291 réponses à ce sujet

[Endurium]

JohnEpler wrote...

<snip> Interactivity is always important to bear in mind, and it does occasionally happen that choice is taken away from the player because it's mistakenly determined that it's an acceptable trade off - a choice might be viewed as meaningless, when in reality some players really would like agency at that particular moment.

I think bringing games towards a more cinematic style visually while still maintaining the interactivity and agency that's a key (some might say -the- key) aspect of games is going to be one of the big challenges of the next five or six years. It's not easy.

A rule that might work here is, "When in doubt, err in favor of player interaction." I would rather have too many opportunities to interact with the game than too few.

Too often I'm leaving my desk to do something else for a minute or more because of yet another lengthy cinematic where I have no input. When I want no input, I put in a movie to watch.

Modifié par Endurium, 19 avril 2011 - 12:37 .

[theelementslayer]

JohnEpler wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Video games are aren't movies, novels, or music, but they're a hybrid media and benefit from looking at how more established artforms work. Game developers are looking at films because films are excellent at visual storytelling and that can add a great deal to the experience of playing a game.

Which is really what I was getting at. Films have been around for over a century, now. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to the parts of a game that are similar to what a film does, why not take a look at what they're doing through the lens of 'this is still a game and not a movie'?

Films do much of what they do because the people making them have discovered that certain visual techniques create and reinforce particular emotions/mindsets among the audience. Stuff like the rule of thirds, crossing the line, pushes and pulls, hitchcock zooms - those came about as a result of an understanding of the visual medium and how people process information presented to them in a particular way.

Again, games are not movies, and there are things that games can do that movies cannot, which is something that I strongly believe needs to be kept in mind. However, there is certainly crossover, and where that crossover occurs, why shouldn't we try and learn from the medium with the most experience?

As a person in game development myself, this is very well said and also something every game dev wants to have. A helthy balance of very good film like cinematics, and a good gameplay element.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

fchopin wrote...

I agree with most of what you said but i prefer the use of cinema tics only used to enhance the experience but never take over the players control.
 
[snips]

Every time the cinema tics takes over and does what the player should be doing takes away immersion for me and makes me think i am not the character that i am playing.

See, now I would trade the control for a better cinematic.  As long as the cinematics are appropriate to my character's personality.  I =very= much liked that touch in DA2... some times Hawke just said things that were approprate to the choices you made in the game.  Probably because I don't every see the character as "me" I see it as this dude I made up and I'm rollin' through the exciting part of his life before he settles down and opens Shoe-La-La.

[fighterchick]

I thought DA II was fine with the cinematics. So long as it never strays into the territory of the Metal Gear Solid series-type cutscenes, I'll be happy.

[fchopin]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

fchopin wrote...

I agree with most of what you said but i prefer the use of cinema tics only used to enhance the experience but never take over the players control.
 
[snips]

Every time the cinema tics takes over and does what the player should be doing takes away immersion for me and makes me think i am not the character that i am playing.

See, now I would trade the control for a better cinematic.  As long as the cinematics are appropriate to my character's personality.  I =very= much liked that touch in DA2... some times Hawke just said things that were approprate to the choices you made in the game.  Probably because I don't every see the character as "me" I see it as this dude I made up and I'm rollin' through the exciting part of his life before he settles down and opens Shoe-La-La.

I think this could be the problem of the two different styles of play.
 
On one side is players using the i become the character that i play and on the other i am role playing a different character that is not me.
 
The player who becomes the character needs the control of what happens in the game and the player who role plays a character that is not himself does not mind loosing control.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

fchopin wrote...
I think this could be the problem of the two different styles of play.
 
On one side is players using the i become the character that i play and on the other i am role playing a different character that is not me.
 
The player who becomes the character needs the control of what happens in the game and the player who role plays a character that is not himself does not mind loosing control.

Truth!  They will have to put in a toggle.   :lol:

[Bostur]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

fchopin wrote...
I think this could be the problem of the two different styles of play.
 
On one side is players using the i become the character that i play and on the other i am role playing a different character that is not me.
 
The player who becomes the character needs the control of what happens in the game and the player who role plays a character that is not himself does not mind loosing control.

