1079 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Dagiz wrote...

I see how Addai says that as I don't get what half the people half the people say on the boards anyways.  Try as  I might, I just don't get how declarative statements can be made about a product we don't even have.

Lots of people do that, doesn't have much to do with whether they are saying they're pro or con.  On the issue of a voiced protagonist and dialogue wheel, it's not as if anyone with a doesn't know what that entails. 

Dagiz wrote...

And Addai - that would be an awesome idea, the ability to punch someone and see it in a cutscene

...you mean like a Renegade interrupt or a (Punch Her) option? 

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

Sure, I hear what they're saying, but it doesn't compute.

For me that's almost a secondary issue. As long as I've played Bioware RPGs I've never really felt like I was playing my character. I was just guiding and helping to define one of Bioware's. I could elaborate, but the implications of that position - in contrast with say, Sylvius' - are fairly obvious.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 décembre 2010 - 04:33 .

[tmp7704]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

But reading a line of text, then hearing that line of text is an instant jump to the skip button for me, and an instant jump to the skip button for many people we tested the paraphrase system on, while paraphrases came back as positive and, more importantly, engaging. We saw a near-0 percentage of line skips with paraphrases, which suggested to us that they work, and work well. Hence the "stupid" paraphrasing.

Wouldn't that rather imply that there's far less interest in the "cinematic delivery" than you believe it to be? I mean, if people (yourself included) are fine with getting just the written version of the dialogue, and instantly skip the spoken version with all the tone work etc ... then it'd seem they don't exactly attach much value to these extra parts.

After all if the delivery itself was huge source of enjoyment, wouldn't you gladly sit there and well, enjoy it rather than skip? And yet instead you have to resort to "stupid paraphrasing" i.e. essentially trick the player into sitting there and listening to the thing if they actually want to know what's going on and what's being said.

[HolyJellyfish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Sure, I hear what they're saying, but it doesn't compute.

For me that's almost a secondary issue. As long as I've played Bioware RPGs I've never really felt like I was playing my character. I was just guiding and helping to define one of Bioware's. I could elaborate, but the implications of that position - in contrast with say, Sylvius' - are fairly obvious.

I always thought that a really good analogy for this is a choose your own adventure book. You'll never fully be able to create your own story because you still have to work within the limitations of the book itself.

[Dagiz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dagiz wrote...

I see how Addai says that as I don't get what half the people half the people say on the boards anyways.  Try as  I might, I just don't get how declarative statements can be made about a product we don't even have.

Lots of people do that, doesn't have much to do with whether they are saying they're pro or con.  On the issue of a voiced protagonist and dialogue wheel, it's not as if anyone with a doesn't know what that entails.

 

That's a good point, and something I never really considered when reading the posts.   I don't typically look underneath the avatar picture to see what games are listed.

Dagiz wrote...

And Addai - that would be an awesome idea, the ability to punch someone and see it in a cutscene

...you mean like a Renegade interrupt or a (Punch Her) option? 

Totally forgot about that...  

[Addai]

tmp7704 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

But reading a line of text, then hearing that line of text is an instant jump to the skip button for me, and an instant jump to the skip button for many people we tested the paraphrase system on, while paraphrases came back as positive and, more importantly, engaging. We saw a near-0 percentage of line skips with paraphrases, which suggested to us that they work, and work well. Hence the "stupid" paraphrasing.

Wouldn't that rather imply that there's far less interest in the "cinematic delivery" than you believe it to be? I mean, if people (yourself included) are fine with getting just the written version of the dialogue, and instantly skip the spoken version with all the tone work etc ... then it'd seem they don't exactly attach much value to these extra parts.

After all if the delivery itself was huge source of enjoyment, wouldn't you gladly sit there and well, enjoy it rather than skip? And yet instead you have to resort to "stupid paraphrasing" i.e. essentially trick the player into sitting there and listening to the thing if they actually want to know what's going on and what's being said.

