Hey folks.
So I've been wanting to do this topic for a while, but I felt it might be best if I waited until Legacy had launched and percolated for a bit before doing so. Mostly because I feel that Legacy better represents the state of cinematics in Eclipse (and the Dragon Age franchise) than DA2 did, if for no other reason than those of us who worked on DA2 have had a chance to grow into our roles a little more.
With that in mind, I wanted to get some discussion and feedback going from the community, specifically in regards to the cinematics of DA2 and its DLC. What kind of feedback? Well, there are a few questions/comments that have come up that I'd like to delve into a little bit more.
1) Moments where you felt like control was taken away from you by the cinematics. Were there moments where you felt 'hey, that's not something my Hawke would ever do!' that were not writing related. I realize this can be a bit odd of a concept to grasp, so let me reiterate - times where, while the lines and intent of the writing wasn't necessarily a problem, but in the context of the scene your character did something or had a particular expression that just took you out of the moment?
2) Things you wanted to see more of. We've gotten some good feedback from you guys about the 5 different killing blows at the end of Legacy, and we'd definitely like to do more of that (though they may not always be quite as unique as those five, the idea that each weapon-type gets its own little flair is something we believe adds to the experience). But stuff like that.
3) Moments where you noticed a lack of/opportunities for ambient storytelling. What's ambient storytelling? Glad you ask! It's those times where stuff happens around you while you're walking around, and it helps tell the story. Clear as mud. More specifically, it's those little touches like when you see guards patrolling on a wall, or a smith in a forge moving from his anvil and back again. This is something we'd like to push more in the future, and examples where you guys thought to yourself 'hey, why is X not happening?' would be useful. This last point is a tricky one - engine limitations exist. But still. That's our problem, not yours.
But please, don't limit yourself to these particular points. Anything and everything cinematics related would be useful to hear, as we want to push ourselves on future projects, and one way of doing that is to find out from you guys what worked, what didn't and what you think we could add to the process in the future.
Cinematics and interactive storytelling [Discuss away!]
Débuté par
John Epler
, août 04 2011 06:44
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 10 août 2011 - 06:55
John Epler
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 3 390 messages
Just wanted to let you guys know that I'm reading this thread, and there's some really good feedback thus far 
Thanks!
Will try and answer in more depth tomorrow, as today was a little busier than expected.
Thanks!Will try and answer in more depth tomorrow, as today was a little busier than expected.
#3
Posté 11 août 2011 - 05:37
John Epler
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 3 390 messages
Well, as to the Bartrand thing - I can cop to that. Totally my fault.
Explanation? Why, certainly.
Initially, the scene was supposed to be (as written), Varric remarks on the idol while the rest of the party is examining the other parts of the room, and Bartrand picks it up. Then, as the party is exploring the rest of the area, Bartrand quietly and carefully backs out before locking everyone in. This would have provided A) a good reason for Bartrand to be the first one strongly affected by the idol, and
avoided putting Hawke in a situation where he's doing something that's causing the player to rage at the screen and shout 'WHAT ARE YOU DOING YOU IDIOT? DON'T GIVE THAT AWAY'.
Unfortunately, due to a number of factors (my relative inexperience as it was my first full project in Cinematic Design being a notable one, sadly), I never did get the animations to support this. So what you saw was not what the scene was intended to look like. You may have noticed how poorly the throw-and-catch looked, for example. That is because at that point, we didn't have much for a 'throw object' animation. It was pieced together through the use of about a half dozen other animations, and camera trickery made it look passable.
But you are correct in saying that it's an example of a cutscene where the player isn't given much agency. While I think there is some distinction that should be made between diagetic and non-diagetic information (to steal an audio term - diagetic means existing as part of the same narrative sphere as everyone else in the film/game, whereas non-diagetic means that it is specific to the audience and not intended to be known by the people participating in the narrative). I think it's okay to show -some- non-diagetic information to the player, though I do think it needs to be used sparingly and with an acknowledgment that that's what's being done at that particular juncture.
However, that's a slightly different tangent altogether, although I think it's a valid one.
Explanation? Why, certainly.
