1079 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

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

An entirely different mechanics -- if you don't say "moron" to the person's face but instead something very different then it's out of social norms, fear, sympathy or whatever. The dialogue system in the game doesn't include such auto-censor; what you see is (at least supposed to be) what you get, just paraphrased.

[upsettingshorts]

I don't view those mechanics as all that different. The motivation might be (self-censorship) but not the result.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 décembre 2010 - 09:44 .

[Ziggeh]

tmp7704 wrote...
The only "why" i saw explained in this thread was "why people sat through the cutscenes after we've obfuscated the choices".

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
The why,
overwhelmingly, was because they felt they were watching and enjoying a
scene

That's why asking the reasoning is important, the data alone can often support personal bias.

tmp7704 wrote...
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.

Not sure what it would add to the discussion. Subtitles operate differently, it's a far more passive engagement.

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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? 

I'm just observing the VO/cutscene is apparently not interesting enough for you to sit through it when you already have vague idea about its content. Not sure why you feel the need to argue this observation isn't correct when you don't in fact sit through the VO/cutscene if you already have the vague idea about the content?

[tmp7704]

Ziggeh wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
The why,
overwhelmingly, was because they felt they were watching and enjoying a
scene

That's why asking the reasoning is important, the data alone can often support personal bias.

Yes, this is the "why" i mentioned. From the flow of the thread i was under impression it's referring to situation after the obfuscation was introduced, as response to claim that the only reason people would watch cutscenes then was their lack of exact knowledge of what was going to be said.

tmp7704 wrote...
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.

Not sure what it would add to the discussion. Subtitles operate differently, it's a far more passive engagement.

It'd provide a data point. At the moment we have two:

* (some of) people who know the exact line skip the VO
* people with no knowledge of the exact line don't skip VO (and claim it's because they were watching and enjoying the scene)

the scenario i mentioned would answer a question whether people who can obtain the exact line while the VO/cutscene plays faster than it plays ... would actually "watch and enjoy the scene" to the very end. I.e. it would provide verification of their "why".

Modifié par tmp7704, 23 décembre 2010 - 09:58 .

[Morroian]

Shady314 wrote...

HolyJellyfish wrote...
Its possible for story telling purposes that Bioware doesn't want us to. Something deeper may or may not happen.

It has nothing to do with storytelling and everything to do with creating less content for a shorter game. It's going to be the NOT.

Uh no, if you actually read between the lines of David Gaider's comments on this issue its clear there's a specific story reason for having  a mage and non-mage character in the family. The story reason becomes pretty obvious when you look at the setting and conflicts within the story.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
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.

But if my reason was 'I already read the line and I'm impatient,'' and if you then asked me ''Would you rather have some other indicator to pick the dialogue and then hear the line fresh?'' I would pick that.

So it's complicated, and having little patience is not the same as not liking the cinematic presentation.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
the scenario i mentioned would answer a question whether people who can obtain the exact line while the VO/cutscene plays faster than it plays ... would actually "watch and enjoy the scene" to the very end. I.e. it would provide verification of their "why".

But that isn't true. If I read a script for a movie I might not care to see a movie because 'I know what happens' but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have rather seen the movie.

Modifié par In Exile, 23 décembre 2010 - 10:12 .

[upsettingshorts]

Edit: I am bolding a section in this post that I think applies to something tmp7704 typed in a post after I started composing this one.

tmp7704 wrote...

I'm just observing the VO/cutscene is apparently not interesting enough for you to sit through it when you already have vague idea about its content.

Like I said, when the subtitle is present I reflexively read it.  Repetition of the line detracts from my appreciation VO/cutscene.  The matter is made worse - such as in my example of The Witcher when I see the line options (read in my head once), then reflexively read the subtitle (read in my head again), and then watch the scene (read by the voice actor a third time). 

Given the choice, I would prefer to select the idea and goal of the line (the paraphrase, a good stand-in for an intuitive reaction) and have subtitles turned off.  That way, my appreciation of the VO/cutscene is increased partly because the specific wording is unexpected - something that doesn't bother me in the slightest - and partly because of the performance of the voice actors and visuals (including the actors, the work the cinematic team does, etc).

If I could resist the urge to read subtitles when they're presented to me, I would.  But I can't.  

tmp7704 wrote...

Not sure why you feel the need to argue this observation isn't correct when you don't in fact sit through the VO/cutscene if you already have the vague idea about the content?