Truth!  They will have to put in a toggle.   :lol:

Or 2 different games

[Gatt9]

fchopin wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

fchopin wrote...

I agree with most of what you said but i prefer the use of cinema tics only used to enhance the experience but never take over the players control.
 
[snips]

Every time the cinema tics takes over and does what the player should be doing takes away immersion for me and makes me think i am not the character that i am playing.

See, now I would trade the control for a better cinematic.  As long as the cinematics are appropriate to my character's personality.  I =very= much liked that touch in DA2... some times Hawke just said things that were approprate to the choices you made in the game.  Probably because I don't every see the character as "me" I see it as this dude I made up and I'm rollin' through the exciting part of his life before he settles down and opens Shoe-La-La.

I think this could be the problem of the two different styles of play.
 
On one side is players using the i become the character that i play and on the other i am role playing a different character that is not me.
 
The player who becomes the character needs the control of what happens in the game and the player who role plays a character that is not himself does not mind loosing control.

The problem is,  the "I become the character" people are in the wrong genre,  they want Adventure games.  Self-insertion is counter to the point of an RPG,  the Role means you're playing someone not-you,  which is why Characters in RPGs are defined in such a way as to seperate your qualities from your characters.

Or,  as I put it in another thread,  no matter my understanding,  a Barbarian with an intelligence score of 5 is going to have a very difficult time with a ketchup bottle.

LARPsing is not RPGing,  they're two very different types of games,  though it's easy to see why the casual observer would be confused if they didn't read the rules behind RPGs.

[Boiny Bunny]

JohnEpler wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Now I'd like to be a party pooper and say that the lesson "Show, don't tell", is so last century and was made due to the limitations of movies. Instead of showing the action why not play it? I think Half-Life 1 was revolutionary in this respect because it was one of the first games I played that tried to really meld the story into the gameplay. Later many games got a bit more lazy and mostly tried to show it.
You guys do tell a lot of the story by allowing us to play it, no doubt about it. But I fear the cinematic capabilities may sometimes be used as a bit of crutch instead of as a needed tool.

And that's a fair criticism. I'm of the mind that you should always try to maintain player agency. Certainly, there are moments where the compromise is going to be between 'give the player control and let them do something moderately interesting' or 'take some control away and let them do something really, really neat'.

I believe those instances should be used sparingly, though - I'm generally opposed to taking control away from the player for too long. Cinematics should support the gameplay, not replace it.

Thanks for your thoughts.  I'd be interested to hear what you think of the dialogue wheel versus displaying full sentances in terms of player agency and cinematic feel - all practical considerations aside (i.e. the cost of fully voicing the amount of possible player dialogue as seen in Origins).

I remember when Mass Effect was in development there were a good deal of excellent Bioware developer videos regarding the purpose of the dialogue wheel, and showing how conversations would flow like in a movie instead of stopping every few seconds while the player carefully read each option, thought about it for a minute, then finally selected one.

Personally I think the dialogue wheel is great in terms of cinematic feel.  When somebody says something to me in real life, I don't stand there blankly for 2 minutes carefully weighing up the pros and cons of 6 long sentances.  I (generally) respond immediately based on my instantaneous feeling of the situation.  That's partly the wonder of the human brain - but  I think that the dialogue wheel captures this element of real conversations wonderfully - especially the way you have the 'peaceful'/'sarcastic'/'angry' responses in the same positions, allowing you to instantaneously respond how you 'feel'.

On the other hand, again, in my opinion, the wheel takes all of the thought out of conversations.  I now know every single time, that if I want reaction X, I hit the 'peaceful option' and if I want reaction Y, I hit the 'angry' option.  In games where such options are not arranged in the same order every time, you have to think, 'If I said that to Wynne, how would she react?'.  It breaks up the cinematic feel certainly, having to consider the options, but I think that process is also quite rewarding in of itself.  I don't necessarily want to go through a game knowing that if I hit the top right option in every conversation everybody will love me and all will be well in the world.

