557 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

Tirfan wrote...

^ No! Every game has to fit in the same mold. We can't have different games catering to different people can we? That would be crazy.

Yup... its funny how you look back at interviews prior to Origins coming out and even right after with how the Doctors often stressed how they want variety in the games they make and how fans of DAO aren't necessarily ME fans and so forth.

Now it seems the paraphrase/dialogue wheel/ overblown cinematics are mandated in every single BioWare game, such that they all blur together, only separated by slapping a fantasy paint job on one, sci fi on another and Star Wars on the third. Whatever happened to trying to present the stories in different ways?

From a May 2009 IGN interview:

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?"

Modifié par Brockololly, 25 juillet 2011 - 11:09 .

[upsettingshorts]

It was marketing then, and it's marketing now.

They probably thought that stressing the different styles was an important part of their message in 2009, the same way they stress phrases like "move the franchise forward" and the word "innovations" now.  It's how they want to frame their position on the games.  Kind of like paying a ton of lip service to PC market exclusivity and then releasing your sequel with a radial menu and list inventory.  It's about managing expectations and defining the context of the discussion about your game.

Ultimately what matters is the product.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 25 juillet 2011 - 11:20 .

[Atakuma]

S Seraff wrote...

voiced although i would like to be able to modulate the pitch

If they could do it right, that would be a pretty cool feature. Unfortunately it might just end up sounding like youre character is using autotune.

[phaonica]

Brockololly wrote...

Yup... its funny how you look back at interviews prior to Origins coming out and even right after with how the Doctors often stressed how they want variety in the games they make and how fans of DAO aren't necessarily ME fans and so forth.

From a May 2009 IGN interview:

It makes me sad to read that interview, knowing that they've pretty much abandoned a style that significantly contributed to my enjoyment of DAO.

[lobi]

Those vermin infecting the games industry that do their initial training in cinema are not fitting their skillset to the genre, they are changing the genre to conform to their skillset.

[Atakuma]

lobi wrote...

Those vermin infecting the games industry that do their initial training in cinema are not fitting their skillset to the genre, they are changing the genre to conform to their skillset.

What?

[Fleapants]

^ They make railroaded games with a non-interactive cutscene every two minutes, when they should be writing movie scripts instead.

[Brockololly]

Atakuma wrote...
If they could do it right, that would be a pretty cool feature. Unfortunately it might just end up sounding like youre character is using autotune.

I seem to recall some interview prior to ME1 or after ME1 released where Casey Hudson( or some other ME person) made mention they tried doing something like that to customize the voice but it didn't work out.

phaonica wrote...
It makes me sad to read that interview, knowing that they've pretty much  abandoned a style that significantly contributed to my enjoyment of DAO.
[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie]

Yup, same here.

I don't get it really- I don't think the cinematic presentation is as big a boon as they seem to think. Especially in DA, where the engine doesn't look that pretty on a technical level when you're putting it under the stress of more cinematics. Its a damn game not a movie. Design it as such.

I just think they're hurting themselves in the long run by adopting one set presentation for all their games.

lobi wrote...
Those vermin infecting the games industry  that do their initial training in cinema are not fitting their skillset  to the genre, they are changing the genre to conform to their  skillset.

I think maybe 'vermin' is a bit strong and its not that you can't take anything from cinema to apply to games, but rather I think developers are leaning on that stuff as a major crutch that is hurting gaming and any variety in games. I can recall when cutscenes and cinematics were cool little rewards in games but they're so common place now that they're mostly unremarkable. That was my problem in DA2- almost every conversation had the camera swirling around often needlessly and then when you get to big "cinematic" moments you're pretty much numb to anything they're trying to do for dramatic effect.  And all the extra cost needed for that stuff (IMO) rarely is worth the effort as opposed to if they had used those resources elsewhere to make a better game, not a movie.

Modifié par Brockololly, 25 juillet 2011 - 11:34 .

[Faust1979]

i prefer the player character to be voiced it's more fun to hear them talk

[lobi]

Look at the state of contemporary cinema and look at current directions in gaming you will see the same craptastic philosophy applied under the guise of culture. Lots of over the top mish mash to distract from the fact that the works lack substance. The only culture being promoted in the arts at present is planned obsolesence. Less substance equals less immersion equals less replay value. Less replay value means you have to buy more games or movies to stay entertained.
Welcome to the united states of generica.

[Morroian]

lobi wrote...

Look at the state of contemporary cinema and look at current directions in gaming you will see the same craptastic philosophy applied under the guise of culture. Lots of over the top mish mash to distract from the fact that the works lack substance. The only culture being promoted in the arts at present is planned obsolesence. Less substance equals less immersion equals less replay value. Less replay value means you have to buy more games or movies to stay entertained.

Yabbut that doesn't apply to DA2, those of us who like it have replayed it multiple times. I've now got more Hawke's than Warden's.

[erynnar]

In Exile wrote...

