1044 réponses à ce sujet

[TheCreeper]

Personally I haven't seen any changes (besides the narrative) that make it a real drastic change from other bioware games, sure its a pretty big change from Origins (which I feels was needed) but compared Mass Effect and what not, it's not a huge huge change from what Bioware Normally does

[Sylvius the Mad]

eyesofastorm wrote...

You are right.  You cannot control anyone else, but to not use what little power you have and *hope* that your fellow man will do the same is far too defeatist for me... and irresponsible in my eyes.

True, I could pick, from among the candidates with a chance to win, the one that would, if elected, best advance my preferred agenda, and then, just maybe, the election will be close enough that my one vote mattered.

Except, of course, the margin of error in the count is bigger than one vote.  If it's close enough to produce a recount, that new total will almost cerainly differ from the original count by far more than one vote.  I suppose the margin of error could be large enough to avoid a recount by just a single vote, but again, given the counting error that would simply be random chance.

[Azazel005]

All this talk reminds me of Morte, I always wanted to get him a hat and planescape never did let me...

*sigh*

[Meltemph]

No, that's what the authored narrative does, which is part of the story, yes, but it's not the whole story. You're ignoring the player's input.

I'm not ignoring it, but the player input can only be as good as the story allows and is only as good as the story is. You put to much stock on the players input positively affecting the story, to me. And since I have rarely seen the players perspective, in regards to changing the writers intent, into something resembling a good idea, then I would say that developers giving the kind of leeway you desire a bad thing.

Specially since, I believe, that story and lore(the written story/lore) need to be "guarded" so to speak because every step they take to do that, will normally translate into more of a detailed story in each criteria. Now if they didn't do that, and take advantage story wise of the restriction, then I would be complaining, but until I actually play the game, I can't make that conclusion, just yet.

It is like the story is a cup and you only want a little bit of the developers water to fill that cup, the large majority you want to be your water. When developers allow that, it almost always means the story is crap or near non-existent, imo.

Modifié par Meltemph, 18 janvier 2011 - 05:57 .

[Blastback]

TheCreeper wrote...

Personally I haven't seen any changes (besides the narrative) that make it a real drastic change from other bioware games, sure its a pretty big change from Origins (which I feels was needed) but compared Mass Effect and what not, it's not a huge huge change from what Bioware Normally does

Well, that's part of the issue.  Is moving in the direction of Mass Effect the right thing to do?  Some would say yes, others no. 

For instance, Shepard.  In both games, to me, Shepard felt like a rather predetermined charater.  I couldn't bring as much to the charater's identity as I could with other Bioware games.  I see this as a strong negative.  Others seem to enjoy it.  Should Hawke and future Bioware protagonists play more like Shepard, with greater pre constructed identies but possibly stronger stories, or should they be more player creations that allow for players to invest more of themselves into the charater?

[moilami]

Alet wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

I mean, we'd prefer that you didn't, but if you really want to, that's cool. We'll just, you know, be over here. Crying.

So I tried to get my then-boyfriend to play DA:O awhile back, fairly convinced that he'd enjoy it because I'm thinking it's a quick jump from liking sci-fi CRPGs to fantasy CRPGs, right?  He obligingly fires up a Cousland to playthrough and immediately and before my eyes tab-skips the opening movie and all the dialogue between Bryce and Howe until the PC dialogue choices come up, where he picks randomly whichever line seems the most, I quote, "b*tchy".  Then he turns off the tutorial windows as soon as they pop up and then he whines about not knowing what to do/how to play.

I can't honestly say that I broke up with him because he played Dragon Age wrong, but . . .

Just saying, I see your tears and raise you indignant rage.

Thanks, interesting reading. Feels good I am not the only one who has put his partner candidate to play cRPG xD I put mine to play BG, and she finished Candlekeep excellently with a ranger, however she didn't play the game after that anymore, which disappointed me because I was very curious to see how she plays it. Anyway curiously enough she was very interested to watch as I play Fallout and discuss what to do in it

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You're free to customise your characters in a tabletop game.  Though I've yet to see a sufficiently fully realised CRPG setting that allowed you to hire 12 beggars to exploit the overbearing rules.