Initially, the scene was supposed to be (as written), Varric remarks on the idol while the rest of the party is examining the other parts of the room, and Bartrand picks it up. Then, as the party is exploring the rest of the area, Bartrand quietly and carefully backs out before locking everyone in. This would have provided A) a good reason for Bartrand to be the first one strongly affected by the idol, and
avoided putting Hawke in a situation where he's doing something that's causing the player to rage at the screen and shout 'WHAT ARE YOU DOING YOU IDIOT? DON'T GIVE THAT AWAY'.Unfortunately, due to a number of factors (my relative inexperience as it was my first full project in Cinematic Design being a notable one, sadly), I never did get the animations to support this. So what you saw was not what the scene was intended to look like. You may have noticed how poorly the throw-and-catch looked, for example. That is because at that point, we didn't have much for a 'throw object' animation. It was pieced together through the use of about a half dozen other animations, and camera trickery made it look passable.
But you are correct in saying that it's an example of a cutscene where the player isn't given much agency. While I think there is some distinction that should be made between diagetic and non-diagetic information (to steal an audio term - diagetic means existing as part of the same narrative sphere as everyone else in the film/game, whereas non-diagetic means that it is specific to the audience and not intended to be known by the people participating in the narrative). I think it's okay to show -some- non-diagetic information to the player, though I do think it needs to be used sparingly and with an acknowledgment that that's what's being done at that particular juncture.
However, that's a slightly different tangent altogether, although I think it's a valid one.
#4
Posté 15 août 2011 - 07:20
John Epler
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 3 390 messages
Alrighty. Since it's Sunday evening, I'm suffering from mild insomnia (as well as a terrible case of - well, whatever the opposite of writer's block is) and I'm off for a week so I don't need to worry about getting up early for work tomorrow - I thought I'd dive in and address some of the excellent comments and points that have been brought up here. So I've got some notes, a glass of scotch, and, well - be forewarned that this is going to get a little lengthy. Ahem. Anyways, let's get started. First off, let's address the more general points.
Something I'm seeing repeated a fair bit in this thread is that you guys really don't like it when Hawke is a passive observer in a scene where, by all rights, he should be an active participant - or, at the very least, be given a reason as to why he's a passive observer. I've addressed the Thrask example before, but I think it's a particularly good example (and I worked on it myself, so I can trash it without making anyone feel bad
) where the writing left things ambiguous, and then the cinematics made Hawke seem rather impotent. The reason for this, I think, wasn't so much that Hawke didn't stop Grace as that there was a lengthy space there where Grace was doing her blood magic thing where Hawke -could- have intervened, but instead just stood there.
I feel that a good compromise would've been a scene of Hawke trying to do something (the something being left ambiguous to allow for those who wouldn't necessarily stop Grace to not see too much of a break in character), and then being stopped by outside forces - either Grace throws up a barrier, or a group of Templars rush the player/party while Grace acts. Something to keep the player character an active participant in the conversation. And this is a fair criticism, and something I feel we know we need to improve.
Another point I'm seeing (and this one seems to be a bit more divided) is Hawke showing emotion. And this is a sticky one, really. There's a fine line between 'violating player agency' and 'woodenly emotionless'. I will say that we've tried to do a little more with personality-specific reactions in more recent content, and while I doubt we'll ever hit a point that everyone's happy with, FaceFX is something we're constantly trying to improve. Because there's so much that an expression can add, above and beyond the gestures. Again, though - as soon as you give the player an expression beyond that associated with a particular line that -they- choose, you're taking away agency. Which is something you have to do -very- carefully. It's not an easy choice to make.
In the end, though, it's a case-by-case decision. There are times where I chose to avoid showing a reaction rather than show a reaction that some players might consider inappropriate to their particular Hawke. There are other times, though, where I felt that it was rather more appropriate to show at least -some- emotion for the character and risk that there would be people who thought it didn't really suit their Hawke. The last shot of the conversation in the Deep Roads where you have to kill your own sibling. Regardless of your personality, Hawke never looks happy at the end of that. I kept the grief to a minimum in his facial expression, but I still felt that it was appropriate to show at least a little sadness. What the reason for that grief was, well, that was up to the player. But that's a call I'm still 100% comfortable with having made. In the end, it won't always be perfect, but agency is a valid concern and one we try to keep in mind as much as possible.
