1216 réponses à ce sujet

[Panpsychist]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

Then you are not really arguing this on the principle of it breaking immersion by having limitations. the fact that it is a game created by someone else that you are partaking in means you will never roleplay. in fact the only way you could is if you created your own game in private.

How could you possibly have reached that conclusion?

Other than a SERIOUS lack of imagination, that is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Biefstukfriet wrote...

Damn old people. Retirement homes shouldn´t have internet access.

Get off my lawn.

[mindbody]

Elsariel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Elsariel wrote...

But you're still okay with the guided storyline?  I'm confused.  I thought it was said that you prefered a completely free environment.  Where you stumble across events instead of being guided through them.  My apologies if that's not what you were talking about. 

I don't want the guiding to be explicit.

Yes, ideally I'd like a free-roam world like Baldur's Gate had (Mass Effect had this, too), but even games without a free roam (BG2 and KotOR are good examples) still allow the player's character to make decisions and form impressions about what to do next without being forcibly prodded by the game.

I'd like there not to be cinematic conversations, because changing the camera mode distances me from my character.  The game should forever be trying not to distance me from my character, and yet BioWare keeps adding features that do exactly that.

Don't you have multiple choices in DA2 with how to handle a situation?  How are you being limited in that way any more so than you are in DA:O?  Just because the choices are all arranged around a wheel instead of a list doesn't mean you don't have as many choices.

I guess I'm not understanding how one is being "forcibly prodded".  Would you be willing to elaborate?

Regarding cinematic conversations.. well, I think that's just a matter of personal preference. I don't feel my level of immersion is any less because the camera shifts or blurs the distance, but that's just me.  I find I'm able to immerse myself in just about any RPG as long as I'm able to choose my character's looks, class, and personality by method of choosing my actions. 

I know this wasn't directed at me, but you'll get my 2 cents and like it!
The creation of a system describing dialogue intent (i.e. convo wheel) itself is a limitation.  If my response to a question is "Yeah, sure" there at least 2 possible tones in which it could be said... That's a role-playing choice.  The wheel tells me what the intent is, thereby removing choice.

I tend to agree with your last paragraph... good cinematography will tend to imitate the eye anyways.... It can be facilitative.

[Grunk]

mindbody wrote...


I know this wasn't directed at me, but you'll get my 2 cents and like it!
The creation of a system describing dialogue intent (i.e. convo wheel) itself is a limitation.  If my response to a question is "Yeah, sure" there at least 2 possible tones in which it could be said... That's a role-playing choice.  The wheel tells me what the intent is, thereby removing choice.

Super-disagree. No matter what you imagine, the characters spoken to will react to the writers' intent on the delivery of the line. You can imagine that it's a miscommunication, which is I guess what you lose with a VO, but as far as the story of the game is concerned, there's no difference. The only difference is in what you imagine. How much that means to you is, of course, subjective.

Personally, I don't feel that there's a difference.

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

Then you are not really arguing this on the principle of it breaking immersion by having limitations. the fact that it is a game created by someone else that you are partaking in means you will never roleplay. in fact the only way you could is if you created your own game in private.

How could you possibly have reached that conclusion?

 Very simple honestly. you frequent the forums alot and are very vocal about how you feel bioware has failed you. you have said often that you dislike DA2 because of the limitations and is immersion breaking. people have argued this with you and have asked you what game you would want that could live up to those standards. and you said that was origins. however if you were really were arguing against breaking immersion you wouldnt like origins either due to its many faults in breaking immersion. so therefor because you are not consistently arguing against what could possibly break immersion one can come to the conclusion that you are not really arguing against immersion breaking. You just dislike the changes and are trying to add strength to your argument against them under the guise of arguing against immersion breaking.

[slimgrin]

TwistedComplex wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Bioware is not the flagship of RPG's.

They're the most popular RPG maker in the world, so they kind of are

And I hear McDonalds makes the best cheeseburgers.

[FearMonkey]

JohnEpler wrote...
Ultima VII was the best Ultima, anyways.

This is scientific fact. I have charts.

Your science is wrong. Ultima IV was the best Ultima.

Perhaps you forgot to carry the 1. :innocent:





back on topic:
re:article - I find myself agreeing with them as their opinion is roughly the same as my own after having played and completed the demo.

[AlanC9]

mindbody wrote...
  If my response to a question is "Yeah, sure" there at least 2 possible tones in which it could be said... That's a role-playing choice.  The wheel tells me what the intent is, thereby removing choice.

Unless the NPCs react to that remark. And honestly, I can't think of too many contexts where both versions of that remark would actually make sense.

[Elsariel]

mindbody wrote...

Elsariel wrote...

