291 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

JohnEpler wrote...

...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'.

Why can't the player control example you mentioned be really, really neat instead of settling for moderately interesting without the need to take away the player control?

Improve your skills in one aspect instead of the need to fill the void with another.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 avril 2011 - 04:11 .

[Bostur]

I sometimes get the feeling that game developers wants their games to be played in a very specific way, which when you think of it is quite contrary to the qualities of the medium.

I think there is an element of wishing it to be a movie. Movie producers don't control our perception of a movie, but they do control the visuals very accurately. Attempting to do the same in a game is bound to result in a tradeoff of less interactivity.
(I can't help to feel I'm stating something incredibly obvious just like the Jimquisition video I linked, but since game developers sometimes seems to miss the point in this regard, maybe its needed)
When DA2 was criticized for less customization options for companions, Mike Laidlaw answered to the effect that he didn't like the look of Morrigan in heavy armor. He even refered to some specific screenshots he had seen. Well maybe some of those people making the screenshots thought it was a really cool thing to do.

Of course games need an intention and some structure. Otherwise they become The Sims  style sandboxes, which are examples of worthwhile software but not really games in the traditional sense. But if players can work within a balanced ruleset and still get wacky visual results of their own choice, isn't that a great thing?

On a side note, I think Morrigan looks badass in plate armor.


One of the things that Jim Sterling said that I liked the most was. "If games can get rid of the inferiority complex, they can become a little bit more than movies".

[Medhia Nox]

Since "really, really neat" is subjective - I'd rather you give me control always.

[Doyle41]

I personally don't watch movies. The box office, the "Home Box Office", and Red Box would go out of business if it were to depend on my dollar. I prefer to read or play games. Games can allow you to interact with a story or cinematics all at one time. It provides a far more stimulating experience. Deciding the outcome is even better.

[Maria Caliban]

Bostur wrote...

I sometimes get the feeling that game developers wants their games to be played in a very specific way, which when you think of it is quite contrary to the qualities of the medium.

I disagree.

In fact, many games are base on the idea that there are right ways and wrong ways to play, and playing the wrong way will lead to losing. Chess is an excellent example of this. There are a large variety of moves, but if you just play however you feel like it, you'll lose against anyone with skill.

[Lord Phoebus]

Ultimately video games have an edge over movies, an additional degree of freedom if you will, called interactivity. It's something that video game manufacturers seem to have forgotten that, unlike movies, you can tell a non-linear story using video games. There are a few games that have tried to do this though I don't think any have completely suceeded, I think the best of the games that have tried to let the player's decisions shape the final outcome are Planescape: Torment, Deus Ex and Fallout: New Vegas. Even though in all these games the final showdown occurs at the same location, you have choices that change the nature of that showdown and its results (not only for the character, but for the world around them in the case of the latter two). I think video game makers have to stop trying to out hollywood hollywood and tell the stories that hollywood can't.

[Bostur]

On the matter of taking away control, sometimes events in a story needs to happen in a certain way to bring it forward. Those circumstances are by nature pre-determined. In DA:O Ostagar needs to fall for instance. Letting the player be part of an event like that works against the story, because its almost impossible to create the illusion that player actions will influence the events. It works better as DAO did to put the player on a bit of a sidetrack to do some other heroic deed.


Regarding telling or showing, i see 3 different ways to do it. None of them universally superior, they all have advantages and disadvantages depending on the context:

Imagine the story of a battle in a city.

- Telling the story:
(Camera panning over some old ruins), narrator: "200 years ago the forces of good and evil clashed in a mighty battle"

- Showing the story:
(Camera showing a battle scene of monsters and armies fighting in the streets)

- Doing the story:
(The player controls a soldier being cut of from the rest of his unit, 4 monsters have him cornered in an alley preparing to deliver the killing blow)

The third example is a unique tool that only the interactivity of games allow, which puts it apart from books and movies.

[Merced652]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Bostur wrote...

I sometimes get the feeling that game developers wants their games to be played in a very specific way, which when you think of it is quite contrary to the qualities of the medium.

I disagree.

In fact, many games are base on the idea that there are right ways and wrong ways to play, and playing the wrong way will lead to losing. Chess is an excellent example of this. There are a large variety of moves, but if you just play however you feel like it, you'll lose against anyone with skill.