Now the big one - ambient storytelling. And this is something that I am very, very focused on. Ambient storytelling is a big one for me. It's both A) a relatively inexpensive way of telling a story and a great way of taking advantage of the fact that gaming is an interactive storytelling medium, rather than an entirely passive one. I'd love to take a lot of the work out of conversations and load it into the area. I mentioned this in a thread about the Codex, and I feel like it bears repeating - everything narrative has more impact when you actually see it.
I talk about it often enough that I've been told I need a jar to toss a quarter into every time I mention it, but STALKER is a game that has absolutely incredible ambient storytelling. 95% of the game's story is told through the environment and the interactions of creatures & characters. Heck, there were NPCs in STALKER that I became incredibly attached to despite them having a total of about five lines of dialogue, simply because the ambient storytelling had taught me everything I needed to know about their character.
I think we made some strides in this area with Legacy, and I feel that it's something we are improving on. But it needs to be at the front of our mind, because as was mentioned in some of the comments - even in Legacy, there was a disconnect between 'cinematics' and 'rest of the game'. Which is something we need to be aware of, as I think that the game needs to be informed by the narrative in all aspects, as opposed to just the 'traditional' ones.
This is getting a little lengthier than expected, and my insomnia is starting to give way to exhaustion, so I'm going to stop it here. Hopefully I'll be able to address specific points in greater detail this week, but I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who's participated already. It can be difficult to see exactly what needs doing, sometimes, but having those people who actually -experience- the content as a consumer giving feedback is invaluable, and incredibly useful. So thanks again!
Something I'm seeing repeated a fair bit in this thread is that you guys really don't like it when Hawke is a passive observer in a scene where, by all rights, he should be an active participant - or, at the very least, be given a reason as to why he's a passive observer. I've addressed the Thrask example before, but I think it's a particularly good example (and I worked on it myself, so I can trash it without making anyone feel bad
) where the writing left things ambiguous, and then the cinematics made Hawke seem rather impotent. The reason for this, I think, wasn't so much that Hawke didn't stop Grace as that there was a lengthy space there where Grace was doing her blood magic thing where Hawke -could- have intervened, but instead just stood there.I feel that a good compromise would've been a scene of Hawke trying to do something (the something being left ambiguous to allow for those who wouldn't necessarily stop Grace to not see too much of a break in character), and then being stopped by outside forces - either Grace throws up a barrier, or a group of Templars rush the player/party while Grace acts. Something to keep the player character an active participant in the conversation. And this is a fair criticism, and something I feel we know we need to improve.
Another point I'm seeing (and this one seems to be a bit more divided) is Hawke showing emotion. And this is a sticky one, really. There's a fine line between 'violating player agency' and 'woodenly emotionless'. I will say that we've tried to do a little more with personality-specific reactions in more recent content, and while I doubt we'll ever hit a point that everyone's happy with, FaceFX is something we're constantly trying to improve. Because there's so much that an expression can add, above and beyond the gestures. Again, though - as soon as you give the player an expression beyond that associated with a particular line that -they- choose, you're taking away agency. Which is something you have to do -very- carefully. It's not an easy choice to make.
In the end, though, it's a case-by-case decision. There are times where I chose to avoid showing a reaction rather than show a reaction that some players might consider inappropriate to their particular Hawke. There are other times, though, where I felt that it was rather more appropriate to show at least -some- emotion for the character and risk that there would be people who thought it didn't really suit their Hawke. The last shot of the conversation in the Deep Roads where you have to kill your own sibling. Regardless of your personality, Hawke never looks happy at the end of that. I kept the grief to a minimum in his facial expression, but I still felt that it was appropriate to show at least a little sadness. What the reason for that grief was, well, that was up to the player. But that's a call I'm still 100% comfortable with having made. In the end, it won't always be perfect, but agency is a valid concern and one we try to keep in mind as much as possible.