Yes, exactly.  I can read faster than someone can deliver a line, so sitting through X percent more cutscene in order to accommadate PC VO- which also takes away player freedom in characterization of your PC- is super annoying.  If they're gonna do it, though, then it's just as well to do it with a paraphrase so you can just get on with the movie.

Modifié par Addai67, 23 décembre 2010 - 04:41 .

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

Wouldn't that rather imply that there's far less interest in the "cinematic delivery" than you believe it to be? I mean, if people (yourself included) are fine with getting just the written version of the dialogue, and instantly skip the spoken version with all the tone work etc ... then it'd seem they don't exactly attach much value to these extra parts.

As someone who ends up doing the same thing as Mike Laidlaw describes, for me it implies that I don't like the repetition of reading a line and then hearing it.  In my copy of The Witcher for example, subtitles were turned on by default.  So I actually ended up experiencing the lines twice, or three times in the case of Geralt (looking at the options, reading the subtitle, watching the delivery), which led to a lot of skipping until I turned off subtitles.

tmp7704 wrote...

After all if the delivery itself was huge source of enjoyment, wouldn't you gladly sit there and well, enjoy it rather than skip?

It's a reflex.  If the subtitle or line is there, I must read it.  That's why for example I'd need to experience the Deus Ex system on my own before I can say whether or not its any good.

tmp7704 wrote...

And yet instead you have to resort to "stupid paraphrasing" i.e. essentially trick the player into sitting there and listening to the thing if they actually want to know what's going on and what's being said.

I don't think it's a trick.  It's a fairly simple if accurate representation to me of how my brain processes things when it comes to communication.

Other person: "Pancakes are totally better than waffles."
What I immediately think: "He's got bad taste."
What I then go on to say:  "That's just because you're incapable of appreciating texture and just want a syrup sponge."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 décembre 2010 - 04:43 .

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
...you mean like a Renegade interrupt or a (Punch Her) option? 

Yes, I don't care how they would do it, but as long as I've made a clear choice to the effect of how I want my PC to react, I don't mind seeing brief facial expression or action to that effect.  I would prefer the latter, because you really don't know what's going to come up with an interrupt.  Sometimes Shepard just disses somebody, sometimes she pushes them through a plate glass window.

[upsettingshorts]

It'd be cool if the actual Renegade interrupts were sort of cartoons of the action they lead to. Like for the second example you give, it literally shows Shepard pushing a guy through the window. Or, so it isn't quite so much of a giveaway, maybe just a different indicator for aggressive speech and physical violence.

[Piecake]

tmp7704 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

But reading a line of text, then hearing that line of text is an instant jump to the skip button for me, and an instant jump to the skip button for many people we tested the paraphrase system on, while paraphrases came back as positive and, more importantly, engaging. We saw a near-0 percentage of line skips with paraphrases, which suggested to us that they work, and work well. Hence the "stupid" paraphrasing.

Wouldn't that rather imply that there's far less interest in the "cinematic delivery" than you believe it to be? I mean, if people (yourself included) are fine with getting just the written version of the dialogue, and instantly skip the spoken version with all the tone work etc ... then it'd seem they don't exactly attach much value to these extra parts.

After all if the delivery itself was huge source of enjoyment, wouldn't you gladly sit there and well, enjoy it rather than skip? And yet instead you have to resort to "stupid paraphrasing" i.e. essentially trick the player into sitting there and listening to the thing if they actually want to know what's going on and what's being said.

I prefer "cinematic delivery", but if I have to read a line, select it, and then hear it repeated word for word back at me, I am going to think, this is stupid and repetitive - meaning an immersion killer.

I imagine that was the complaint, or something similar, of those testers as well because I'm sure Bioware has also tested whether people prefer cinematic delivery or written text.