So doesn't that preclude games from ever actually being roleplaying games?:innocent:

[Bostur]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Bostur wrote...

I sometimes get the feeling that game developers wants their games to be played in a very specific way, which when you think of it is quite contrary to the qualities of the medium.

I disagree.

In fact, many games are base on the idea that there are right ways and wrong ways to play, and playing the wrong way will lead to losing. Chess is an excellent example of this. There are a large variety of moves, but if you just play however you feel like it, you'll lose against anyone with skill.

I definately agree, some aspects are so important that they can't be changed. If you move the pieces in a game of chess so the result looks the prettiest contrary to the rules, well then it isn't chess anymore. Thats what I meant with my comparison to "The Sims", its not a game anymore.
But some things can change, you can change the color of the pieces and it would still be a game of chess. There is also some freedom in the shape of the pieces. I know for a fact that if a Rook is missing, its perfectly possible to use a salt shaker and still play a good game of Chess.

Video games often have more freedom in this regard, since the rulesets used are usually more complex.

[TheMadCat]

Lord Phoebus wrote...

Ultimately video games have an edge over movies, an additional degree of freedom if you will, called interactivity. It's something that video game manufacturers seem to have forgotten that, unlike movies, you can tell a non-linear story using video games. There are a few games that have tried to do this though I don't think any have completely suceeded, I think the best of the games that have tried to let the player's decisions shape the final outcome are Planescape: Torment, Deus Ex and Fallout: New Vegas. Even though in all these games the final showdown occurs at the same location, you have choices that change the nature of that showdown and its results (not only for the character, but for the world around them in the case of the latter two). I think video game makers have to stop trying to out hollywood hollywood and tell the stories that hollywood can't.

I don't consider so much an edge as I do a trade off. The amount of choice and interactiveness that comes with story centric games comes with the loss of quality of story, or at the very least seems to at the surface. Giving the player so much control and freedom over the main character creates a different type of bond then we're used to experiencing in cinema and literature but it also detracts from what the writers are capable of portraying. The interactive medium comes with the fundamental flaw that the interactive part must always take precedent and that unfortunately means sacrifices must and will be made to the story be it intentional or not.

This is partly why even the greatest of video game stories fall short and pale in comparison to the classic stories found in cinema and literature.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 19 avril 2011 - 05:28 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Bostur - see I consider your "Doing the Story" to be the only real "show".

Just because something is visual - doesn't mean it's "showing" you.

====

Tell: "She was sad he was leaving"

Show: "She watched him go from the second story window. Her body recoiled at the slamming of the car door. She had been close enough to the window that a fog had crawled across the glass from her breath. Slowly she traced two eyes and a mouth curled into a smile. Through this mask of fog and glass, she watched the car steal away into the distance. Perspiration streaked down the fog mask like tears. Even her mask could not belie her true emotions."

((Don't bother critiquing the quality - it's just a 2 minute example.))

=====

Showing lets you draw a picture with detail.

Telling deprives you of any real imagery.

I think visually showing you the battle is just another form of telling.
===

Your "Doing It Example" is a game's way of showing - just opinion of course.

[Dragoonlordz]

I like to 'play' my games, 'watch' my movies, 'read' my books.

[Medhia Nox]

I think a good game is something you: "Play, Watch and Read" actually.

[Warheadz]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I think a good game is something you: "Play, Watch and Read" actually.

Isn't reading a skill that your "watching" utilizes? I mean you cannot read the usual text without watching it. And the current form of playing pretty much requires that you have eyes and you know how to use them.

Unless you mean playing instruments.

Modifié par Warheadz, 19 avril 2011 - 02:09 .

[Dragoonlordz]

I simplified it down to the most basic level, but you are free to analyse it to your hearts content.

I don't buy games for the 'purpose' of watching or reading.

Feel free to analyse that too if like.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 avril 2011 - 02:14 .

[Warheadz]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I simplified it down to the most basic level, but you are free to analyse it to your hearts content.

You suck for streamlining dumbing down your comment. What are you trying to do, get your part of the mass market? HUH??

