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!
Apart from the obvious ones I felt took too much away control wise, such as race options (there was no reason imho why the champion of Kirkwall couldn't of been an Elf or Dwarf even a Qunari), took too much away from the appearance customisation for me for companions (personal preference only). But also the time skips took way too much away from the continuality of story for me, the start of game took away any bonds being formed with the family by not giving them any background prior to kill them off one by one. The fact they were killed off one by one regardless of your actions (2 out of 3).
The ending where you removed the control by making Anders do what he did even if you never helped him or did help him, then gave us three options good/diplomatic/bad (if picked diplomatic or 1/3 of the choices, you got repeat of same phrase previously spoken and then push the same choices again without the middle option). You took away the quality of interaction between yourself the player and the companions and replaced with timed quests a couple for each companion.
The dialogue system itself where you took away the option of think before speak approach where you say what want to say and replaced with guess what Hawke will say based off an emoticon, this removed player control (also seporate issue of wasn't a UI based on fantasy world styling it felt like a scifi bubble from both UI and font, styling point of view but thats a general gripe that bright beat'em up style colours of the UI/scifi bubble didn't fit with a fantasy game form). Even the Arishok baby sit quest where you were forced to do it removing even after or the result the ability to take revenge instead making us let her walk out regardless if we actual choose the option saying we want to kill her for her actions.
The whole game is based on concepts of removing the players control, well congratulations it worked but the result is my Hawke (of which I play first person in RPG as opposed to third person) ended up me thinking I have no control this fly on the wall game left me feeling I watched someone else in contrast to almost all other recent games you have made which had opposite effect (personally).
Muzyka and Zeschuk say the difference in the two games' dialogue systems is one of perspective, literally. After fielding questions about Dragon Age's approach at GDC 2009 in San Francisco earlier this year, the two came to the conclusion that the reason Mass Effect's dialogue system doesn't work well with Dragon Age (they tried it) is because the latter is first-person and the former is third-person. Change perspectives, and the entire game changes with it.
In Mass Effect, a third-person game, you take a character and mold them into a new person, directing the character rather than fully inhabiting her or him. As you play, you're able to watch that directed person act in the game, speaking with the voice you have helped shape. But in Dragon Age, you don't watch the conversation because you are the conversation. After the success of Mass Effect, Muzyka and Zeschuk say they thought about applying the dialogue system to all their games but soon realized that different experiences call for different approaches.
"We talked about this for months, and we did all kinds of analysis," says Zeschuk. "Really we see it as a step sideways. It's actually about presenting different flavors of games."
In part, the flavor difference between Mass Effect and Dragon Age is one of artistic approach (among many other factors). The vision for Mass Effect was intensely cinematic, from the depth-of-field effect in conversations to the camera angles, music and dramatic effect of the on-screen actions of your character. In Mass Effect, you tell Shepard to do something, and then you watch him or her act.
"It's that little bit of surprise because you just don't feel like you're in complete control of it, whereas in Dragon Age, you are that character. That is you. You're doing it. Everything is you," says Zeschuk.
It's that subtle but distinct difference that makes Mass Effect's dialogue system a poor fit for Dragon Age: Origins, Muzyka and Zeschuk say, and it's a choice they think players will find natural when they finally get behind the controls. Additionally, the Dragon Age system, because it's not tied to a relatively small graphic with a maximum of five or six choices, can offer far more conversation possibilities than its third-person cousin.
"For those four to six choices you get, there are probably four to six times more you don't see that would be totally different depending on your origin choice, your choices up to that point in the game, whether you're male or female, and a variety of other things," says Muzyka. "It's about the role you're playing. Are you playing a set role, or are you playing a role you've defined yourself?"
Sums up the changes you took had an effect both Ray and Greg pointed too in that interview. The end result turned out just like they thought it would (for me). Now I don't know what made them switch stances for DA2 (maybe you drugged them or EA had some influence) but they were spot on with regard to the effect it would have by changing the concepts and methods (for DA2 had this effect on me).
Even in ME2 the added effect of allowing the interaction or player control to continue in the way of interupts worked well enough to give some more control to a small extent but it doesn't change the fact the whole system did not feel fantasy setting based for me.
Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 avril 2011 - 04:00 .
Retour en haut