Don't you have multiple choices in DA2 with how to handle a situation?  How are you being limited in that way any more so than you are in DA:O?  Just because the choices are all arranged around a wheel instead of a list doesn't mean you don't have as many choices.

I guess I'm not understanding how one is being "forcibly prodded".  Would you be willing to elaborate?

Regarding cinematic conversations.. well, I think that's just a matter of personal preference. I don't feel my level of immersion is any less because the camera shifts or blurs the distance, but that's just me.  I find I'm able to immerse myself in just about any RPG as long as I'm able to choose my character's looks, class, and personality by method of choosing my actions. 

I know this wasn't directed at me, but you'll get my 2 cents and like it!
The creation of a system describing dialogue intent (i.e. convo wheel) itself is a limitation.  If my response to a question is "Yeah, sure" there at least 2 possible tones in which it could be said... That's a role-playing choice.  The wheel tells me what the intent is, thereby removing choice.

I tend to agree with your last paragraph... good cinematography will tend to imitate the eye anyways.... It can be facilitative.

I get what you're saying but I have to say... I hated it worse when I chose a response (imagining a certain tone) then having the NPC react all wrong to it.  Having the game know which tone I would like to use makes that problem go away. 

Ideally, I'd like to choose my answer, and then choose the tone I'd like to say it in.  Win/Win

[Captain_Obvious]

Grunk wrote...

mindbody wrote...


I know this wasn't directed at me, but you'll get my 2 cents and like it!
The creation of a system describing dialogue intent (i.e. convo wheel) itself is a limitation.  If my response to a question is "Yeah, sure" there at least 2 possible tones in which it could be said... That's a role-playing choice.  The wheel tells me what the intent is, thereby removing choice.

Super-disagree. No matter what you imagine, the characters spoken to will react to the writers' intent on the delivery of the line. You can imagine that it's a miscommunication, which is I guess what you lose with a VO, but as far as the story of the game is concerned, there's no difference. The only difference is in what you imagine. How much that means to you is, of course, subjective.

Personally, I don't feel that there's a difference.

I'm going to have to agree with Grunk here.  I have no control over how the imagined tone of my response would affect an NPC in an un-voiced game.  The reason I like the voiced PC is for the simple reason that my PC now has a voice.  I guess you could consider it less role-playing, but the increase in interaction, where I feel like I am now part of a conversation rather than picking a choice from a list, is worth it to me.  

[FearMonkey]

mindbody wrote...

Cadaveth wrote...
Along with Obsidian and Bethesda, atleast in the mainstream.

If Obsidian is seriously considering doing Icewind Dale 3, they're the winners.

Do you or anyone else have any more info on this? So curious...

Info comes from this interview with Obsidian's Feargus Urquhart.

joystiq wrote...

Obsidian is also pushing on updating a former Black Isle property: Icewind Dale 3. "I was talking to Atari last week," he confides, "and said why don't we do this?" The old series, he says, didn't end because of low sales. "They stopped being made because of licensing issues, and Interplay going out of business, and BioWare moving on to console, and a whole lot of things. So a part of it is, why not go make Icewind Dale 3? You can't spend $20 million on it, but why not go make it?"

[Aidunno]

baddogkelevra wrote...

The only part of the review with which I agree is that the conversation wheel limits our choices. I don't mind the wheel itself, only that it lends itself to you consistently picking one side of the wheel each time. I had this same feeling when I played Mass Effect 2, when the game actually limited your late-game persuasion skills because you weren't renegade or paragon enough. I wish the system could be built with role playing in mind, meaning that my character may start as an insufferable bastard, but may change by the end of the game 10 freaking years later. Any change I could manually incite, such as picking diplomatic instead of sarcastic, would come off as a drastic paradigm shift, not the natural progression of character.

This post may ease some of your fears about that.. where it talks about Hawk's personality. To me what you have done before influencing choices is far more "RPG" like than simply using a skill.

[Emzamination]

The author of that article should be tied to a tree and whipped for spouting his blasphemous propaganda.Unlike mass effect dragon age must live on forever!

[mindbody]

Grunk wrote...

mindbody wrote...


I know this wasn't directed at me, but you'll get my 2 cents and like it!
The creation of a system describing dialogue intent (i.e. convo wheel) itself is a limitation.  If my response to a question is "Yeah, sure" there at least 2 possible tones in which it could be said... That's a role-playing choice.  The wheel tells me what the intent is, thereby removing choice.

Super-disagree. No matter what you imagine, the characters spoken to will react to the writers' intent on the delivery of the line. You can imagine that it's a miscommunication, which is I guess what you lose with a VO, but as far as the story of the game is concerned, there's no difference. The only difference is in what you imagine. How much that means to you is, of course, subjective.

Personally, I don't feel that there's a difference.