Because you're inventing my reactions to support your argument?  You are assuming that the VO/cutscene has a static value.  I've been arguing that certain elements - knowing the entire line ahead of time and reading a subtitle - reduce its value. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 décembre 2010 - 10:05 .

[Ziggeh]

tmp7704 wrote...

the scenario i mentioned would answer a question whether people who can obtain the exact line while the VO/cutscene plays faster than it plays ... would actually "watch and enjoy the scene" to the very end. I.e. it would provide verification of their "why".

Fair enough, I'm not versed enough in the specific relationship to say if people would indeed treat it that way or not. I imagine it's something they do have data on though, even if somewhat obliquely, as npc dialogue works this way (assuming you leave subs on, of course). I suspect it would work in the same manner, you passively use the subtitles more as confirmation than as the main source, internalising the statement and consequences, which is what one does for full text selection.

[David Gaider]

RussianSpy27 wrote...
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!

Okay, let me address this point since you're not alone in misinterpreting what I said.

I was responding to the idea that humans are boring. I did not say that elves and dwarves are boring. They are interesting, and have great story potential (which is why I do and will continue to write them). They don't, however, have any more potential to be interesting than a human character does. Someone can really like the elven story or the dwarven story, sure-- personal preference will lead people to like one thing over another all the time-- but I simply reject the idea that humans must be "mundane" when there is an equal amount of potential among all the human cultures of Thedas to explore.

And that's all I said.

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.

Unlike what you seem to be assuming, profitibility is not the only consideration. A big part of it is what works for this project. When we look at what is an acceptable expense and what isn't, it's in comparison to how that expense makes for a return in the project we're working on. If we do a project in the future where we feel the expense of having multiple player races (along with the voiced PC) gives us enough bang for our buck, we'll do it. It's also possible we could abandon the voiced PC altogether, though like you I consider that unlikely.

Still, stranger things have happened, and a lot of it will depend on how we implement our changes as well as how they're ultimately received. "People didn't like the silent protaganist" in DAO could become "people didn't like the voiced protaganist" in DA2, who knows? Perhaps the game won't sell, in which case we'll have to go back to the drawing board. We don't have a crystal ball regarding that any more than anyone here on the forums does.

In the end we take feedback (the constructive kind) and go with our gut-- because we're the ones making the game, and it's our money on the line. Someone can demonize the fact that there are business decisions to be made, and imply that we're soulless automatons who value it above all else (which people have done) but that doesn't change the fact that we also have creative interest in our creation. One simply cannot exist without the other, and that's the simple truth.

Modifié par David Gaider, 23 décembre 2010 - 10:12 .

[Dave of Canada]

David Gaider wrote...

Still, stranger things have happened

This interests me, do you mean in general or DA-specific?

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

But that isn't true. If I read a script for a movie I might not care to see a movie because 'I know what happens' but that doesn't mean I would have rather seen the movie.

Not sure if i parse that correctly; it seems to be "just because i won't see a movie if i already know the script doesn't mean i'd want to see that movie if i didn't knew the script", which is rather different from my point.

Which was -- if you read script for the movie and then not care to see the movie itself, then it'd appear the other factors you'd get to experience when watching the movie and which you couldn't learn from the script (the visuals, the actors' performance, the music) aren't on their own interesting enough for you to make you want to experience them.
 
After all if they were, you could easily experience them -- it's not like (some) people don't go to see the same movie multiple times, or movies based on existing content (books, plays and whatnot)  Even though they already "know what happens". These people, i'd say they are highly interested in elements other than the story. But it doesn't seem to be universal.

[upsettingshorts]

I feel odd in these parts because I think they could have all been human and the story woulda been just as interesting to me. I almost literally - in that conceptually I do, but generally I don't - consider dwarves, elves, qunari, etc - as different looking humans. I don't really care that much that another culture look different in order to appreciate that it is different. It's almost distracting. How would the Qun be different if it was followed by other humans? What about humans who live underground, worship the Stone, and for some reason don't have a connection to the Fade? What about an oppressed and marginalized human ethnic group on the boundaries of society struggling to preserve their culture?

Meh, I'm ranting again.  Maybe that's kinda close to what David Gaider was saying about the races being intrinsically interesting?  Probably not.  I just don't appreciate the value of the elf or dwarf or qunari aesthetics.  Humans are already fascinating enough for me.  

