189 réponses à ce sujet

[mesmerizedish]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
DA2's done.  I couldn't possibly be trying to change it.

But future games haven't yet been designed.

I think I can safely tell you that we will never design a game the way you would like, and indeed never have, except purely by accident. About all you've convinced me of to date, anyhow, is that your views are idiosyncratic.

Couldn't you have tried to let him down gently?

[FieryDove]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
DA2's done.  I couldn't possibly be trying to change it.

But future games haven't yet been designed.

I think I can safely tell you that we will never design a game the way you would like, and indeed never have, except purely by accident. About all you've convinced me of to date, anyhow, is that your views are idiosyncratic.

Dragon Age: Accident

Make it so.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JasmoVT wrote...

...and here I would have thought you were familiar with the phenomenom of things coming out of peoples mouths without their really thinking about them.

I'm familiar with the phenomenon, but I'm also aware that it's not wholly involuntary.  But this mechanic requires that Hawke speaks in this off-the-cuff way, and that's not something I want him to do.

We all have access to a conscious filter when we speak.  That some people choose not to use it some of the time does not require that all people fail to use it some of the time.

David Gaider wrote...

No. Banter is ambient (as in non-cinematic) dialogue... meaning you continue to move about and do whatever else you're doing while the conversation is taking place. We cannot bring up the dialogue wheel during such conversations (yet, anyhow).

When you do manage that, I hope that means we can just make all dialogue ambient.

I really dislike that the game mode completely changes during conversations.

David Gaider wrote...

I think your bar of "things my character would never say" is set in a far different place from where we set it, however. You want to micromanage every single word out of your character's mouth, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

It has happened fairly recently.  DAO did it.  At some point you'll give us full-text dialogue options back.

You know that player agency is valuable.  You're just more willing to compromise on it than I am.  As these game designs mature, I expect you will return more control to us.

That said, having the player character express beliefs or opinions that the player didn't choose (outside of flavor provided by the player's chosen tone)... yes, that would definitely cross a line.

Terrific news.

Now we just need to work on the getting the paraphrase system to accommodate this.

[David Gaider]

Filament wrote...
I'm not saying it would fit the way you define banter, per se, just that, if a companion is going to start a "banter" with the PC, the best way to achieve that IMO would simply be via a triggered conversation.

That's not banter. That's just adding more conversations.

Which we can (and do) have. But it's not the same thing. It's also, incidentally, more expensive as it requires cinematics attention-- and barring the "yes, moar conversations! Moar!" idea of dialogue in general being good, there's a limit to how often you want to force the player to stop what they're doing in order to pay attention to a random and optional dialogue. That's a lesson we learned way back in BG2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

I think I can safely tell you that we will never design a game the way you would like, and indeed never have, except purely by accident.

You have given me specific features I've really enjoyed.

The Platonic ideal game isn't really likely for anyone, I would think.

[The Train]

Mad Method wrote...

Sylvius, if you defined the character, then his personality is as coherent as you have freedom for within the confines of the game. Lets say this is an adventure game: Your pacifist isn't going to do well if your choices become either assassinate an opponent or accept a duel while talking things out or diplomatic pressure are not listed as options. This hurts the coherence of your character as soon as you make a choice.

If you didn't define the character, then either the decisions are, yes, made for you or you simply are allowed decisions, but you don't get to determine your character's personality and reasons with them.

i think i see what you're saying.  only certain kinds of characters will make sense for the game, so a player trying to play a certain character coherently will run into a problem when the game requires the player to make a necessary choice to advance the plot.

on the one hand, i agree with Sylvius's point about having different motives for certain actions--the example of clearing off the mob because of a belief in individual liberty is perfect.  i have had similar experiences because i also try to determine the political, ethical, and religious perspectives of my characters before i play them.  however, i have also run into the problem Mad Method describes, where at certain points i simply wouldn't be able to continue with the main quest if i persist in my character's convictions. 

the question then arises:  if this were real life, what would such a character do?  i suppose i could quit the game and start over as a different PC in order to retain coherence to reflect that character's refusal to continue.  ideally, as a player, i would like to see as much richness, complexity, and control as possible from the game, but obviously the game can't "contain multitudes."  so it makes sense for the game to offer a limited number of character profiles--like roles in a play--for the player to choose from.  and it sounds like that's the approach that the writers took in DAO and in DA2.

while i'm intrigued by what possibilities exist for a character design interface that presented various relevant options regarding a character's beliefs and personality, that's not going to happen in the DA series and i'm okay with that.

on the other hand, it is also difficult to play coherently when you're not aware, ahead of time, that there are already 3 basic "roles" you can play.  also, i think Sylvius would agree that the roles are in a sense pre-defined in DA2 but are not robust.  that is to say, playing an "aggressive" character says nothing for why the character is aggressive or if said character would be in all situations.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Train wrote...

 however, i have also run into the problem Mad Method describes, where at certain points i simply wouldn't be able to continue with the main quest if i persist in my character's convictions.

Certainly.  DAO struggled with some PCs that were strongly defined by their origins - particularly those that hadn't bought-in to being Grey Wardens.  In Exile has listed his extensive difficulties on this front, and I duplicated some of them despite our disparate playing styles.

if this were real life, what would such a character do?