[AlexXIV]

I think movies which require you to actively do something would be just as annoying as games that don't let you do anything. So there are seperate motivations to either watch a movie or to play a game. That games get more cinematic is probably due to progress in the hardware industry. I mean why would you do without eye candy if you can have it?

Modifié par AlexXIV, 19 avril 2011 - 02:22 .

[Medhia Nox]

I wasn't trying to refute Dragoonlordz in any way - nor was I trying to be cheeky.

Just saying that good games combine a lot of different traits.

I certainly wouldn't want all text - or all cinematic - but good beginning/end cutscenes can really add to the game, as well as text within the game like books, or item descriptions, etc.

So while playing - I think a dash of "watch", and a pinch of "read" enhance the medium.

[John Epler]

I've actually got a question for you guys - what scenes in DA2 did you feel took too much control away from you as a player? We've actually taken things out of scenes before because we felt that some players might look at it and say 'Hey, my Hawke would never do that!' so I'm interested in hearing where you felt we missed the mark in DA2. The more specific the examples, the better!

[MorrigansLove]

JohnEpler wrote...

I've actually got a question for you guys - what scenes in DA2 did you feel took too much control away from you as a player? We've actually taken things out of scenes before because we felt that some players might look at it and say 'Hey, my Hawke would never do that!' so I'm interested in hearing where you felt we missed the mark in DA2. The more specific the examples, the better!

Every family death sequence.

[mesmerizedish]

JohnEpler wrote...

I've actually got a question for you guys - what scenes in DA2 did you feel took too much control away from you as a player? We've actually taken things out of scenes before because we felt that some players might look at it and say 'Hey, my Hawke would never do that!' so I'm interested in hearing where you felt we missed the mark in DA2. The more specific the examples, the better!

The scene where Huon kills his wife is the most grievous offender for me.

What I LOVE is when a "really cool and awesome" sequence is directed via dialogue. Rescuing Feynriel and throwing the murderknife in the kidnapper's eye was a crowning moment of awesome for my character.

[Warheadz]

Really can't answer that, Epler, since Hawke didn't feel like my character at any point. It felt like an entity whose mind I gave suggestions.

[Siansonea]

I think that guy had some good points, but his presentation needs work. He just comes across as angry, and it seems excessive. And get rid of the mirrored sunglasses. I don't get why people in videos like this wear sunglasses that completely obscure their eyes. Why would you deprive your audience from your most effective communication tool, eye contact? I actually didn't find fault with most of what he said, but I thought it was excessively vitriolic and didn't at all address the positive aspects of film presentation that have been incorporated in the gaming experience. It sounds like he wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I think that would be a huge mistake.

[Marionetten]

JohnEpler wrote...

I've actually got a question for you guys - what scenes in DA2 did you feel took too much control away from you as a player? We've actually taken things out of scenes before because we felt that some players might look at it and say 'Hey, my Hawke would never do that!' so I'm interested in hearing where you felt we missed the mark in DA2. The more specific the examples, the better!

Every single scene in which Hawke said something about the Maker. Yes, I realize it's a common expression in Thedas but it still felt rather out of place when you're playing as an apostate blood mage who utterly despises the chantry. I also didn't enjoy how there was no option to show support for blood magic. Hawke seemed to be diametrically opposed to the use of it outside of a few select scenes involving Merrill.

Modifié par Marionetten, 19 avril 2011 - 03:12 .

[AkiKishi]

JohnEpler wrote...

I've actually got a question for you guys - what scenes in DA2 did you feel took too much control away from you as a player? We've actually taken things out of scenes before because we felt that some players might look at it and say 'Hey, my Hawke would never do that!' so I'm interested in hearing where you felt we missed the mark in DA2. The more specific the examples, the better!

Yes. Honestly you made us spectators I really missed the interupts of ME2.

I really like JRPGs but I don't like the JRPG feeling when I am supposed to be the character. I don't know whether it's fair to blame the cinematics I thought they were well done, or the story for having such a fixed outcome.

Examples. Why do I stand there like a lemon while X charges an Ogre
Why do I stand there like a lemon while X prepares his nuke spell.

Most jaring though is meeting people you have never actually met before and knowing them.

I think this deserves a sticky under it's own subject.