I also quite dislike the 'Investigate' option.  It makes every conversation (where it is present) feel like an interrogation, where the NPC stands there and answers any number of questions you have without saying anything else.  I don't feel that this is necessarily a good representation of the natural flow of conversations - which do typically revolve around a 'question - answer' format, but with the questioning role bouncing between parties rather than resting with you always.  But there is a balance to be had here too, between player agency and attempting to create realistic conversation flow.  The two don't have to be mutually exclusive though.

[fchopin]

Gatt9 wrote...

The problem is,  the "I become the character" people are in the wrong genre,  they want Adventure games.  Self-insertion is counter to the point of an RPG,  the Role means you're playing someone not-you,  which is why Characters in RPGs are defined in such a way as to seperate your qualities from your characters.

The opposite of what you said.
 
RPG's are for becoming the character, adventures are for playing a different part.
 
That is the reason RPG's have options so you can select the best option for your character.

[Mad Method]

I'm afraid this Escapist video was mostly a waste of time. He just reiterates that videogames aren't movies and trying to take lessons from movies is an insult to videogames as being inferior to film. He also says it's wrong because they're apples and oranges. Not a very insightful video.

JohnEpler wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Now I'd like to be a party pooper and say that the lesson "Show, don't tell", is so last century and was made due to the limitations of movies. Instead of showing the action why not play it? I think Half-Life 1 was revolutionary in this respect because it was one of the first games I played that tried to really meld the story into the gameplay. Later many games got a bit more lazy and mostly tried to show it.
You guys do tell a lot of the story by allowing us to play it, no doubt about it. But I fear the cinematic capabilities may sometimes be used as a bit of crutch instead of as a needed tool.

And that's a fair criticism. I'm of the mind that you should always try to maintain player agency. Certainly, there are moments where the compromise is going to be between 'give the player control and let them do something moderately interesting' or 'take some control away and let them do something really, really neat'.

I believe those instances should be used sparingly, though - I'm generally opposed to taking control away from the player for too long. Cinematics should support the gameplay, not replace it.

I'd extend that criticism further:

One of the reasons why DAO would usually get on my nerves after a while is that I would start to feel that I had to go through these plodding "combat/grind segments" to get to the next story point. Meaning, the combat sections didn't really feel like part of the story. It was more like a grocery list that needed checking off.

Edit: One of the reasons behind this is the excessive dungeon crawler level design, where the Brecilian Ruins, for instance, felt more like "yet another dungeon" than some lore-based setting I was exploring.

Now Uncharted, on the other hand, does a good job reinforcing that the combat is a part of the story.

Additionally, I do think the "show, don't tell" principle has been violated a fair bit. Most blatantly, I remember the Arcane Warrior trainer with this entire cutscene of "You see a vision of [x]", "The image turns into [y]", etc. and I was just thinking, "No, no, I don't see any of that." The game supports FMVs, but you didn't use any for it.

Modifié par Mad Method, 19 avril 2011 - 09:23 .

[Bostur]

fchopin wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

The problem is,  the "I become the character" people are in the wrong genre,  they want Adventure games.  Self-insertion is counter to the point of an RPG,  the Role means you're playing someone not-you,  which is why Characters in RPGs are defined in such a way as to seperate your qualities from your characters.

The opposite of what you said.
 
RPG's are for becoming the character, adventures are for playing a different part.
 
That is the reason RPG's have options so you can select the best option for your character.

I think RPGs can do both. Or actually all 3 things.

1. Pretending to be the character.
2. Experiencing a character that is not yourself (book, movie, adventure style)
3. Pretending to play another character. (classic pen and paper style)

Its always risky to venture into the "You're playing it wrong" territory. Some games allow for a lot of personal interpretation and alternate playstyles.

[Merced652]

Mad Method wrote...

I'm afraid this Escapist video was mostly a waste of time. He just reiterates that videogames aren't movies and trying to take lessons from movies is an insult to videogames as being inferior to film. He also says it's wrong because they're apples and oranges. Not a very insightful video.