This is generally how I make all my in-game decisions.

i suppose i could quit the game and start over as a different PC in order to retain coherence to reflect that character's refusal to continue.

I will sometimes do this.  I'll also have some characters entirely skip whole DLC campaigns if I think that doing them would be out of character; I'm curious as to how the DA2 save import will handle those.

on the other hand, it is also difficult to play coherently when you're not aware, ahead of time, that there are already 3 basic "roles" you can play.

I suspect I would ignore those anyway.

[Ignoble Fat Man]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
DA2's done.  I couldn't possibly be trying to change it.

But future games haven't yet been designed.

I think I can safely tell you that we will never design a game the way you would like, and indeed never have, except purely by accident. About all you've convinced me of to date, anyhow, is that your views are idiosyncratic.

This is exactly what I thought.  Sylvius if you really spent some energy and thought of how you would objectively plan out the game you envision....how complex of a system do you think it would be.  How much processing power, how many lines of dialogue, what type of physics engine, how much art, etc?  Do you really think that anyone could afford to create it let alone have a computer powerful enough to play it?

It seems to me that all of your requests come down to....what if I want to imagine a world that looks totally different from the developers imagined....how come this game won't take all of my potential imaginary decisions into account? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ignoble Fat Man wrote...

 Sylvius if you really spent some energy and thought of how you would objectively plan out the game you envision....how complex of a system do you think it would be.  How much processing power, how many lines of dialogue, what type of physics engine, how much art, etc?  Do you really think that anyone could afford to create it let alone have a computer powerful enough to play it?

It could almost be done with the NWN toolset.  All you'd need to do is add full party control.  Sure, the ideal game wouldn't use D&D rules, but unless I build an engine from scratch I'd be stuck with that.

I think the graphical advancements of the past 8 years or so have been a waste of time.  So no, you wouldn't need much of a computer at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
DA2's done.  I couldn't possibly be trying to change it.

But future games haven't yet been designed.

I think I can safely tell you that we will never design a game the way you would like, and indeed never have, except purely by accident. About all you've convinced me of to date, anyhow, is that your views are idiosyncratic.

Couldn't you have tried to let him down gently?

He's said much the same before, and lucky for me I don't really believe him.

Partly because I think he overestimates how much value I place on one specific feature, which I'm pretty sure BioWare's never going to offer (the ability to use any party member as party spokesperson).  This is why I no longer spend much time arguing for it.  I'll mention it from time to time, because I think it's valuable to keep the idea in the minds of the people involved, but I'd agree with David that BioWare is extremely unlikely to do it again (they've done it one time, in BG, and then sort of a second time by accident in BG2 - it's like the BG2 team forgot the feature was in the engine and designed the game accordingly).

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

He's said much the same before, and lucky for me I don't really believe him.

Partly because I think he overestimates how much value I place on one specific feature, which I'm pretty sure BioWare's never going to offer (the ability to use any party member as party spokesperson).  This is why I no longer spend much time arguing for it.  I'll mention it from time to time, because I think it's valuable to keep the idea in the minds of the people involved, but I'd agree with David that BioWare is extremely unlikely to do it again (they've done it one time, in BG, and then sort of a second time by accident in BG2 - it's like the BG2 team forgot the feature was in the engine and designed the game accordingly).

Maybe I'm just remembering poorly (which is unlikely, since I just played Baldur's Gate not a month ago), but dialogue is the same no matter who does the talking. That's a big deal-breaker for me, when Imoen gets the same lines as the Bhaalspawn. If anyone's going to be doing the talking, I want it to be my PC, because my PC is the only character whose lines I'm comfortable dictating.

[Ignoble Fat Man]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ignoble Fat Man wrote...

 Sylvius if you really spent some energy and thought of how you would objectively plan out the game you envision....how complex of a system do you think it would be.  How much processing power, how many lines of dialogue, what type of physics engine, how much art, etc?  Do you really think that anyone could afford to create it let alone have a computer powerful enough to play it?

It could almost be done with the NWN toolset.  All you'd need to do is add full party control.  Sure, the ideal game wouldn't use D&D rules, but unless I build an engine from scratch I'd be stuck with that.

I think the graphical advancements of the past 8 years or so have been a waste of time.  So no, you wouldn't need much of a computer at all.

That is not what I mean.  Prior to releasing the game you have to have a set story or conversation tree for everyone you interact with.  You need to have a story arc or several of them depending on how many options you are letting your players take.  Things like voice acting and dialogue, art, cinematics, landscapes and NPCs need to all be created and fleshed out before the game is finished and released.  Unlike D&D with a DM you can't change these predefined story arcs, items or characters to account for unanticipated decisions by the Player.  So, you have to limit the player options in the game.

There are game companies out there that have created much more open worlds with less limitations on player choice, but this too comes at a cost and typically to the story and the development of your NPC companions stories.  I like both style of games but I know what I am getting depending on the style of game I am playing.  BioWare does great stories it is like playing a book where I get to choose some of the way the story is told.