[Ziggeh]

tmp7704 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

But reading a line of text, then hearing that line of text is an instant jump to the skip button for me, and an instant jump to the skip button for many people we tested the paraphrase system on, while paraphrases came back as positive and, more importantly, engaging. We saw a near-0 percentage of line skips with paraphrases, which suggested to us that they work, and work well. Hence the "stupid" paraphrasing.

Wouldn't that rather imply that there's far less interest in the "cinematic delivery" than you believe it to be? I mean, if people (yourself included) are fine with getting just the written version of the dialogue, and instantly skip the spoken version with all the tone work etc ... then it'd seem they don't exactly attach much value to these extra parts.
.

That only applies if they hadn't asked the "why" which he goes on to elaborate. On their own the statistics can be read either way and so aren't very helpful.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 23 décembre 2010 - 04:57 .

[sarahbalman]

Everyone should relax. This is Bioware! They never fail to make a good/GREAT game.

[AlanC9]

Xewaka wrote...

I'd bet a month's salary that if you had non-native english speakers on the focus tests the results would be wildly different. My experience as a spanish-speaking fellow is that people will skim the subtitle line then skip the delivery, because they have no need of listening to foreign gibberish (even if I can understand spoken english rather well, I find myself skipping, because it would take me at least half an hour to adjust to english reception).
And the paraphrase doesn't help, either. With a 30 character count limit, and considering that latin languages have, on average, a higher character-per-word count than english, I'd expect the paraphrase to be absolutely and completely useless for anyone not playing in a romance language (portuguese, spanish, french, italian).

I'm confused. Are you talking about a native Spanish-speaker playing an English version of the game, or a native Spanish-speaker playing a Spanish version of the game? Or is the interface in Spanish while the VO is in English?

[AlanC9]

tmp7704 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

But reading a line of text, then hearing that line of text is an instant jump to the skip button for me, and an instant jump to the skip button for many people we tested the paraphrase system on, while paraphrases came back as positive and, more importantly, engaging. We saw a near-0 percentage of line skips with paraphrases, which suggested to us that they work, and work well. Hence the "stupid" paraphrasing.

Wouldn't that rather imply that there's far less interest in the "cinematic delivery" than you believe it to be? I mean, if people (yourself included) are fine with getting just the written version of the dialogue, and instantly skip the spoken version with all the tone work etc ... then it'd seem they don't exactly attach much value to these extra parts.

After all if the delivery itself was huge source of enjoyment, wouldn't you gladly sit there and well, enjoy it rather than skip? And yet instead you have to resort to "stupid paraphrasing" i.e. essentially trick the player into sitting there and listening to the thing if they actually want to know what's going on and what's being said.

As others have posted, Mike's subsequent post says that they did ask why.

Also, you should take Upsettingshorts' word for it about full lines making the VO less enjoyable than getting the VO with a preceding paraphrase. He likes the feature; IIRC you do not. That puts him in a much better position to judge how to implement it best.

[Xewaka]

AlanC9 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
I'd bet a month's salary that if you had non-native english speakers on the focus tests the results would be wildly different. My experience as a spanish-speaking fellow is that people will skim the subtitle line then skip the delivery, because they have no need of listening to foreign gibberish (even if I can understand spoken english rather well, I find myself skipping, because it would take me at least half an hour to adjust to english reception).
And the paraphrase doesn't help, either. With a 30 character count limit, and considering that latin languages have, on average, a higher character-per-word count than english, I'd expect the paraphrase to be absolutely and completely useless for anyone not playing in a romance language (portuguese, spanish, french, italian).

I'm confused. Are you talking about a native Spanish-speaker playing an English version of the game, or a native Spanish-speaker playing a Spanish version of the game? Or is the interface in Spanish while the VO is in English?

The italiced part. The interface and subtitles are in spanish, but the voice acting is in english.

[RussianSpy27]

David Gaider wrote...

There was a point where we toyed with having a voiced protaganist in Origins, actually. We went as far as to test it out, but in the end decided against it. Once the cinematics were further along, I think we regretted it mainly because it didn't have the effect we intended, something that was reinforced when we showed the game to the public.

