189 réponses à ce sujet

[Ignoble Fat Man]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mad Method wrote...

(last I checked, this is a game)

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

There is this really great game that happens outside....its called life but there are no save points....which kinda suck.  As I said before....they can't create a sim world that does all the things you want.  It just is not possible.  If all you really want is a toolset to modify the game world and create your own mini game inside it....I think they already do that.

[Edge2177]

At one point I heard Hawke randomly making jokes (I would guess this was the sarcasm track of conversation) during exploration. So thats a kind of party banter, just everyone ignored him it was so campy hehe.

[Sylvius the Mad]

TheOneAndOni wrote...

From a business standpoint, it's pretty clear that cinematic games sell better. 

Is it?  I don't have data on that.  I don't even think we have comparable games released at roughly the same time to compare them, even assuming that would could adjust for thinkgs like marketing and brand identity.

To draw that sort of conclusion we'd need lots of data points, and we don't have them.

[Ignoble Fat Man]

Well considering the decline in sales of board games I would say graphics has an impact on people's desire to play games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You're comparing across markets and across eras.

[Ignoble Fat Man]

Just talking evolution of games. Used to be just dice a book and some imagination.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

TheOneAndOni wrote...
From a business standpoint, it's pretty clear that cinematic games sell better. 

Is it?  I don't have data on that.  I don't even think we have comparable games released at roughly the same time to compare them, even assuming that would could adjust for thinkgs like marketing and brand identity.

To draw that sort of conclusion we'd need lots of data points, and we don't have them.

First, abandon the notion that video games are distinguishable from each other. The development and publishing side has already done this and is selling the games with that in mind.

Second, make a list of the games that have verifiably sold very well at debut and check for similarities.

[Urazz]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Who had this topic as "The next thing that Sylvius will take offense to as ruining his game" in the pool? Anyone?

That's an easy bet and you know it.  Sylvius is pretty much offended by everything in Dragon Age 2.  I think a better one would be "The next topic that that Sylvius actually likes in his game" pool.

Modifié par Urazz, 07 mars 2011 - 09:40 .

[Fishy]

 What was very annoying in DA:O was when NPC started to talk during a banter and the banter would abruptly stop .. So you basicly had to stop moving just to make sure the banter was not cut.

I heard before that they planned to use a better sound compression  etc . What about it?

[ColaQueen]

Votes for moar snarky Chris and people just playing the game to see what happens.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Urazz wrote...

That's an easy bet and you know it.  Sylvius is pretty much offended by everything in Dragon Age 2.  I think a better one would be "The next topic that that Sylvius actually likes in his game" pool.

There are several things I like in DA2.

I like that spells are upgradeable.  I like the idea of the framed narrative (particularly the explicitly unreliable aspect), and I'm excited to see how it works.  I like that they've significantly improved on the ME dialogue system.  I like that we can now more easily intercept running enemies.  I like that they've made friendly fire less selective.

[Sanguinerin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A I've alrady explained, DAO gave us 100% control within a limited range of possible behaviour.  But everything we did was something we chose to do.

This involuntary party banter system denies us that.  Just as the paraphrase system does.

After reading through the new pages of posts (I've been away babysitting for a while), I think I understand your point then. I'm not as familiar with your opinions as other posters seem to be.

Am I gathering correctly then that if Hawke was never introduced into party banter (unless you chose his/her response) and all dialogue was written out exactly as it was spoken, barring other issues/preferences of yours, then you would be fine with the system?

I didn't pick up on the "100% control within the limitations" bit before my first post.

If the above understanding on my part is correct then I suppose I can understand your view. I'm less inclined to desire full written responses when I'm about to hear what I just read but you take care of that with your desire for a non-voiced protagonist. That being said, I don't mind voiced protagonists myself. Male Hawke's voice is a bit more forceful and strong than I would like, but as I adapted to Male and Female Shepard, I'll likely do the same with Male Hawke.
Female Hawke's voice on the other hand...

Anyway, like I said, other issues with the system aside, that's what you're asking for?

Modifié par HallowedWarden, 07 mars 2011 - 09:58 .

[KratosAuron]

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.

And Im glad to hear that. I wouldnt expect to a full conversation it would just defeat the purpose. Though I am glad to hear you are playing with the idea.

[Sylvius the Mad]

HallowedWarden wrote...

After reading through the new pages of posts (I've been away babysitting for a while), I think I understand your point then. I'm not as familiar with your opinions as other posters seem to be.

Am I gathering correctly then that if Hawke was never introduced into party banter (unless you chose his/her response) and all dialogue was written out exactly as it was spoken, barring other issues/preferences of yours, then you would be fine with the system?

Yes.  Basically DAO's conversation system.

I'd even like to mute Hawke's voice - that would allow me to impart whatever tone I wanted onto each line, rather than being stuck with whatever the voice actor did - but even with the voice the other changes you've described would be terrific.

Male Hawke's voice is a bit more forceful and strong than I would like, but as I adapted to Male and Female Shepard, I'll likely do the same with Male Hawke.
Female Hawke's voice on the other hand...

I found MaleShep's voice unplayably awful.  FemShep, though, had a great voice for me.