[Mad Method]

Trian, I agree with Silvius's points for freedom of choice and interpretation as well; I merely point out that one does tend to run into limitations. And I also think it is much easier to achieve a better narrative if you reduce the player's capacity to define the character because here you can more readily immerse the character into his or her world. And I don't think it is an affront to roleplaying because roleplaying by its nature should move you beyond the confines of who you are and what you prefer, so you should be prepared to move outside your preferences and find something new.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

if this were real life, what would such a character do?

This is generally how I make all my in-game decisions.

I don't really. I find the holes of the story's reality long before then and any attempt into devising a realistic character in a not-so-realistic world hurts me as a form of logic that would require me to think dumber first. When I make roleplaying decisions, my decisions are made based on: power-gaming, pseudo-realistic roleplaying (I don't so much immerse myself into the world as I do into the puzzled logic of the game.), and whatever happens to amuse me at the moment (last I checked, this is a game).

Modifié par Mad Method, 07 mars 2011 - 10:04 .

[Hathur]

David Gaider wrote...

KratosAuron wrote...
I think that Bioware should think about adding Hawke (or the next protaganist for that matter) to the party banter. They gave Hawke a voice so they expect me to believe that my companions will only talk randomly amongst each other and only include Hawke when they want something. It happened so rarely in DA:O. and it was always a full blown conversation. I just think it would add to the realism and connection I am supposed to feel for Hawke and my companions.

What do you think?

We didn't do a great deal of that in DA2, but we're playing with the idea a bit more now. The thing is primarily to avoid the line where we cross into a "full-blown conversation" where the player's character is saying things they would never say and instead have a situation where the party member is doing the majority of the talking... but it's still at least them talking to the player as opposed to simply another party member, with the player's responses dictated by their dominant personality.

One thing I'd like to mention though was that Mass Effect 2 did this to some degree... Shepard would talk to her crew (or Joker / EDI on the Normandy) while you were in full control of the character and running around or fighting... it was great in the few occassions it happened.

Then LoTSB DLC came out and it was amazing... the banter between Liara & Shepard while you're in huge firefights was so engrossing (and especially while waiting for the door to get hacked aboard the ship whilst hordes of enemies shoot at you.... my god that banter reaaally made me feel like I was in the story at that point).

I definitely get why you folks at Bioware need / want to be cautious about making the player's character say things in "banter mode" since they can't choose what is being said... but sometimes, when it's executed like it was in ME2 (and especially LoTSB), it can be pretty damn awesome.... that LoTSB banter is in fact one of the most memorable moments of the entire ME2 game for me.

Modifié par Hathur, 07 mars 2011 - 08:26 .

[Arppis]

To be honest, I always see these banter's as something party members talk with eachothers. The main character doesn't neccessarily need to be part of EVERYTHING that goes on around him. And I don't remember Sheppard talking with his team mates when they were talking with eachothers.

But still, it's kinda like "their" thing to talk up while the party travels and have talks without player being any part to it.

[Ignoble Fat Man]

I did like that about ME3 when Shepard got to be part of the inane banter. It wasn't as though it had any tangible affect on the story it was simply engrossing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ignoble Fat Man wrote...

That is not what I mean.  Prior to releasing the game you have to have a set story or conversation tree for everyone you interact with.

Sure, we'd have to write the game.

You need to have a story arc or several of them depending on how many options you are letting your players take.

You wouldn't need to have the NPCs acknowledge all of those possible choices, though, so that reduces the writing load quite a bit.

Things like voice acting and dialogue, art, cinematics, landscapes and NPCs need to all be created and fleshed out before the game is finished and released.

The really expensive parts of that, the voice acting and cinematics, I don't really want in the game in the first place.

[TheOneAndOni]

As RPGs become more cinematic, it becomes less realistic to provide full depth of role-playing due to the compounding costs of animation, camera work, voice acting, etc. That's simply the reality of the development process.

If you feel disenfranchised because you would prefer full character malleability over cinematic presentation, then you should probably get into the game development business and design a game to cater to those like yourself.

Modifié par TheOneAndOni, 07 mars 2011 - 08:53 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

TheOneAndOni wrote...

As RPGs become more cinematic, it becomes less realistic to provide full depth of role-playing due to the compounding costs of animation, camera work, voice acting, etc.

So stop making them cinematic.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mad Method wrote...

(last I checked, this is a game)

I would rather not be consciously aware that I'm playing a game.

[TheOneAndOni]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So stop making them cinematic.

That's a decision the game developers get to make.  From a business standpoint, it's pretty clear that cinematic games sell better.  From a design standpoint, it's a subjective thing; some designers would rather make the role-playing system deep and malleable while others would like to use cinematic techniques to enhance the perception of the world they've created.  Judging from the direction Bioware is going (in both the Dragon Age and Mass Effect franchises), I would venture a guess that they fall in the latter camp.

[Ignoble Fat Man]

Computer games are not just calculators for dice rolls. If that is the type of game you want create a simple text interface with some formulas to spawn the world, the critters and the npcs. Create a definition for all of them in a database then just random encounters with the critters and make your own story as to how or why you are fighting the critters.