Did it still work in DAO? I think it did. I don't mind a silent protaganist, myself, but it certainly does stick out amidst all the cinematic dialogue. In this case between our own feelings on the subject and some of the criticism we felt it was worth changing direction.

Could Mike have said all of that? He may in fact have said more on the topic, or maybe he didn't intend to go on an entire lawyer-like diatribe to try and justify something to people who were bound to disagree with the idea anyhow. Even so, he was not wrong and I wouldn't try to read more into his words than what he said.

David Gaider wrote...

Fair enough. Personally I see nothing intrinsically amazing about a non-human character-- beyond the fact that some people are apparently so jaded they'll long for something different just for the sake of it being different... even if that difference is only superficial. I can understand that desire, but I can't respect it. Sorry.

Mr. Gaider,

You know I'm one of the people eagerly awaiting DA2 and I defend the designers' choice with all of its new innovative features, including voiced Hawke. However, I have always thought that the changes are particular to this story, where all of it can work with the single protagonist and so on. I viewed DA2 as a creative experiment and thought that the team was not, at the same time, discarding the way Origins was made with all of the benefits of the Origins' style that fir that game (more dialogue options for the story, ability to play as different characters without a need to hire numerous voice actors, etc). It was said on multiple occasions that the lack of a fully voiced PC provides for more options. 

"DA:O FAQ3.18. Is all the dialogue in the game voice-acted? (Back to top)Every non-player character is fully recorded. The player character's dialogue options are not recorded, but each combination of race and gender includes six possible voices for the player's battle-cries. Imposing a dialog voice on the player character would have significantly limited the possible number of player options.
"What do I now see on this thread? This:

1. People do not like silent PCs - suggests to me that it's not the route BioWare would wish to explore, for why state that an aspect is not liked by the public and then return to it?

2. Development team was somewhat dissapointed with the way silent PC worked in DA:O (despite all of the benefits and more options we were told about during Origins' release) - again suggests to me that it would be unlikely for there to be an Origins-style silent PC. 

3. The creator of the wonderful fantasy world, with the interesting Origins concepts that allowed players to experienced the deep histories and backgrounds of each of several of Theidas' races, that provided diversity and intense fun in the fantasy world says that he finds nothing intrinsically amazing about playing a non-human character. (?????????????).  With all due respect,  I guess it follows that you did not find it intrinsically amazing about playing someone like the Dwarf character that brought before us the entire realm of what it's like to be a Dwarf, what culture and politics of Orzammar? That was so freaking fun that I could replay that 100 times and not be bored!

So no, we were not told that there would definitely not be future revisiting of the silent PC with all of then-alleged story benefits (and hence, per Mr. Woo's posts, I will not try to be a seer), but the comments seem to make such revisiting unlikely, as the concept is frowned upon.  Can a frowned-upon concept change tomorrow into a smiled-upon concept? Everything is possible, but just seems unlikely from what we've just been told. 

So, if multiple voiced PC are unlikely, and (per Mr. Gaider's defense of a company's right to save costs), multiple races with their own actors is unlikely, I think we can conclude that Origin's original concept of having so many PC choices is pretty much gone...unless of course the company makes enough money to deem it profitable to spend the money on multiple PC actors in DA series as per SW:The Old Republic. 

In short, we were told:

A. People don't like silent PC - developers agree. 

B. We're not having more than one voiced PC for $ purposes.

C. Even in Origins, the lack of voiced PC sticks out. 

So, if voiced = good and only one voiced = profitable: Neither: (a) multiple silent is not so good or ( multiple voiced is realistic. So,  I would not expect to see future DA titles in the style of Origins, despite the alleged benefits of player options.