I haven't heard Hawke's voice, yet.  I'm going to design my first character as I normally do, build his personality, and then I'll play the game and see if the voice works.  That's the only way to judge the game fairly, I think, compared to BioWare's previous titles.  I'll play it the same way and see what happens.

Anyway, like I said, other issues with the system aside, that's what you're asking for?

Yes.

[TheOneAndOni]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'd even like to mute Hawke's voice - that would allow me to impart whatever tone I wanted onto each line, rather than being stuck with whatever the voice actor did - but even with the voice the other changes you've described would be terrific.

While I understand what it is you want, I still don't think you can get it from a scripted system with limited outcomes.  Even in DA:O, each of your dialogue choices had an implied tone, and that was evidenced in an NPC's reaction to your statement.  I don't really see how making the tone explicit through voice acting changes that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

TheOneAndOni wrote...

While I understand what it is you want, I still don't think you can get it from a scripted system with limited outcomes.  Even in DA:O, each of your dialogue choices had an implied tone, and that was evidenced in an NPC's reaction to your statement.  I don't really see how making the tone explicit through voice acting changes that.

It changes it by making the tone explicit.

People keep saying that the tone in DAO was implied by the NPC reaction.  And I disagree for two reasons.  First, the NPC reaction isn't available when you're making the selection, so that can't possibly matter.  If you have to make the choice before you know the tone, either you're just guessing or you're imparting your own and then letting the game contradict you.

And second, implication of the sort you're describing doesn't exist.

So, no, I dispute that DAO's unvoiced lines contained any tone at all.  Clearly the writers intended for them to have a tone, but they didn't.  The PC's voice never had a tone provided by the game until they voiced him.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 mars 2011 - 10:44 .

[the_one_54321]

The tone was intended. You've chosen to ignore that and you're allowed to. Well, you're not longer allowed to and that's a bad thing to you. Understandable. But the tone was still originally intended.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The tone was intended. You've chosen to ignore that and you're allowed to.  Well, you're not longer allowed to and that's a bad thing to you. Understandable. But the tone was still originally intended.

Whether it was intended was immaterial.  What matters is whether it was there.  And it demonstrably wasn't

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Whether it was intended was immaterial.  What matters is whether it was there.  And it demonstrably wasn't

It's plenty material. It demonstrates that you are/were playing the game contrary to how it was intended. Which, again, you're certainly allowed to do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Whether it was intended was immaterial.  What matters is whether it was there.  And it demonstrably wasn't

It's plenty material. It demonstrates that you are/were playing the game contrary to how it was intended. Which, again, you're certainly allowed to do.

The intended tone made no material difference within the game.  That they're intended a tone or not didn't matter.  The NPC reactions were the same.  You could try to discern the intended tone or not.  It didn't matter.  It made no difference.

That's what I'm saying.

The tone wasn't there.  Now it is.  That's a really big shift in design.  That they intended the tone to be there before doesn't change that it wasn't there.

[Mad Method]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mad Method wrote...

(last I checked, this is a game)

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

Curious. Why?

Modifié par Mad Method, 07 mars 2011 - 10:56 .

[TheOneAndOni]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It changes it by making the tone explicit.

People keep saying that the tone in DAO was implied by the NPC reaction.  And I disagree for two reasons.  First, the NPC reaction isn't available when you're making the selection, so that can't possibly matter.  If you have to make the choice before you know the tone, either you're just guessing or you're imparting your own and then letting the game contradict you.

And second, implication of the sort you're describing doesn't exist.

So, no, I dispute that DAO's unvoiced lines contained any tone at all.  Clearly the writers intended for them to have a tone, but they didn't.  The PC's voice never had a tone provided by the game until they voiced him.

The fact that you don't know the NPC reaction ahead of time doesn't change the fact that it does imply what they heard and how they heard it.  There were many dialogue options in DA:O that I wanted my character to deliver with a sarcastic tone, but follow-up from the NPCs gave the impression that my character had taken a maliciously insulting tone.  I didn't have the option to clarify my meaning or suggest that the NPC grow a sense of humor as I might have in a real world conversation.

As long as NPCs have scripted responses to specific statements, the game system has to assume certain information (specifically tone and intent) about those statements.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The tone wasn't there.  Now it is.  That's a really big shift in design.  That they intended the tone to be there before doesn't change that it wasn't there.

Well now you are forced to play the game as was intended. Which yes, is a pretty big shift in design.

[Sylvius the Mad]

TheOneAndOni wrote...

The fact that you don't know the NPC reaction ahead of time doesn't change the fact that it does imply what they heard and how they heard it.

Except that you know how your character said it, because you chose that in advance.  Why is this supposed implication overriding things you know to be true?

There were many dialogue options in DA:O that I wanted my character to deliver with a sarcastic tone, but follow-up from the NPCs gave the impression that my character had taken a maliciously insulting tone. 

Why didn't you interpret that as evidence that the NPC couldn't take a joke and was oversensitive?  If you delivered the line sarcastically, and they just didn't get it and took offense, would offering a correction make any difference?  Given that they're now mad at you, would they believe that you didn't mean it that way?

Have you ever talked to people?

As long as NPCs have scripted responses to specific statements, the game system has to assume certain information (specifically tone and intent) about those statements.

How does that matter?  Yes, the writers need to have some idea how the line is delivered in order to write the response, but there's nothing preventing them from being wrong about that tone.