The only characters you can't customise in a CRPG are characters played by other players (and there aren't any other players in a single-player game) and NPCs, over which you typically have no control.

So either the computer plays the part of the other players (which would be a terribly difficult design), or the computer acts as a DM and you act as all of the players.

This latter arrangment also offers you something tabletop games don't do well, which is a one-on-one game with your own game master.  Tabletop games don't do this well because the game master tends to find them boring, so they just don't happen often.

The problem is you 'acting' as all the players starts and ends with combat. In DA:O, you are not Morrigan any more than you are Alistair for the purposes of the narrative. The action follows you at all times, not your companion characters. In tabletop game, you do not have control over how your companions dress, what they say, or even what weapons they wield so to this end I think mandatory outfits are a great idea in moving back towards tabletops. I'm currently involved in an Iron Heroes campaign with several friends of mine. I play a Weapon Master and can definitely tell you that how you are equipped does say something substantial about your character's personality.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 janvier 2011 - 06:00 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

It's their game till I buy it. They haven't sold me on it yet!

[TransientNomad]

I'm with Creeper on this one. So far, looking at the combat video, combat is unchanged except for the fact is its faster (which I like especially since you also have a pause and play function). As for not being able to change out armour/costume types of the companions, I think it adds to their character from a narrative standpoint AND from a gameplay standpoint helps prevent people from breaking the game like they could in DAO (Fully armoured arcane warrior Wynne anyone?)



I like the fact that the character shine even more with their unique looks, and in all honesty I wish they had done it with DAO... if its done right. The one caveat is if, like in ME2 as well as in Jade Empire, in looking to make the characters unique and balanced, they go overboard and make the companions borderline useless in combat. In ME every character could hold their own on the battlefield in most situations, usually getting about 50% of the kills in the game. In ME2, I have seen instances where "the best of the best" squadmates got taken out (easily) by a common merc grunt. Sometimes that merc would even take out both by themself if I didn't intervene. And as far as kill ratio, at best they made only about 15% of the kills by the endgame. What I'm trying to say is that I hope Bioware doesn't "over nerf" companions in DA2.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Wait, what?  So you enjoyed something, but now you don't enjoy it because you're aware of something else you like more?

I can't even begin to wrap my head around how you define your preferences for this to be possible.

I can't understand how preferences don't change with time.

You have to allow for new information to change your beliefs; would you revert to an old belief, for example, if you found evidence that it was logically false? It was, after all, a belief you held in the past.

This is not the same thing by any stretch, except in the broadest sense. Some new set of information is available, in light of which I evaluate my preferences.

Dialogue has a role to fulfill as a gameplay feature. Once I had a game with PC VO, I found what (to me) is an unequivocably better dialogue UI. There is no situation in which silent VO (to me) is prefereable now that I know about PC VO, so I prefer it in all cases.

Because I can't imagine how that could have happened.  By what criteria do you judge games if the games that once were good games are now bad games?  The games haven't changed.

Neither have the criteria. But the facts have.

Effectively, the evaluation is so:

Feature of the game + my view on the role of the feature + knowledge of other features available to satisfy what I see as the role of the feature = evaluation.

The feature of the game is constant; my view on role of the feature, generally speaking, is constant. What changes, though, is my knowledge of possible alternatives.

It only presumes motive if it accepts that there's an added feature.  Without neither motive nor a feature, the most positive reasonable response would be indifference.

I'd love to know what feature you think is added by restricting each companion to a single weapon type.

Character consistency. I do not believe the player ought to ever define any aspect of an NPC, as they are the PC alone. I make allowances only for the sake of gameplay convienience, which as you know I define in a way entirely differnet from you (which for the sake of any Bioware game, take as being combat-exclusive).

That Isabella is not malleable is in itself something that I find superior, because then it allows for developers to design content specifically around the fixed feature.

If they do not, of course, then I see it as a missed opportunity and a shame because part of the fanbase is losing something they like without another part gaining something.

But defined content has value, in all cases, by allowing the game to respond specifically to what has been defined.

This is a feature which to you has negative utility; but to me it is the goal of RPGs as a whole. To have variable defined content that the game actively reacts to, such that the player can shape real content on-screen, instead of imagined content.