Hence, significant number of player options (to paraphrase DA:O FAQ) are and shall be sacrificed for audio

(unless a SW:TOR style is adapted, which is unlikely to compare to DA given that the budget for SW:TOR is enormous and that game aims to attract a dozen million subscribed and paying customers). 


Yes, I still encourage everyone to pre-order DA2 and think it'll be a great game and hope it sells a billion copies because: (1) Bioware and its employees rock and (2) they would have the money for fully voiced multiple PCs with all of the player options as DA:O with its silent PCs. 

Modifié par RussianSpy27, 23 décembre 2010 - 08:04 .

[Graunt]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Whoa boy, the boards are gonna have fun with this one:

"People generally hated the silent protagonist," he says, but that wasn't the only reason to adopt a main character who could speak for themselves; Having the hero stand stoically while drama erupted all around them "seemed to be doing a disservice to the storytelling."

While I'm one of those people who seriously did hate the silent protagonist, those that love it seem to be in the clear majority 'round these parts.

I'm not one of them.  If everyone else is being vocal, your character should be as well in more than just your head alone.  Ever play any of the Fable games?  I felt absolutely no connection to my character at all in that series, and my dog had more personality than I did.

Modifié par Graunt, 23 décembre 2010 - 08:16 .

[AlanC9]

Xewaka wrote...

The italiced part. The interface and subtitles are in spanish, but the voice acting is in english.

I'm kind of shocked. My understanding was that publishers typically re-do VO for non-English markets;  we sometimes find people wanting to buy the English  versions overseas because the localized cast isn't as good as the English one.

Maybe this is prohibitive in games with lip-synching?

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 décembre 2010 - 08:40 .

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
I think you were the one who said earlier about disagreeing about what "predefined" means.

Yup. We won't agree. I the only reason I brought it up was that you mentioned you had a sort of epiphany about what Bioware was, but I think looking at a truly fixed protagonist as Solid Snake (from MSG) being the kind of best-suiited protagonist for a Bioware game is giving too much weight to the fixed story as the driving design element, versus the create-your-own party RPG criteria.

BioWare has, repeatedly, stated that Shepard isn't the player's character but the game designers' character.
They have a story, and they want the character you play to have a very specific role / persona in that story.

They said this in response to the criticism over Shepard. Especially over the dialogue wheel. If you followed ME1, the entire tangline was that it was your Shepard, you determined who Shepard was, etc. etc.

They might have changed their initial opinion, but that wasn't their take on it.

And if they do feel that Shepard is predefined, and that you guide Shepard, that's fine too. To me, that's my ideal RPG. So long as Bioware keeps designing games like these, independent of what they call them, they will buy them.

But I think a truly fixed PC is a dramatic departure. I certainly didn't play FFXIII precisely because I cared nothing for the protagonist.

BG series - you are the Bhaalspawn.  Not terribly restrictive on personality, race, stats, etc., but you have a specific role in the story regardless of what you want.
KotOR - you are Revan - this is much more restrictive.  You are going to be a Jedi, regardless of what you pick as your starting class.  Where you GO in the game is up to you, but who you were and what you are is not.
Jade Empire - you are a very specific person, again, and this one IMO is somewhere between BG and KotOR for restrictiveness... plus character creation was extremely limited
Mass Effect - you are Shepard, Alliance soldier, destined to be a Specter... you get the background choices of where you were born and what a major event that shaped you was, which is one sense more control than previous games, but these choices are barely more story worthy than which build you take - none of it limits your dialog choices or how you interact with people.... you can adjust stats on Shepard, just like on Mike Thorton, except you can also adjust gender and first name (which is only important for save game distinction, really)
Dragon Age: Origins - at least as open in character creation as the BG series, 3 races, 3 classes, 6 total different origins... arguably this is more restrictive than the background you could type in for BG, but game-wise it is more compelling for you making your character even if creativity is stifled a bit... you are GOING to be a Grey Warden, no choice about it really, but it's about as restrictive as being a Bhaalspawn in some sense - something assigned to you that doesn't change really who you are (whereas being a Jedi or Spirit Monk or Alliance soldier actually do change in a more fundamental way who you are.)
***end SPOILERS***

I would disagree that DA:O is as open as BG or as the other games. It's honestly (to me) as open as ME, with the difference being that your fixed background doesn't come with the voice, which just adds that greater layer of perceptual definition.