Now the big one - ambient storytelling. And this is something that I am very, very focused on. Ambient storytelling is a big one for me. It's both A) a relatively inexpensive way of telling a story and
a great way of taking advantage of the fact that gaming is an interactive storytelling medium, rather than an entirely passive one. I'd love to take a lot of the work out of conversations and load it into the area. I mentioned this in a thread about the Codex, and I feel like it bears repeating - everything narrative has more impact when you actually see it.I talk about it often enough that I've been told I need a jar to toss a quarter into every time I mention it, but STALKER is a game that has absolutely incredible ambient storytelling. 95% of the game's story is told through the environment and the interactions of creatures & characters. Heck, there were NPCs in STALKER that I became incredibly attached to despite them having a total of about five lines of dialogue, simply because the ambient storytelling had taught me everything I needed to know about their character.
I think we made some strides in this area with Legacy, and I feel that it's something we are improving on. But it needs to be at the front of our mind, because as was mentioned in some of the comments - even in Legacy, there was a disconnect between 'cinematics' and 'rest of the game'. Which is something we need to be aware of, as I think that the game needs to be informed by the narrative in all aspects, as opposed to just the 'traditional' ones.
This is getting a little lengthier than expected, and my insomnia is starting to give way to exhaustion, so I'm going to stop it here. Hopefully I'll be able to address specific points in greater detail this week, but I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who's participated already. It can be difficult to see exactly what needs doing, sometimes, but having those people who actually -experience- the content as a consumer giving feedback is invaluable, and incredibly useful. So thanks again!
#5
Posté 26 août 2011 - 05:13
John Epler
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 3 390 messages
Just a quick note that I'm still reading this thread! Haven't replied in a bit due to being fairly busy as of late, but I'm taking all the feedback here to heart with the aim of developing some very specific plans in order to address the most notable concerns. I likely won't be able to share the specifics with you guys (for obvious reasons), but I'll try and get another response up soonish.
#6
Posté 13 octobre 2011 - 02:30
John Epler
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 3 390 messages
Specific to that line - the expression I was going for was less dislike as it was 'resigned incredulity'. Less to do with romancing the Duke's son (the player makes that face whether male or female) and more to do with Tallis' plan changing. Yet again. For the fourth time.
But I can understand why someone might get the other impression, and I'm sorry it came across that way!
But I can understand why someone might get the other impression, and I'm sorry it came across that way!
#7
Posté 29 novembre 2011 - 04:35
John Epler
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 3 390 messages
Just wanted to reply and thank everyone for the good feedback! It's definitely being taken into consideration, and as mentioned, we've got some ideas as to how to address some of it. How vague can I be? Apparently, very.
#8
Posté 29 novembre 2011 - 04:48
John Epler
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 3 390 messages
AlexXIV wrote...
No kidding ...
What can I say. I'm well practiced.
#9
Posté 08 mars 2012 - 08:38
John Epler
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 3 390 messages
ianvillan wrote...
This is probably not your department but I want to mention the Fade sequence, In dragonage 2 the Fade was the templar halls which was kind of dissapointing.
I would like the fade to be a place of otherness that is totaly different from the normal world. in my opinion it should be something that is scary and confusing for the character.
Yeah, we're aware of how people felt about the Fade, and I can say that there's an understanding that we could have handled it better. So this is an entirely fair point!
#10
Posté 14 mars 2012 - 05:13
John Epler
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 3 390 messages
The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
ianvillan wrote...
This is probably not your department but I want to mention the Fade sequence, In dragonage 2 the Fade was the templar halls which was kind of dissapointing.
I would like the fade to be a place of otherness that is totaly different from the normal world. in my opinion it should be something that is scary and confusing for the character.
Well, you have to understand that the demonic spirits of the Fade seek to emulate the mortal world. So it's going to look something like the mortal world, if only a heavily twisted and not very accurate portrayal. So I can agree that seeing an exact replica of the Templar Hall was a bit.... odd, but you also shouldn't expect the Fade to be composed of completely original landmarks made by Demons.
Because that wouldn't fit the lore.
I have to say though that for DAII's Fade sequence, something about the air of the area felt more appropriate then DAO's.
It's tough to explain what exactly I mean by that.
Well, I think the idea of the Fade is that parts of it are an imperfect reflection of our own world. It's created by Fade spirits from what they're able to glimpse via dreams and the like, so while it may resemble our world in a lot of ways, it's not going to be exact. Plus, there's the raw Fade, where things get a whole lot weirder.