JohnEpler wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Now I'd like to be a party pooper and say that the lesson "Show, don't tell", is so last century and was made due to the limitations of movies. Instead of showing the action why not play it? I think Half-Life 1 was revolutionary in this respect because it was one of the first games I played that tried to really meld the story into the gameplay. Later many games got a bit more lazy and mostly tried to show it.
You guys do tell a lot of the story by allowing us to play it, no doubt about it. But I fear the cinematic capabilities may sometimes be used as a bit of crutch instead of as a needed tool.

And that's a fair criticism. I'm of the mind that you should always try to maintain player agency. Certainly, there are moments where the compromise is going to be between 'give the player control and let them do something moderately interesting' or 'take some control away and let them do something really, really neat'.

I believe those instances should be used sparingly, though - I'm generally opposed to taking control away from the player for too long. Cinematics should support the gameplay, not replace it.

I'd extend that criticism further:

One of the reasons why DAO would usually get on my nerves after a while is that I would start to feel that I had to go through these plodding "combat/grind segments" to get to the next story point. Meaning, the combat sections didn't really feel like part of the story. It was more like a grocery list that needed checking off.

Now Uncharted, on the other hand, does a good job reinforcing that the combat is a part of the story.

Additionally, I do think the "show, don't tell" principle has been violated a fair bit. Most blatantly, I remember the Arcane Warrior trainer with this entire cutscene of "You see a vision of [x]", "The image turns into [y]", etc. and I was just thinking, "No, no, I don't see any of that." The game supports FMVs, but you didn't use any for it.

This is an excellent point on its own, but the arcane warrior training was such a relatively small part of the game that giving a cinematic, even a short one, for each "vision" you saw in that sequence alone would've been largely a waste. Now on that same point, doing things like that adds so much feel, flavor, and polish to a game that on the whole i would love to see it done. 

[fchopin]

Bostur wrote...

fchopin wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

The problem is,  the "I become the character" people are in the wrong genre,  they want Adventure games.  Self-insertion is counter to the point of an RPG,  the Role means you're playing someone not-you,  which is why Characters in RPGs are defined in such a way as to seperate your qualities from your characters.

The opposite of what you said.
 
RPG's are for becoming the character, adventures are for playing a different part.
 
That is the reason RPG's have options so you can select the best option for your character.

I think RPGs can do both. Or actually all 3 things.

1. Pretending to be the character.
2. Experiencing a character that is not yourself (book, movie, adventure style)
3. Pretending to play another character. (classic pen and paper style)

Its always risky to venture into the "You're playing it wrong" territory. Some games allow for a lot of personal interpretation and alternate playstyles.

I agree, all 3 are possible.

[dheer]

JohnEpler wrote...
Of course, it's a balancing act and, sometimes, it goes too far. Interactivity is always important to bear in mind, and it does occasionally happen that choice is taken away from the player because it's mistakenly determined that it's an acceptable trade off - a choice might be viewed as meaningless, when in reality some players really would like agency at that particular moment.

It is a balancing act, no doubt. I would like to take this opportunity to point to a real sore spot I had with DA2, however.

Near the end, Hawke starts giving a speech with no interaction from the player at all. He/She continues a lengthy address about the issues and each side and I had no way to make a choice. It broke immersion / took me out of character and I felt trapped by a cutscene, souring the ending.

I was angry enough to strangle multiple nuns.

[Nozybidaj]

Haexpane wrote...

Every Michael Bay Movie (Transformers, Transformers 2 etc..) is worse than any videogame story ever.

I've said before, ME2 isn't really all that different from a Michael Bay movie.  (sorry haven't played DA2 to compare)

[9999dmg]

This guy gets winded from talking too hard. His point is immediately invalid.

[Rifleman73]

Super Mario Bros isn't movie material.
Bioshock is movie material.

[KingDan97]

 I think two things about what this thread in regards to what he said:


1. It isn't truly DA2 related, since almost none of the discussion relates to it, and the first post addresses Bioware in general.