I don't think that allowing the user to ''add tone'' creates a new character. I think a new character exists in virtue of the choices made and reasons for those choices, and those are independent from what is being said.

So long as you are allowed to have different motives, express those in game, and choose from a variable list, I think you are close to an RPG.

What I think makes or breaks the predefined scale is whether or not you can physically customize your character. I would distinguish variable defined protagonist from RPG based on whether you can pick name + physical characteristics + gender.

True, it IS arguable how pre-defined Shepard is compared to Mike Thorton and The Nameless One or the Avatar (Ultima) and the Vault Dweller...
but clearly he has many points about him (or her) that you do not have control over, about who and what he is, as for Mass Effect to work they NEED your character to be X, Y, and Z.  He has to be human, despite there being other races who could be playable, for the story of you being the first human specter to work, and so on...

I don't think that is sufficient to make a character predefined. But I don't think an RPG is about character creation at all - it is about experiencing a story as a created character.

Let's put it this way. I get the impression that in PnP you have your characters, and then you have your setting & adventure appropriate for those characters. I can't say if that is true or not, but that's the impression I get.

Whereas in a cRPG, it is the demand of the story that determines, fully, the neccesary criteria of the character. Then, within this fixed yoke, you have freedom.

BioWare, IMO, is best at crafting a story with several break-off points where you make major story decisions that affect the overall end of the story as whole.... at making the adventure game... and you can craft a better story with a more defined (more limited, if you prefer) character.

I like their stories and the choices they offer me in the stories, but I don't like the "character creation" for how limited it often feels.

I disagree. I don't think Bioware offers you that much choice at all. Every 'sequence' has an variable outcome choice (usually a dichotomy - rarely a 3rd option). It usually breaks down on an idealistic/heroic or pragmatic/evil dualistic take.

What Bioware gives you is a narrow and engaging story in which you can manipulate the character experiencing that story, sort of as a design it yourself movie with your protagonist being up to you to define in a lot of important ways.

Losing that definition and adding a fixed character would give you an adventure game, but that isn't what Bioware makes. It's as inaccurate (IMO) a description of their design philosophy as looking at them as a company that makes Black Isle style RPGs.

So, for me, I'm ok with them doing away with most of those RPG elements that deal with creating your own character, and instead have them say "here, male or female MC - fill out your abilities and talents as you like, but you will be Occupation X having lived through Experience Y and destined to become Heroic Title Z."

This is me, from my opinion - if I can't design my party from the ground up, if I can't make my own MC (as opposed to adjusting the MC like you do with Shepard IMO)... then I'd rather not have a half-way compromise.

But all of this is to say, I want Bioware to be an adventure game company. Which is just the other extreme from saying, I want them to be a Black Isle style RPG company.

They have their own take. That's my point. It isn't a compromise - it's their driving design element.

You might like or love the compromise, the "balanced" features if you believe them to be balanced.

I'm saying if the story is more important, I'm happy with Lightning and Snow from FFXIII or Mike Thorton from Alpha Protocol.
I'd rather have the Courier from F:NV or especially my own party a la Wasteland... but I can enjoy a game without that... just don't remind me of it being missing by giving enough to tease but not enough to satisfy.

I get that you hate the feature (or strongly dislike it) but treating as a compromise IMO is demeaning to the genuine vaue in such a feature.

Modifié par In Exile, 23 décembre 2010 - 09:12 .

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I don't think it's a trick.  It's a fairly simple if accurate representation to me of how my brain processes things when it comes to communication.