Shazzie wrote...
Now, I've happily played games with voiced protagonists, but they were never my character.



That's interesting, because it's only the PC's with VO & custom faces (i.e. Shepard & Hawke) who have ever felt like my characters. VO gives me the right set of actions, the right type of active character, the correct script and an idea of intention & action that lets a character be under my control, instead of the control of the writer. Whereas silent VO just gives me a fixed line, and then tells me to try and guess what the intent behind that line is.



And this is why trying to please everybody is impossible, hah! Just like my reactions are so foreign to you, I am completely unable to fathom how a not only pre-scripted text line but a pre-voiced and pre-scripted line can feel remotely under your control... to me, that's the definition of 'under the control of the writer', whereas non-voiced lets me feel like I have some small control. At least, for me, when I can't hear it, my imagination can place the emphasis and tone and emotion. I don't 'guess' what the intent is, I provide it, and that's what makes the character 'mine'. With voice, I feel like I'm in interactive cinema, and I'm just sitting back and watching the movie...err, game... play out. I never get invested, because I don't feel like I'm required to.

And this is how I feel Shazzi. The writers left it to me what emphasis and tone to put. They didn't make me guess what would come out of my Warden's mouth like Hawke. And they had complete control in DA2, I had some variations on a theme that they chose for me with Hawke.

Modifié par erynnar, 26 juillet 2011 - 12:06 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

lobi wrote...

Look at the state of contemporary cinema and look at current directions in gaming you will see the same craptastic philosophy applied under the guise of culture. Lots of over the top mish mash to distract from the fact that the works lack substance. The only culture being promoted in the arts at present is planned obsolesence. Less substance equals less immersion equals less replay value. Less replay value means you have to buy more games or movies to stay entertained.
Welcome to the united states of generica.

Exact same criticism that has been leveled at art of every kind throughout history.  The difference being that when you look back, only poignant pieces remain in conversation.  The meh work has long since been forgotten by anyone without an esoteric or encyclopedic knowledge of rusty, dusty, art.  Saying one understands the value of any particular modern work to future generations is to speak and say nothing.

[phaonica]

Brockololly wrote...

I seem to recall some interview prior to ME1 or after ME1 released where Casey Hudson( or some other ME person) made mention they tried doing something like that to customize the voice but it didn't work out.

I don't play Mass Effect, but I think what they're doing with the Kinect as far as voice recognition has some potential.

I think it would be pretty badass if someday technology was able to let us talk directly to characters in the game.

I don't get it really- I don't think the cinematic presentation is as big a boon as they seem to think. Especially in DA, where the engine doesn't look that pretty on a technical level when you're putting it under the stress of more cinematics. Its a damn game not a movie. Design it as such. 

Like I said before, I'd love to see our evolving technology be used to make a game more interactive instead of less. To me, having a character speak for me makes me feel less involved.

[lobi]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

lobi wrote...

Look at the state of contemporary cinema and look at current directions in gaming you will see the same craptastic philosophy applied under the guise of culture. Lots of over the top mish mash to distract from the fact that the works lack substance. The only culture being promoted in the arts at present is planned obsolesence. Less substance equals less immersion equals less replay value. Less replay value means you have to buy more games or movies to stay entertained.
Welcome to the united states of generica.

Exact same criticism that has been leveled at art of every kind throughout history.  The difference being that when you look back, only poignant pieces remain in conversation.  The meh work has long since been forgotten by anyone without an esoteric or encyclopedic knowledge of rusty, dusty, art.  Saying one understands the value of any particular modern work to future generations is to speak and say nothing.

Only the contemporarys of contemporary art can fully judge the value of said art. It is not always the most pertanant that survives to become part of art history. Sometimes the survival of a piece is reliant on who owned said piece or who made it and the actual work is at best a pedestrian example of the artist in questions output or the genre to which it belongs.

Modifié par lobi, 26 juillet 2011 - 12:02 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

lobi wrote...

Only the contemporarys of contemporary art can fully judge the value of said art. It is not always the most pertanant that survives to become part of art history. Sometimes the survival of a piece is reliant on who owned said piece or who made it and the actual work is at best a pedestrian example of the artist in questions output or the genre to which it belongs.

Zeitgeist washes off.  Art endures.  An empty work perfectly preserved for a thousand years still celebrates nothing.  Real art left in ruins after a thousand years later is still real art.  The decision is made by those who look back on it.  If they feel what the first audience felt, or if they see only a tchotchke bauble.

[Siansonea]

I prefer voiced. I don't self-insert as the player character. An array of voices would be better than just one per gender though.

[lobi]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

lobi wrote...

Only the contemporarys of contemporary art can fully judge the value of said art. It is not always the most pertanant that survives to become part of art history. Sometimes the survival of a piece is reliant on who owned said piece or who made it and the actual work is at best a pedestrian example of the artist in questions output or the genre to which it belongs.