2. I think most posts are misinterpreting what he's said, if they even watched the video at all. He wasn't bashing cinematics, or the use of cinematography tricks to convey scenes in video games. He didn't laud over Half-Life's ability for you to walk around and ignore discussions of characters by looking at Alyx Vance's behind. He was just stating that he dislikes the general idea that somehow games need to live up to movies. A sentiment that I largely agree with.
I personally haven't played Heavy Rain, but from what I've seen of how the producer approaches games(both within and outside of this video) he discredits the medium by making the assumption that games have anything to live up to. Not that video games can learn things, but he essentially believes that every game should be dragon's lair, which for all of it's beauty was just an interactive movie where you die. A lot.
That is the issue Sterling takes up, the mantle that he fights against. Let's go back to the 80's, if someone walked up to Miyamoto, and asked him when he thought the Citizen Kane of gaming would emerge they would've been laughed at, openly. Certainly there's no issue with good writing or storytelling in video games, and by and large there are certainly scenarios where you don't need control, but the idea that somehow video games need to work harder to be able to stand on equal footing with movies through things like "production values"(a term that holds entirely different connotations depending on the situation used within) is imbecilic at best. The idea that GAME reviewers need to be told that this is meant to rival hollywood, as though a good video game cannot be appreciated by someone who is supposed to enjoy them as an equal in quality to anything in another medium. It's this notion that the video game industry has taken to lately of telling you just how you're "supposed" to play their game.

Here's a few examples of this mentality that a developer can tell you why their game is good, and why you just don't get their brilliance.

http://arstechnica.c...cks-critics.ars

http://ps3.ign.com/a...8/818597p1.html

http://www.destructo...de-158629.phtml

http://www.destructo...nk-189184.phtml

Should you disregard these, look no further than Mike Laidlaw. I'm not here to bash him, I'm really not so no need to bring down the banhammer but there are some clear and present issues with Dragon Age 2 on a basic level completely unrelated to the "streamlining".(Somehow despite being a more contained story with less enviornments he couldn't make more unique ones? Every NPC of any given race wears one of two sets of clothing?) Yet he insists that we're all just haters and that some people really do love the way that every non essential NPC is the exact same model(sometimes even having conversations with themselves) and that anyone who doesn't just isn't as forward thinking as him.(or as frugal)

This is the issue that Jim generally takes issue with among developers. He gets that a lot of time goes into it but when a developer starts running their trap about what a game needs to be, or how it must run, or how it must be played, especially if they tell reviewers that they're somehow doing it wrong, that bothers him. At least in my experience of this entire area.  He just wants people to own up to their bull. You pirate games? That's fine by him, just don't try and lie and say you aren't a theif if they never see your money for that purchase. Make a garbage game? Okay, do better next time just don't try and tell him he somehow played it wrong because if he really didn't get the controls, or they were too cumbersome or something else that is a failing on the developer, not the player.

Modifié par KingDan97, 19 avril 2011 - 03:29 .

[slimgrin]

brownybrown wrote...

well that may be the case but you can bet your bottom dollar that EA would like to be the next Warner Brothers/Fox studios/Sony pictures.

Exactly.

Kind of a silly routine, but I agree with the guy. Was I the only one disapointed when DA came out and it had Peter Jackson's LOTR stamped all over it? Everyone's seen the inevitable film influences copied adopted by game makers whenever a popular movie comes out. It just reinforces the lack of innovation that is so prevalent. And what's with the interminable cut scenes in modern games? You know, the non interactive kind, where you just sit there and drool until you can actually play again. That's not fun. I'm convinced a lot of people making games are in the wrong industry.

But I've been ****ing about this stuff forever. The game industry needs to grow up and find its own identity.

Modifié par slimgrin, 19 avril 2011 - 03:43 .

[Medhia Nox]

Although I'm not in love with ME 1&2 - I did enjoy 1 quite a bit. And for me it has the absolutely greatest "cut scene" I've ever experienced.

I'll try to recall the exact moment, but I know from the description everyone will know what I'm talking about.

It's the moment, toward the end of the game, when you escape from the Citadel. Shepard is on the bridge - he gives a speech. During that speech you have dialogue options to change the speech while it pans through your party members going about their day to day and responding to hearing your speech over the intercom. THAT is great storytelling in a video game. I feel it was "lightning in a bottle".