Blastback wrote...

For instance, Shepard.  In both games,
to me, Shepard felt like a rather predetermined charater.  I couldn't
bring as much to the charater's identity as I could with other Bioware
games.  I see this as a strong negative.  Others seem to enjoy it. 
Should Hawke and future Bioware protagonists play more like Shepard,
with greater pre constructed identies but possibly stronger stories, or
should they be more player creations that allow for players to invest
more of themselves into the charater?

The problem is that this very way of describing the problem biases the discussion. I, for one, want PC VO and more predefined content precisely because it allows me to feel as if the PC is my creation and allows me to relate better to the PC.

You see, I do not think content "in my head" is content at all. So having lots of things undefined doesn't mean I get to have lots of diffferent characters - it means I get to express nothing more than generic statements or actions. To me, a connection to the PC comes only through a living and developed on-screen relationship to other characters and the world, and this can only happen when the game illustrates your actions.

So if my PC, for example, is to be manipulated by Morrigain into something, it must be on-screen, scripted and planned for.

Modifié par In Exile, 18 janvier 2011 - 06:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Well, Sylvius approaches this from the point of view that he wants to play every party member as if they were his PC, including having them lead the party and take point in conversations.

Well, sure, that would be ideal, but there are myriad incremental changes we could make between here and there that would improve the gameplay experience.

Like having all of the characters governed by the same statistical rules.  Or even just all of the playable characters governed by the same rules.  Like in DA2, why can Rogue Hawke learn two different weapon styles by otehr Rogues can't?  If the game doesn't explain why Hawke is special (even later - maybe it's plot-relevant and well figure it out later) then he shouldn't be special.

Or letting us travel from place to place without requiring a quest-related reason for doing so.  You started doing this one wrong in BG2 - if the Bhaalspawn wants to leave Athkatla right away at the start of the game, he can't do that without a quest-related destination in mind.  He needs to get Nalie to tell him about her family's estate, or meet Firkraag, or something.  But he can't just leave because he wants to.

I have no idea how DA2 does this, but DAO only allowed limited travel without a quest-related reason (Denerim -  you could go to Denerim for no reason of which the game was aware).

ME allowed free travel, so clearly BioWare will still design games that do this.  I'd like to see more of it.

As for the rest of the chest-beating going on in this thread, it's interesting. I don't think anyone should buy a game they're not interested in, and some people seem so certain that they'll dislike the changes that have been made I'm not sure they even would enjoy the game when they play it-- you'd need an open mind for that, whereas some of these folks will go in looking for reasons to back up their preconceptions and thus will surely find them.

I was going to do that.  I had a character design that worked well in DAO, but I'd actually designed it to prove a point to someone on the ME forum, so it was really quite atypical.  I was going to play that same character in DA2 in an attempt to break the voice+paraphrase mechanic.

But that wouldn't be fair.  I always play BioWare games the first time with the same character (you can see his BG portrait to the left), so I'll give DA2 a fair chance by doing the same.  And after all, I've already seen the voice+paraphrase mechanic fail with that character (in ME), so it's not a total gimme.

Which is kinda sad, isn't it? As a reason to play a game, I mean. I hope I'm wrong on that point, and some of these folks will actually enjoy the game when they get it -- warts and all (for what game doesn't have a few?).

I'm trying to think of one.  Maybe Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.  Ultima IV.

Though, I'd be content to have someone else point out warts in those games.

[moilami]

TransientNomad wrote...

I'm with Creeper on this one. So far, looking at the combat video, combat is unchanged except for the fact is its faster (which I like especially since you also have a pause and play function). As for not being able to change out armour/costume types of the companions, I think it adds to their character from a narrative standpoint AND from a gameplay standpoint helps prevent people from breaking the game like they could in DAO (Fully armoured arcane warrior Wynne anyone?)

Lol, did that on my second playthrough on PC (the first was on PS3). Still used mainly Morrigan which I liked much more because of her Robes of Possession, and because her spells selection was DPS/CC, and because Arcane Warrior* is the ultimate cheese facepalm lowest common denominator par excellence not even second to Dead Knight in WotLK release.


*Arcane Leet

Modifié par moilami, 18 janvier 2011 - 06:19 .