Other person: "Pancakes are totally better than waffles."
What I immediately think: "He's got bad taste."
What I then go on to say:  "That's just because you're incapable of appreciating texture and just want a syrup sponge."

This is how Bioware initially pitched the dialogue wheel. I don't know why they gave up on this and went with this 3rd person narrative description instead.

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

As someone who ends up doing the same thing as Mike Laidlaw describes, for me it implies that I don't like the repetition of reading a line and then hearing it.

It also implies that you aren't interested that much in the actor's delivery nor the associated cutscene, which are both something you don't know from reading the line alone.

I don't think it's a trick.

Obfuscating the content in attempt to make the viewer sit through something they'd otherwise likely not bother with, for reason no other but to make them sit through it? I don't know, if "trick" doesn't fit it still strikes me as somewhat backward.

It's a fairly simple if accurate representation to me of how my brain processes things when it comes to communication.

Your brain first provides you with vague idea what you're trying to say, then fleshes it out when you decide on course of action, with potentially different end effect than what you initially intended? Well, our brains work quite different then.

Other person: "Pancakes are totally better than waffles."
What I immediately think: "He's got bad taste."
What I then go on to say:  "That's just because you're incapable of appreciating texture and just want a syrup sponge."

Why wouldn't you just say what you thought, and instead invent an elaborate straw man? (straw man since you have no idea what they actually based their opinion on)

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Your brain first provides you with vague idea what you're trying to say, then fleshes it out when you decide on course of action, with potentially different end effect than what you initially intended? Well, our brains work quite different then.

Something happens, so you have an intuitive reaction to that, then you compose a sentence. It's not really verbal, but it is a reaction that has content to it.

Why wouldn't you just say what you thought, and instead invent an elaborate straw man? (straw man since you have no idea what they actually based their opinion on)

It's like hearing someone say something stupid. You might think ''moron'' but may well say something very different.

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

And I really don't get how people say that this hinders immersion. 

Then you haven't been paying attention to all the posters who feel that way explain it?

Has someone explained how first-person cutscenes hinder their immersion? I haven't seen any. As none of BioWare's games are first-person view, it's not a subject that often comes up.

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

As someone who ends up doing the same thing as Mike Laidlaw describes, for me it implies that I don't like the repetition of reading a line and then hearing it.

It also implies that you aren't interested that much in the actor's delivery nor the associated cutscene, which are both something you don't know from reading the line alone.

No it doesn't.  It means my reflexive reading of the subtitle detracts from my experience so I turn it off.  Why do you think you can convince me of what I'm actually interested in?  Has that line of reasoning ever worked for you before? 

tmp7704 wrote...

Why wouldn't you just say what you thought, and instead invent an elaborate straw man? (straw man since you have no idea what they actually based their opinion on)

In Exile basically covered my response to this.  The content of my example was not meant to be taken literally, only the sense that it begins with a notion or reaction and the actual wording is constructed after.

Maria Caliban wrote...

Has someone explained how first-person cutscenes hinder their immersion? I haven't seen any. As none of BioWare's games are first-person view, it's not a subject that often comes up.

I meant the idea of the first person narrative perspective in general, not specifically cutscenes.  So I suppose I was diverting from the topic with my response.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 décembre 2010 - 09:41 .

[tmp7704]

Ziggeh wrote...

That only applies if they hadn't asked the "why" which he goes on to elaborate. On their own the statistics can be read either way and so aren't very helpful.

The only "why" i saw explained in this thread was "why people sat through the cutscenes after we've obfuscated the choices". Would be quite interesting to know how large part of the group still sat through the full length of the VO/cutscene with the subtitles enabled, btw.

Also, if you asked me why i skipped the cutscene in situation where full text was provided, i'd too said only "because i already know the line and imagined it in my head". Why just that? Because that's the direct reason, and the thing about limited value of delivery and associated cutscene is more of a possible conclusion to draw from it ... and i simply don't analyze my motives this deep, typically.