=====

Leliana's song cut scene is "close" - but it's not interactive. I think it would have actually been an amazing opportunity to take control of not just your character, but all the NPCs in the part. Give each of them a small series of options on how to react to Leliana's song - and, depending on your choice of reaction could change their personality slightly in the rest of the game.

=====

As for "Show Don't Tell" - I don't think it's outdated at all. Maybe outdated for someone who doesn't read books - but I think that even in video games it's the absolute most essential ingredient. I think there's some different interpretations of what "showing" is however.

To me - interacting with a storyline is "showing" me the world. Giving me cutscreens I can't do anything with is "telling" me the world. Giving me as many small choices, and at least a complex illusion of choice at the end is "showing" me my character. Making even small choices seem vapid - and totally throwing away the illusion of choice at the end of a game is "telling".

Bioshock, Halo, Borderlands, Max Payne, etc. "tell" you a world - and they're excellent games when you're ready to be "told". Even many of them have some compelling choices that allow a "show" element to the game. But RPGs can uniquely "show" you something - and I believe Dragon Age 2 failed almost completely.

[Rubinato]

JohnEpler wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Now I'd like to be a party pooper and say that the lesson "Show, don't tell", is so last century and was made due to the limitations of movies. Instead of showing the action why not play it? I think Half-Life 1 was revolutionary in this respect because it was one of the first games I played that tried to really meld the story into the gameplay. Later many games got a bit more lazy and mostly tried to show it.
You guys do tell a lot of the story by allowing us to play it, no doubt about it. But I fear the cinematic capabilities may sometimes be used as a bit of crutch instead of as a needed tool.

And that's a fair criticism. I'm of the mind that you should always try to maintain player agency. Certainly, there are moments where the compromise is going to be between 'give the player control and let them do something moderately interesting' or 'take some control away and let them do something really, really neat'.

I believe those instances should be used sparingly, though - I'm generally opposed to taking control away from the player for too long. Cinematics should support the gameplay, not replace it.

I agree with you about trying to maintain player agency, but when you take control away from the player you're not letting them do something really, really neat, you're letting them watch someone else do something which the player may or may not think is really, really neat. When a developer recognizes that they have to assume direct control of my character in order for something more than moderately interesting to happen, it would be nice if that were taken as a sign that better gameplay mechanics were needed rather than more cinematics.

I don't have a problem with cinematics focused on NPCs but, whenever one begins focused on my character, my reaction is usually along the lines of 'I wonder what's about to happen that they didn't think I would cooperate with, or didn't want me to be able to do at will'.

Modifié par Rubinato, 19 avril 2011 - 03:56 .

[erynnar]

JohnEpler wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Now I'd like to be a party pooper and say that the lesson "Show, don't tell", is so last century and was made due to the limitations of movies. Instead of showing the action why not play it? I think Half-Life 1 was revolutionary in this respect because it was one of the first games I played that tried to really meld the story into the gameplay. Later many games got a bit more lazy and mostly tried to show it.
You guys do tell a lot of the story by allowing us to play it, no doubt about it. But I fear the cinematic capabilities may sometimes be used as a bit of crutch instead of as a needed tool.

And that's a fair criticism. I'm of the mind that you should always try to maintain player agency. Certainly, there are moments where the compromise is going to be between 'give the player control and let them do something moderately interesting' or 'take some control away and let them do something really, really neat'.

I believe those instances should be used sparingly, though - I'm generally opposed to taking control away from the player for too long. Cinematics should support the gameplay, not replace it.

And that is a fine line to walk. As a player I prefer you let me have control with occasional showing.  But I am sorry, "show don't tell" is hardly old school...it is a classic.  If all you do is "tell", then people don't have to use their brains and brains are like muscles, they need a work out or they get weak and flabby.

Also, my brain and imagination usually come up with something better than movies, or tv, have managed to "show" me.  There are a few exceptions of course.  But rarely does visual media do as well a what my own head can come up with.


and this:

I agree with you about trying to maintain player agency, but when you
take control away from the player you're not letting them do something
really, really neat, you're letting them watch someone else do something
which the player may or may not think is really, really neat. When a
developer recognizes that they have to assume direct control of my
character in order for something more than moderately interesting to
happen, it would be nice if that were taken as a sign that better
gameplay mechanics were needed rather than more cinematics.