You assume the characters spoken to must react to tone (or intent, as you said) rather than the literal meaning.  And imagination is role-playing.  Not imagining is being told a story.
Edit: what I meant is that there is no reason a writer of an RPG can't write with those multiple tones/intents in mind... And I think many times the writers at Bioware have done just that.

Modifié par mindbody, 04 mars 2011 - 09:45 .

[mindbody]

Elsariel wrote...

mindbody wrote...

Elsariel wrote...

Don't you have multiple choices in DA2 with how to handle a situation?  How are you being limited in that way any more so than you are in DA:O?  Just because the choices are all arranged around a wheel instead of a list doesn't mean you don't have as many choices.

I guess I'm not understanding how one is being "forcibly prodded".  Would you be willing to elaborate?

Regarding cinematic conversations.. well, I think that's just a matter of personal preference. I don't feel my level of immersion is any less because the camera shifts or blurs the distance, but that's just me.  I find I'm able to immerse myself in just about any RPG as long as I'm able to choose my character's looks, class, and personality by method of choosing my actions. 

I know this wasn't directed at me, but you'll get my 2 cents and like it!
The creation of a system describing dialogue intent (i.e. convo wheel) itself is a limitation.  If my response to a question is "Yeah, sure" there at least 2 possible tones in which it could be said... That's a role-playing choice.  The wheel tells me what the intent is, thereby removing choice.

I tend to agree with your last paragraph... good cinematography will tend to imitate the eye anyways.... It can be facilitative.

I get what you're saying but I have to say... I hated it worse when I chose a response (imagining a certain tone) then having the NPC react all wrong to it.  Having the game know which tone I would like to use makes that problem go away. 

Ideally, I'd like to choose my answer, and then choose the tone I'd like to say it in.  Win/Win

I think that's what we'd all really like.

[FearMonkey]

Aidunno wrote...

baddogkelevra wrote...

The only part of the review with which I agree is that the conversation wheel limits our choices. I don't mind the wheel itself, only that it lends itself to you consistently picking one side of the wheel each time. I had this same feeling when I played Mass Effect 2, when the game actually limited your late-game persuasion skills because you weren't renegade or paragon enough. I wish the system could be built with role playing in mind, meaning that my character may start as an insufferable bastard, but may change by the end of the game 10 freaking years later. Any change I could manually incite, such as picking diplomatic instead of sarcastic, would come off as a drastic paradigm shift, not the natural progression of character.

This post may ease some of your fears about that.. where it talks about Hawk's personality. To me what you have done before influencing choices is far more "RPG" like than simply using a skill.

So...

Diplomatic = Paragon
Humorous = Neutral
Aggressive = Renegade

Yeah, such a departure from Mass Effect 2.

[Malice_Unarmed]

I have faith in Bioware.

[Pritos]

People are confusing Video Game RPGs with Table RPGs... DAII is, from what I have seen 'till now, the perfect VGRPGs, DAO was a VGRPG that tried to be a TRPG, and got decently near. So stop complaining, DAII is going the way that it should, DAO was the one that went the "wrong" way for its kind.

[Lordless]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but you'll get my 2 cents and like it!http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angel.png
The creation of a system describing dialogue intent (i.e. convo wheel) itself is a limitation. If my response to a question is "Yeah, sure" there at least 2 possible tones in which it could be said... That's a role-playing choice. The wheel tells me what the intent is, thereby removing choice.

I tend to agree with your last paragraph... good cinematography will tend to imitate the eye anyways.... It can be facilitative.

I don't really understand this line of thinking, the writers had some idea of how the line would be said and how the character being spoken too would react whether it is voiced or not. You could make up in your head that you said the "yeah sure" example in a happy positive way but if the character you are speaking too reacts negatively, isn't that worse for roleplaying and immersion? At least with the icons you know the intent and tone of what you are going to say, it's because of what you described that they made this change (ie the much used hitting on Zevran example).

[JrayM16]

FearMonkey wrote...

Aidunno wrote...

baddogkelevra wrote...

The only part of the review with which I agree is that the conversation wheel limits our choices. I don't mind the wheel itself, only that it lends itself to you consistently picking one side of the wheel each time. I had this same feeling when I played Mass Effect 2, when the game actually limited your late-game persuasion skills because you weren't renegade or paragon enough. I wish the system could be built with role playing in mind, meaning that my character may start as an insufferable bastard, but may change by the end of the game 10 freaking years later. Any change I could manually incite, such as picking diplomatic instead of sarcastic, would come off as a drastic paradigm shift, not the natural progression of character.

This post may ease some of your fears about that.. where it talks about Hawk's personality. To me what you have done before influencing choices is far more "RPG" like than simply using a skill.

So...

Diplomatic = Paragon
Humorous = Neutral
Aggressive = Renegade

Yeah, such a departure from Mass Effect 2.