[TheCreeper]

Blastback wrote...
Well, that's part of the issue.  Is moving in the direction of Mass Effect the right thing to do?  Some would say yes, others no. 

For instance, Shepard.  In both games, to me, Shepard felt like a rather predetermined charater.  I couldn't bring as much to the charater's identity as I could with other Bioware games.  I see this as a strong negative.  Others seem to enjoy it.  Should Hawke and future Bioware protagonists play more like Shepard, with greater pre constructed identies but possibly stronger stories, or should they be more player creations that allow for players to invest more of themselves into the charater?

I may be  RPing differently but frankly found Shepard to be the easier to RP as shepard then the grey warden. I was better able to wrap my mind around who exactly shepard was and their motivations.

[Merced652]

TheCreeper wrote...

Blastback wrote...
Well, that's part of the issue.  Is moving in the direction of Mass Effect the right thing to do?  Some would say yes, others no. 

For instance, Shepard.  In both games, to me, Shepard felt like a rather predetermined charater.  I couldn't bring as much to the charater's identity as I could with other Bioware games.  I see this as a strong negative.  Others seem to enjoy it.  Should Hawke and future Bioware protagonists play more like Shepard, with greater pre constructed identies but possibly stronger stories, or should they be more player creations that allow for players to invest more of themselves into the charater?

I may be  RPing differently but frankly found Shepard to be the easier to RP as shepard then the grey warden. I was better able to wrap my mind around who exactly shepard was and their motivations.

You're not "doing it wrong" but you were essentially roleplaying the character they all but filled in the blanks on. There is no room to RP on shep outside of a very rigid and narrow guideline. If you want to, or like to stay within that then great. But there is much more potential for RP when characters are not so rigid.

Some of the best examples i've read of roleplay in modern games don't even come from RPGs. They come from games like Empire: Total War and the like where they tell the story of their faction over a course of time and make the generals and rakes in to real characters. Obviously those generals and rakes preform functions in games like battles and espionage, so they RP around the missions or battles they fought in. The reason they can do that is because theres nothing defining them other than their role.

Modifié par Merced652, 18 janvier 2011 - 06:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

The problem is you 'acting' as all the players starts and ends with combat.

But
that's not true.  You equip them, you tell what what skills and talents
to learn, you tell them where to go and when to wait in the camp
(interminably).  It's not that you only control them in combat, it's
that you only fail to control them in conversations, which are a much
smaller part of the game.

In Exile wrote...

I can't understand how preferences don't change with time.

When you encounter something new (like a game), how do you know if you like it?  By what standard do you judge that?  Did your standard change?  And if so, why?

You have to allow for new information to change your beliefs; would you revert to an old belief, for example, if you found evidence that it was logically false? It was, after all, a belief you held in the past.

Preferences are necessarily baseless.  They're entirely unlike holding justified beliefs (assuming such a thing is possible, which I don't want to discuss now).

This is not the same thing by any stretch, except in the broadest sense. Some new set of information is available, in light of which I evaluate my preferences.

Dialogue has a role to fulfill as a gameplay feature. Once I had a game with PC VO, I found what (to me) is an unequivocably better dialogue UI. There is no situation in which silent VO (to me) is prefereable now that I know about PC VO, so I prefer it in all cases.

Sure, but the silent PC clearly wasn't game-breakingly bad, because you did enjoy those games.

ME's dialogue, for me, is game-breakingly bad.

Effectively, the evaluation is so:

Feature of the game + my view on the role of the feature + knowledge of other features available to satisfy what I see as the role of the feature = evaluation.

The feature of the game is constant; my view on role of the feature, generally speaking, is constant. What changes, though, is my knowledge of possible alternatives.

Wy does the existence of the alternatives matter?

This is somewhat like a discussion I had with the_one about street vendors.  If I'm offering you a sandwich for $8, and you're hungry, you might want to pay $8 for that sandwich.  Let's say you do, and the sandwich is tasty.