I don't have a problem with cinematics focused on NPCs but, whenever one
begins focused on my character, my reaction is usually along the lines
of 'I wonder what's about to happen that they didn't think I would
cooperate with, or didn't want me to be able to do at will'.

Modifié par erynnar, 19 avril 2011 - 04:40 .

[erynnar]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Although I'm not in love with ME 1&2 - I did enjoy 1 quite a bit. And for me it has the absolutely greatest "cut scene" I've ever experienced.

I'll try to recall the exact moment, but I know from the description everyone will know what I'm talking about.

It's the moment, toward the end of the game, when you escape from the Citadel. Shepard is on the bridge - he gives a speech. During that speech you have dialogue options to change the speech while it pans through your party members going about their day to day and responding to hearing your speech over the intercom. THAT is great storytelling in a video game. I feel it was "lightning in a bottle".

=====

Leliana's song cut scene is "close" - but it's not interactive. I think it would have actually been an amazing opportunity to take control of not just your character, but all the NPCs in the part. Give each of them a small series of options on how to react to Leliana's song - and, depending on your choice of reaction could change their personality slightly in the rest of the game.

=====

As for "Show Don't Tell" - I don't think it's outdated at all. Maybe outdated for someone who doesn't read books - but I think that even in video games it's the absolute most essential ingredient. I think there's some different interpretations of what "showing" is however.

To me - interacting with a storyline is "showing" me the world. Giving me cutscreens I can't do anything with is "telling" me the world. Giving me as many small choices, and at least a complex illusion of choice at the end is "showing" me my character. Making even small choices seem vapid - and totally throwing away the illusion of choice at the end of a game is "telling".

Bioshock, Halo, Borderlands, Max Payne, etc. "tell" you a world - and they're excellent games when you're ready to be "told". Even many of them have some compelling choices that allow a "show" element to the game. But RPGs can uniquely "show" you something - and I believe Dragon Age 2 failed almost completely.

And this^  Yeah taking away even my illusion of choice is "telling me."  And according to my mother, I never was good at being told how to think or act (but then again neither was she and she raised me to think for myself , bless her).

[Merced652]

Rubinato wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Now I'd like to be a party pooper and say that the lesson "Show, don't tell", is so last century and was made due to the limitations of movies. Instead of showing the action why not play it? I think Half-Life 1 was revolutionary in this respect because it was one of the first games I played that tried to really meld the story into the gameplay. Later many games got a bit more lazy and mostly tried to show it.
You guys do tell a lot of the story by allowing us to play it, no doubt about it. But I fear the cinematic capabilities may sometimes be used as a bit of crutch instead of as a needed tool.

And that's a fair criticism. I'm of the mind that you should always try to maintain player agency. Certainly, there are moments where the compromise is going to be between 'give the player control and let them do something moderately interesting' or 'take some control away and let them do something really, really neat'.

I believe those instances should be used sparingly, though - I'm generally opposed to taking control away from the player for too long. Cinematics should support the gameplay, not replace it.

I agree with you about trying to maintain player agency, but when you take control away from the player you're not letting them do something really, really neat, you're letting them watch someone else do something which the player may or may not think is really, really neat. When a developer recognizes that they have to assume direct control of my character in order for something more than moderately interesting to happen, it would be nice if that were taken as a sign that better gameplay mechanics were needed rather than more cinematics.

Agreed, either gameplay mechanics would need to change or choice interjected in to those really, really neat cut-scenes. It would've been infinitely better if at the end of origins i had the choice, based on my class, to do A, B, C, and maybe even a D depending on something like maxed friendship companion present/ talent specialization.

Nope, i picked up a generic 2h sword because its difficult/impossible to represent the weapon i was currently using, and did some neat stuff. But it wasn't very neat the second time when i did it with a class that probably didn't even habe the STR value to pick up that generic sword. This is also why murder knife will aparently never go away. Because the beloeved cut-scenes become nigh impossible to do using a weapon the character might currently have equiped. But i digress, murder knife is at least seemingly a compromise.