But then I'm not sure I feel the same way about extraterrestial aliens in fiction.  If I kept a journal, I would be writing page after page trying to figure out just where the heck I'm coming from on this topic.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 décembre 2010 - 10:25 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
An entirely different mechanics -- if you don't say "moron" to the person's face but instead something very different then it's out of social norms, fear, sympathy or whatever. The dialogue system in the game doesn't include such auto-censor; what you see is (at least supposed to be) what you get, just paraphrased.

But you're wrong. I would insult them - generally via a sarcastic retort. I just don't have gut reactions that are fully formed sarcastic comebacks.

It isn't censorship.

[Ziggeh]

Dave of Canada wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Still, stranger things have happened

This interests me, do you mean in general or DA-specific?

Only two spring to mind, the spontaneous combustion of the Mayor of Warsaw in 1546 and that incident in 12th century Burgandy when it rained herring.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 23 décembre 2010 - 10:27 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Not sure if i parse that correctly; it seems to be "just because i won't see a movie if i already know the script doesn't mean i'd want to see that movie if i didn't knew the script", which is rather different from my point.

Which was -- if you read script for the movie and then not care to see the movie itself, then it'd appear the other factors you'd get to experience when watching the movie and which you couldn't learn from the script (the visuals, the actors' performance, the music) aren't on their own interesting enough for you to make you want to experience them.

But that's wrong. What goes into it is exclusively impatience. For me, if there is no surprise to what I am going to see, then there is no interest.

What you are trying to conclude is that there is a lack of value in the cinematic scripting, but that is wrong. The written line is a detraction. It is that thing that makes these intrinsically worth less.

Let me clarify:

You are confusing content with presentatiion. I prefer cinematic presentation to written presentation. But I care about content. If I get the content in a form I care less about, that makes my experience worse. But I still have the content, and so I can't actually control my impatience enough to enjoy the presentation I would have otherwise enjoyed.

The written content in this case (from the experiential side) is an obstacle to overcome.

After all if they were, you could easily experience them -- it's not like (some) people don't go to see the same movie multiple times, or movies based on existing content (books, plays and whatnot)  Even though they already "know what happens". These people, i'd say they are highly interested in elements other than the story. But it doesn't seem to be universal.

Or they may like the story so much they want to see it again.

This is why I replay games - often with the exact same story choices and characters.

You're infering too many things about my motivations.

When you want to design a measure to get at a particular motivation, you can't infer. What your measure has to do is demarcate, and that's what you've tried to set up, but your measure isn't sensitive to individual differences.

Modifié par In Exile, 23 décembre 2010 - 10:33 .

[upsettingshorts]

Bioware made a Sonic game. At the time that was announced, I read a lot of reactions that basically said, "Boy this is unexpected." Certainly stranger than the idea of Bioware abandoning the voiced protagonist in DA3.

That's my guess anyway.

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
But then I'm not sure I feel the same way about extraterrestial aliens in fiction.  If I kept a journal, I would be writing page after page trying to figure out just where the heck I'm coming from on this topic.  

My own feeling is that an alien race can de distinct enough because it does not per se try to be human. Take the rachni from Mass Effect. They are a hive-mind insect race trope, essentially the 'what if social insects could think?' view.

They're interesting because they're sufficiently alien to not just be people in a costume. That's why I don't find elves or dwarves very interesting. They're just people who look different.

[Maria Caliban]

There are lore differences that require different biology from the human norm. The dwarves don't enter the Fade and are resistant to the dangers of lyrium. I don't think the average person would believe that there were a group of immortal humans who ruled over the land and then lost their immortality because of interacting with other humans.

The city elf/human divide does require a physical difference between them. You could use skin color, but the impact on the audience is different. 'Humans keep city elves in alienages' is problematic. 'White humans keep black humans in alienages' is going to be a direct commentary on the real world. Imagine the response to a fantasy game where in one origin a white man interrupts the wedding of non-whites, and then takes all the women home to rape.

You might be fine with that. Many people wouldn't be. I'm not sure the writers and developers of a fantasy game want to end up knee deep in real world racial politics.

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because you're inventing my reactions to support your argument?  You are assuming that the VO/cutscene has a static value.  I've been arguing that certain elements - knowing the entire line ahead of time and reading a subtitle - reduce its value. 

In math terms i just see it as Experience having combined value of Script + Visuals*. Knowing the entire line ahead removes the Script part. Meaning yes, it does reduce the value of entire experience... to the value of Visuals alone. Which, on their own, may apparently not have as high pull as some might presume.

