing scenes to life just as they would in a movie. Geralt rolling his eyes, the expression of my Femshep when EDI drops a joke. Good stuff to me. It's not to say cut scenes can't be overdone.

Modifié par slimgrin, 19 mai 2012 - 01:55 .

[Yrkoon]

Luc0s wrote...

Without cutscenes, we could not see the expressions and emotions of the characters as well. Have you thought about that, Yrkoon?

I don't recall Irenicus'   lack of Facial expressions mattering at all in BG2.  I don't recall the Arch Demon's  lack of Facial expressions mattering at all in Dragon Age Origins.

I don't recall Morte's  lack of facial expressions mattering in PS:T.

Hell, I don't recall Geralt even HAVING facial expressions in Witcher 2.  (did he?  Didn't notice if he did.  And don't care anyway)


Conclusion:  don't think it matters much at all.  Emotion does, and always has been masterfully delivered in videogames  via either voice acting or text.  Don't really need to see Morrigan smiling as she taunts Alistair in a non-cutscene.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 19 mai 2012 - 02:04 .

[slimgrin]

Yrkoon wrote...


 Don't really need to see Morrigan smiling as she taunts Alistair in a non-cutscene.

If it's well animated, yeah. But you're in for disappointment if this isn't your thing because game devs are only going to improve on it. It's not going away any time soon.

Modifié par slimgrin, 19 mai 2012 - 02:09 .

[Yrkoon]

Luc0s wrote...

^

A single facial expression can sometimes say more than a thousand words. 'nuff said.

Not in a video game.  if a single facial expression says more than what the game play itself says, then we've got a problem:  bad writing.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 19 mai 2012 - 02:13 .

[Addai]

slimgrin wrote...

How do you propose dialog options and conversation be presented? Would it make a difference if it was in the conventional game camera? In which case we'd miss a host of expressions and visual cues. I personally like a mix of both.

I'm not talking about conversations.

[Barbarossa2010]

If that facial expression comes at the cost of content, then I simply don't need it. More cinematics tend to reduced content from my experience. That is absolutely unacceptable if it comes at that cost.