Zeitgeist washes off.  Art endures.  An empty work perfectly preserved for a thousand years still celebrates nothing.  Real art left in ruins after a thousand years later is still real art.  The decision is made by those who look back on it.  If they feel what the first audience felt, or if they see only a tchotchke bauble.

Is it only 'real art' because it appeals to the current aesthetic of those that find it? Or is it a mere archeological curio for which all understanding of it's intended meaning is lost and only romanticism gives it value.

[erynnar]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

lobi wrote...

Only the contemporarys of contemporary art can fully judge the value of said art. It is not always the most pertanant that survives to become part of art history. Sometimes the survival of a piece is reliant on who owned said piece or who made it and the actual work is at best a pedestrian example of the artist in questions output or the genre to which it belongs.

Zeitgeist washes off.  Art endures.  An empty work perfectly preserved for a thousand years still celebrates nothing.  Real art left in ruins after a thousand years later is still real art.  The decision is made by those who look back on it.  If they feel what the first audience felt, or if they see only a tchotchke bauble.

Please, don't ever use the word Zeitgeist again .

 And as someone who took years of art school and years of art history, your full of crap. Art doesn't endure because it evokes the same feelings of the people felt back when it was created.

That is complete twaddle. We have no idea what the audiences of those cave murals felt, nor the wall paintings of Pompeii. No one in the future will know what people felt when they looked at soup cans in differnt colors.  Van Gogh sold nary a painting when he was alive.

Again, twaddle.

Modifié par erynnar, 26 juillet 2011 - 12:45 .

[lobi]

Where does true art exist. On the tip of the artists brush or in the mind of the viewer of the created peice. Physical Art exists to provide a material connection to the metaphysical plane of our imaginations. A work of art provides a framework for our minds to apply imagination. The statement a work of art makes is how it guides the imagination toward a certain conclusion. The success or failure of a work depends on how effectivly it does this. A work that leaves too little to the imagination tends to fail if it's intention is to have the viewer use their imagination. Such as overly long descriptions of mundane events in literature or the Uncanny valley in digital works.

Modifié par lobi, 26 juillet 2011 - 12:51 .

[ebevan91]

Voiced.

[lobi]

silent.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

lobi wrote...

Is it only 'real art' because it appeals to the current aesthetic of those that find it? Or is it a mere archeological curio for which all understanding of it's intended meaning is lost and only romanticism gives it value.

Art endures.

[SilentK]

Siansonea II wrote...

I prefer voiced. I don't self-insert as the player character. An array of voices would be better than just one per gender though.

Hmm... the different tones helped me in that respect   =)     I agree it would be great to have several voices to choose from but I guess that that won't happen anytime soon.

[In Exile]

phaonica wrote...
I only barely acknowledge that the warden is even a "character". I see the warden as an in-game extension of myself, and NPCs react to what I imagine, with the help of the in game dialog lines to get my intention across.

I tried that, but that mode broke down at Ostagar. I wouldn't stay in Ferelden - I would write off the country and break for Orlais and the Grey Wardens there. I can't really see a proper self-insert in games as there just isn't enough freedom of choice in a game to allow for a self-insert. 

Plot-wise, DA2 actually lets me do a much better self-insert, insofar as I am the "not getting involved" type, and DA2 forces you into that for every Act interlude and for the Act III climax (since another character actually drives the plot there).

I don't feel like I need to know *how* Hawke is sarcastic or diplomatic. If I choose a sarcastic tone from a list of tone indicator icons, and the NPC I'm speaking to responds in a way that validates that I was sarcastic, the actual voiced line does not need to exist, for me, because in my head, I'll fill in how the line was delivered. 

The bold is the issue for me. What does it mean to validate the sarcas

 To me, it doesn't doesn't seem like Voice is what is required in order to avoiding misunderstandings, but rather having more control over the delivered tone is all that is required. I still think that Voice is not required to indicate tone.

VO lets you know exactly how a line is delivered. It removes 100% of the ambiguity. And VO is consistent, so you know what it means for that VO to be diplomatic or sarcastic. 

The only possible control would be to see the reaction of the character, because when I speak, I speak to cause a particular behaviour, belief or reaction. I speak for a purpose, and the only way I could have control, so to speak, is to know what it is my character is going to try to cause.

That's not to say I believe I am right 100% of the time. But I know the behaviour. So to me, having to imagine the behaviour doesn't make sense, because it is that behaviour that explains the reaction of the NPC. It simply isn't the case that two different behaviours can cause the same reaction in the same person.

It is possible to write an NPC reaction that accounts for different tones. For example, if an NPC is mad at you, and you say something like... "I know what I'm doing." You can say it like , <_<,,,, and the NPC could respond <_< no matter what and it would make sense. It is possible to write reactions in such a way that account for various tone deliveries from a single line.

No, it wouldn't. The only possible way it could make sense if is you write the character from the outset as: "Responds <_< to all possible interaction of this type." But that just means you've decided to create shallow characters.