And yes, i'd consider just hearing or seeing something on their own to have a static value. How often people will say they enjoy listening to a certain VA, watching certain actor, listening to works of certain composer, certain singer or even just certain instrument ... all regardless of actual "script" driving the performance? I wouldn't argue it doesn't when we get threads full of fangirls going "Alistair's voice make me swoon" and meaning it (no matter what he actually says)

*) technically visuals and sounds

[In Exile]

Maria Caliban wrote...

There are lore differences that require different biology from the human norm. The dwarves don't enter the Fade and are resistant to the dangers of lyrium. I don't think the average person would believe that there were a group of immortal humans who ruled over the land and then lost their immortality because of interacting with other humans.

Those just require between-group biological differences. But we have those within the human norm.

The city elf/human divide does require a physical difference between them. You could use skin color, but the impact on the audience is different. 'Humans keep city elves in alienages' is problematic. 'White humans keep black humans in alienages' is going to be a direct commentary on the real world. Imagine the response to a fantasy game where in one origin a white man interrupts the wedding of non-whites, and then takes all the women home to rape.

You might be fine with that. Many people wouldn't be. I'm not sure the writers and developers of a fantasy game want to end up knee deep in real world racial politics.

I get why people use non-humans in fictions. My response would be that it's precisely for the reason that I see the prallel to the real world that I find non-humans to just be humans in suits.

[Haley Starshine]

About the elves with bigger eyes and ears, and mages with devastating power made more common: That worries me a little





The only single reason DA is awesome where all other medieval-fantasy RPGs sucks dust bad is because the story is a lot more realistic and focused on its quality; instead of making 15 races and sub-races, 78 classes and Prestige classes (and adding more with every expansion) and the like that are a sure terrorism to any interesting world creation/decent literature.





Also, what blows in Forgotten Realms is that in every corner you see people flipping burgers and chopping onions with magic, and if they ever cared enough to detail the social/emotional aspect of any FR story, they would have no way to do so, because a society like that would never afford to exist... In DA, on the other hand, magic is limited and very few people do it, and they are controlled by the Templars. This makes magic possible and the game wins a lot by exploring the social/emotional side of this in the world story. (I still thought there were WAY TOO MANY magic users to confront during game, but I understand they made this to make it challenging). Putting a world-dooming all powerful mage in every encounter now will rip the whole lore to shreds.





About the elves with bigger ears and eyes, I just worry it will became a lousy mangá and get stripped of all realism lol

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Meh, I'm ranting again.  Maybe that's kinda close to what David Gaider was saying about the races being intrinsically interesting?  Probably not.  I just don't appreciate the value of the elf or dwarf or qunari aesthetics.  Humans are already fascinating enough for me. 

They come with preconceptions, tropes, and among my favourite things in fiction is watching these played with.

I rather like DA's elves as they used to be the tolkienesque elves but are now just slight humans with regrets of that lost culture. It's an interesting play on the trope, that they too feel they should be the kind of elves people who are into elves in fiction feel they should be.

As an aside, I think the issue people are having when they say human's are boring is that they're comparing the two in absence of any other personality, and in that case humans have far less applicable adjectives as they don't bring the same preconceptions. It's sort of like comparing two kinds of pie by eating handfuls of flour before mixing.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote..
In math terms i just see it as Experience having combined value of Script + Visuals*. Knowing the entire line ahead removes the Script part. Meaning yes, it does reduce the value of entire experience... to the value of Visuals alone. Which, on their own, may apparently not have as high pull as some might presume.

And I think that's the problem. To me, script is mediated by experience. We have ways to have to get at the experience (written, visual, auditory, etc.) but these are differentially valued. Once we have the script we have some experience that comes with it, but these experiences take away from each other and diminish their relative value.

In other words, there is an order effect of experience on script and you enjoy script+experience toghether.

And yes, i'd consider just hearing or seeing something on their own to have a static value. How often people will say they enjoy listening to a certain VA, watching certain actor, listening to works of certain composer, certain singer or even just certain instrument ... all regardless of actual "script" driving the performance? I wouldn't argue it doesn't when we get threads full of fangirls going "Alistair's voice make me swoon" and meaning it (no matter what he actually says)

*) technically visuals and sounds

I wouldn't. I would say that experience only has value insofar as it mediates the enjoyment of the script.

So in mathematical terms we have a regression equation where experience is the factor load on script which spits out enjoyment.

Modifié par In Exile, 23 décembre 2010 - 10:40 .