Well, partially, but there are some situations that would make it otherwise.

For instance, say we are talking to a demon and it tempts us with an offer of power or something in exchange for freedom.  Here, the diplomatic option would likely be the one to take the deal as that is the nature of diplomacy.  Agressive would more likely invoke an attack on the demon.

Typical RPG moral standards indicate that deals with demons are bad.  THerefore DA2's wheel system is certainly less constricted on moral guidelines than ME1/2 was.

[Elsariel]

mindbody wrote...

Elsariel wrote...

I get what you're saying but I have to say... I hated it worse when I chose a response (imagining a certain tone) then having the NPC react all wrong to it.  Having the game know which tone I would like to use makes that problem go away. 

Ideally, I'd like to choose my answer, and then choose the tone I'd like to say it in.  Win/Win

I think that's what we'd all really like.

So say we all.

[AlanC9]

mindbody wrote...
You assume the characters spoken to must react to tone (or intent, as you said) rather than the literal meaning.  And imagination is role-playing.  Not imagining is being told a story.
Edit: what I meant is that there is no reason a writer of an RPG can't write with those multiple tones/intents in mind... And I think many times the writers at Bioware have done just that.

By writing with multiple intents in mind, do you mean that there's no NPC response or that response is itself ambiguous, so how the PC spoke is not measured? Sort of an uncertainty principle applied to dialogue?

[Pritos]

FearMonkey wrote...

Aidunno wrote...

baddogkelevra wrote...

The only part of the review with which I agree is that the conversation wheel limits our choices. I don't mind the wheel itself, only that it lends itself to you consistently picking one side of the wheel each time. I had this same feeling when I played Mass Effect 2, when the game actually limited your late-game persuasion skills because you weren't renegade or paragon enough. I wish the system could be built with role playing in mind, meaning that my character may start as an insufferable bastard, but may change by the end of the game 10 freaking years later. Any change I could manually incite, such as picking diplomatic instead of sarcastic, would come off as a drastic paradigm shift, not the natural progression of character.

This post may ease some of your fears about that.. where it talks about Hawk's personality. To me what you have done before influencing choices is far more "RPG" like than simply using a skill.

So...

Diplomatic = Paragon
Humorous = Neutral
Aggressive = Renegade

Yeah, such a departure from Mass Effect 2.

Are you saying that a Renegade's answer and giving a Agressive answer is the same thing? Let me get my dictionary...

[SteveGarbage]

slimgrin wrote...

TwistedComplex wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Bioware is not the flagship of RPG's.

They're the most popular RPG maker in the world, so they kind of are

And I hear McDonalds makes the best cheeseburgers.

False. Square-Enix is by far the most popular RPG maker in the world, if you leave it non-specific. If you're talking about cRPGs, then yes, BioWare does likely hold the majority share.

Anyhow, the article expresses its point (however repetitively it does so), although I suppose it's your personality. If the biggest issue is that the games moves too quickly for you to pause-and-play from swipe to swipe like Origins did, I discount it. I'd prefer to not have my two-handed warrior swinging his sword like he's swinging a 20-foot tree branch.

While it hurts to be a fan of a dying video game breed, it happens. I'm sure there are people out there who will still argue the best type of first-person shooter is the huge mazelike levels/keycard-collecting shooters of back in the day like Wolfenstein/Doom/Duke Nukem.

I'd prefer BioWare/EA continue to make money and make games that stray farther from the original roots than make more niche titles that don't perform and aren't continued. But if you don't change and you evolve, you die. Look at where Guitar Hero is now. That's what happens when you make the direct nearly carbon-copy product.

[mindbody]

Lordless wrote...

I know this wasn't directed at me, but you'll get my 2 cents and like it!http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angel.png
The creation of a system describing dialogue intent (i.e. convo wheel) itself is a limitation. If my response to a question is "Yeah, sure" there at least 2 possible tones in which it could be said... That's a role-playing choice. The wheel tells me what the intent is, thereby removing choice.

I tend to agree with your last paragraph... good cinematography will tend to imitate the eye anyways.... It can be facilitative.

I don't really understand this line of thinking, the writers had some idea of how the line would be said and how the character being spoken too would react whether it is voiced or not. You could make up in your head that you said the "yeah sure" example in a happy positive way but if the character you are speaking too reacts negatively, isn't that worse for roleplaying and immersion? At least with the icons you know the intent and tone of what you are going to say, it's because of what you described that they made this change (ie the much used hitting on Zevran example).

Hehe, in Zevran's case, I think we'd all have benefitted from the romance dialoge being lit up like a runway with a big arrow saying Elf romance this way + 15 approval. 

I only meant that in the past no dialogue wheels were used, so the writers took into account possible tone variations and wrote specifically for that.