Tomorrow, when you come back, suppose I'm offering a similar sandwich for $8, but also a sandwich you perceive as superior for the same price.  Is the lesser sandwich no longer appealing?  Certainly you wouldn't buy the lesser sandwich, because the new one is better, but the old sandwich is still a price you'd be willing to pay, and it's still a sandwich you like.  If I refuse to sell you the new sandwich (for reasons I don't explain), would you enjoy the old sandwich less?  You might enjoy the transaction less (you might not want to give me money because I won't sell you the better sandwich), but once you have the sandwich would it be any less tasty?

Character consistency. I do not believe the player ought to ever define any aspect of an NPC, as they are the PC alone. I make allowances only for the sake of gameplay convienience, which as you know I define in a way entirely differnet from you (which for the sake of any Bioware game, take as being combat-exclusive).

So don't.  No one's making you change Isabela's weapon style or garments.  I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be allowed to leave her as she is.

That Isabella is not malleable is in itself something that I find superior, because then it allows for developers to design content specifically around the fixed feature.

They can still design around the default feature, even if it is not fixed.  See, here we've identified the feature you actually like, which is having a tighter narrative.

That doesn't require immutable characters.  It only requires that you treat them as immutable.

If they do not, of course, then I see it as a missed opportunity and a shame because part of the fanbase is losing something they like without another part gaining something.

But defined content has value, in all cases, by allowing the game to respond specifically to what has been defined.

The game can do that anyway.  That it doesn't is a different issue.

The problem is that this very way of describing the problem biases the discussion. I, for one, want PC VO and more predefined content precisely because it allows me to feel as if the PC is my creation and allows me to relate better to the PC.

I don't understand how you can need to relate to him if he's your creation.  You already know everything about him.

You see, I do not think content "in my head" is content at all.

Then he can't ever be your creation, since all of the content that isn't in your head was written by BioWare.

What exactly do you think you're creating?

[Sylvius the Mad]

TheCreeper wrote...

I may be  RPing differently but frankly found Shepard to be the easier to RP as shepard then the grey warden. I was better able to wrap my mind around who exactly shepard was and their motivations.

What's to wrap your head around?  You just get to decide who they are by executive fiat.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 janvier 2011 - 06:34 .

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But
that's not true.  You equip them, you tell what what skills and talents
to learn, you tell them where to go and when to wait in the camp
(interminably).  It's not that you only control them in combat, it's
that you only fail to control them in conversations, which are a much
smaller part of the game.

If I am the 'master player' and all characters are effectively made equal  with regards to playing capacity, then in terms of the story, I should have a choice at all times in terms of who I control which isn't the case. At the start of Dragon Age, I cannot be Morrigan, Alistair, or any other npc. When I enter the Fade, the tale is still told from my perspective. When I confront the Archdemon or whenever I leave camp, it's my character who is in required attendance. Contrary to DnD (where a DM attempts to make all characters feel happy/important), you are allowed to be the center of attention. When I play my Warden solo, there is not some player across the room skulking because the DM is taking time away from his character. All those other aspects, equipment, spells, etc, which you can control are simply there for gameplay purposes.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 janvier 2011 - 06:46 .

[moilami]

TheCreeper wrote...

Blastback wrote...
Well, that's part of the issue.  Is moving in the direction of Mass Effect the right thing to do?  Some would say yes, others no. 

For instance, Shepard.  In both games, to me, Shepard felt like a rather predetermined charater.  I couldn't bring as much to the charater's identity as I could with other Bioware games.  I see this as a strong negative.  Others seem to enjoy it.  Should Hawke and future Bioware protagonists play more like Shepard, with greater pre constructed identies but possibly stronger stories, or should they be more player creations that allow for players to invest more of themselves into the charater?

I may be  RPing differently but frankly found Shepard to be the easier to RP as shepard then the grey warden. I was better able to wrap my mind around who exactly shepard was and their motivations.

I find it much easier to RP Shepard too (only on the second mission now but Shepard is very happy and waiting patiently when I have time to play). The Warden always felt like some kind of Jesus. Sucked very much too to have to chose between Leliana and Morrigan! I wanted both. This emotion should by all means not be taken as whining because that next to impossible decision was something very challenging to do, and therefore naturally a great element in the game.

I have thought my decisions in ME has made some difference, but according to people it seems they don't make difference. It is a little bit annoying yet interesting because I am still very happy I can RP Shepard pretty much in a way I want.

[Black_Warden]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Character consistency. I do not believe the player ought to ever define any aspect of an NPC, as they are the PC alone. I make allowances only for the sake of gameplay convienience, which as you know I define in a way entirely differnet from you (which for the sake of any Bioware game, take as being combat-exclusive).

So don't.  No one's making you change Isabela's weapon style or garments.  I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be allowed to leave her as she is.

That Isabella is not malleable is in itself something that I find superior, because then it allows for developers to design content specifically around the fixed feature.

They can still design around the default feature, even if it is not fixed.  See, here we've identified the feature you actually like, which is having a tighter narrative.

That doesn't require immutable characters.  It only requires that you treat them as immutable.
 

if i understand what you are suggesting here Sylvius, it's that you accept the bioware-defined version of the character, in this case isabella, but you would prefer if you had the option to go against that definiton, say, by giving her a bow.

see, to me, (and this is entirely subjective) that defeats the purpose. what i know of isabella is that she, for whatever reasons (both meta and in-game) refuses to use bows. she is trained and proficient in the use of daggers and that is all she will use. if you toss in the option to ignore that, and give her a bow anyway, even if she'll never be particularly effective with it, that weakens the character. again, in my opinion. just having that option to go against the character that is presented to me, a character which i had absolutely zero hand in creating or defining (unlike Hawke), would show me that the personalities and quirks etc given to isabella were absolutely pointless.

[Harid]

How someone could consider the Warden to be "Jesus", but not Shepard is beyond. . .anything I've ever seen on these forums.

Wow.

I dunno what Sylvius is hoping to accomplish here, though.  Even if you call Bioware out on their bull****, they aren't going to fix the problems they introduced into their sequel on your account because of it.  The game is pretty much gold at this point.  So you are at this point arguing for the sake of it.

Of course that could go for a lot of the arguments here, so carry on, I suppose.

Modifié par Harid, 18 janvier 2011 - 06:54 .

[Azazel005]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The problem is that this very way of describing the problem biases the discussion. I, for one, want PC VO and more predefined content precisely because it allows me to feel as if the PC is my creation and allows me to relate better to the PC.

I don't understand how you can need to relate to him if he's your creation.  You already know everything about him.

You see, I do not think content "in my head" is content at all.

Then he can't ever be your creation, since all of the content that isn't in your head was written by BioWare.

What exactly do you think you're creating?

Then the issue there really becomes less about the creation but the transitioning a character into a format within the medium. See I agree I prefer the human element of voice, sure I can imagine a voice I could even speak my own lines aloud but to "see" my character "speak" gives him a greater presence and thus strengthen my connection to him.

So I sacrifice some agency in that he may not 'sound' as I imagined them in turn they have a stronger in game presence. All video games CRPGs require some sacrifice to meld into the setting and in turn the events of the game help to evolve and define them.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
...

If you're still wondering where the benefit is in the particular mechanical choices made for this game let me numerate them for you again.
1. The strict mechanical limitations force the player to approach the game in a particular manner that is consistant with the vision the developers have for gameplay in this game. Again, think of the sense of franticness created in FPS games. That franticness is not what they are going for here, but they have their own vision of gameplay and their own mechanics to force this style.
2. Limitations on the narrative freedom of the player force the player to participate with the story as it was envisioned by the writers. Similarly this is intended create a certain reaction in the player, not unlike the sense of franticness creaeted in an FPS by its mechanics. But in this case, the purpose is to create an emotional response in the player and for many this style of narrative presentation accomplishes this quite well.

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't understand how you can need to relate to him if he's your creation.  You already know everything about him.

You see, I do not think content "in my head" is content at all.

Then he can't ever be your creation, since all of the content that isn't in your head was written by BioWare.

What exactly do you think you're creating?

The whole reply was very entertaining and well written but this last part of it made me laugh good! I think it would fit for Sten to say that exact same sentence just without "you see" starter xD

Mad indeed have brains and can hold a pen well in his hand xD

[moilami]

Harid wrote...

How someone could consider the Warden to be "Jesus", but not Shepard is beyond. . .anything I've ever seen on these forums.

Shepard can use foul language. The Warden was ever silent and unseen, his presence could be felt but that was all.