405 réponses à ce sujet

[miraclemight]

Just wanted to mention something that I forgot to add in my earlier comment.

The cutscene in which Marethari arrives at the Alienage is a good example of having the right balance between nice music, pace, and camera angles. More use of music and meaningful silence is certainly welcomed in the future titles.

[alex90c]

I think the biggest problem with Dragon Age cutscenes (as a whole) is simply the lack of animations. I mean, when I thought about it, in ME2 the characters are just so ... full of life. There's like a gazillion different animations for loads of different things, but in Dragon Age it's just so limited.

[Huntress]

fchopin wrote...

esper wrote...

fchopin wrote...

One more point on the scene is that it’s not believable the object changed Bartrand in a few seconds so he would just not care about his brother.

If the object was that powerful all people would be affected by just being in the cave.

It may just be me, but I think Bartrand planned to ditch us all along.

That may be the case but i don’t think he would ditch his brother so easily, they have history together and it takes a lot to sacrifice a family member.

Not for a dwarf. lol! V: you have become a wealthy Human hawke  the sacrifie wasn't for na'h.
thats what dwarves think anyway. Check fool rush, gold rush in act 2 quest, samething happen oh and varric and bartrand were just brother, nothing also.. means? hehe just think about it.

[Huntress]

I like the cutscenes in DA2, I like how much more expresive the character has become, legacy end scene at home was powerful, I really love it!!! but, can bioware add them AFTER the character creations in future games? Please?
That would be a blast! something like DAO, you create the character, meet family and then cutscene, yes I want them in that order.
If is not too much to ask for a patch to the intro of da2? so players that already finished the game get whatever class they want to play and get sent directly to Emporium ( my case) or to CC screen, that would be great!

[devSin]

I just have to say, the scene where Marethari enters the alienage is... far from my favorite sequence in the game, let's say. It comes off as this completely contrived song-and-dance number, that has no relevance, no impact (certainly not enough to justify its length), and some truly wretched animations (that walk does not make her look spiritual or eminent by the way; it makes her look like a pretentious troll).

I mean, I was half-expecting the street to turn to gold where she walks, a choir of angels to be trumpeting her arrival, and the crippled able to walk and the blind able to see when she passes. It seemed almost plausible that we'd warped into Disney fairytale land and the birds were going to fly down from the tree (not to suggest this game actually has birds or anything) and perch on her shoulders and sing to her. Or that the party would prostrate themselves before her when she deigned to finally address them.

What on the Maker's blighted earth was I supposed to take away from that thing? I'm guessing not the feelings of awkwardness and embarrassment that it actually inspired.

In a game that actually has some cinematic integrity, I just can't look past this scene.

Modifié par devSin, 14 août 2011 - 08:57 .

[John Epler]

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!

[hoorayforicecream]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

I would caution against using this technique too often. This can work on occasion, but if Hawke is getting thrown back, thrown down, stunned, or whatever repeatedly, it can hurt the sense of agency as well. The biggest concern is that it feels inevitable (like we're being railroaded into it) regardless, and that kind of sucks. For the Grace/Thrask scene, what I would do is show the player being active, but perhaps spring it on the player like a trap. For example, instead of Grace suddenly showing how powerful she is by blasting Hawke aside before zapping Thrask to death, how about this? 

Thrask starts to cough while telling Grace to stand down. A quick shot of Grace grimacing. The other mages and templars nearby look back and forth confused. Thrask clutches at his throat. He spits blood, and Hawke rushes over to try to help him. He falls, as Grace raises her now bleeding palm and is gradually enveloped by a magical glow to show she's been using blood magic all along. She then points at Hawke and yells 'Seize her!!' or something.

This helps show Grace as a real threat, without undermining the player's feeling agency or effectiveness. The real enemy in this case is the dramatic irony. We know Grace is a bad egg, but Hawke doesn't, and that drives many players up the wall. As long as you keep the player in the dark about it as long as Hawke is, it doesn't feel like the player loses any agency.

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 feel like I should bring something up that I found I really enjoyed in Legacy, and that's the codex entries I found after I made my choice between Janeka and Larius. I really liked how, if I chose Janeka, I found a letter Larius had written before he had answered the Calling, and gone all loopy. How it helped reinforce Janeka's position that Larius had gone off the deep end, and how when he was sane, he wanted nothing more than a good death. It helped establish that I made the right choice with Janeka, and that I was helping the right Warden.

If I chose Larius, however, I found different codex entry that told me about how warden mages in the past tasked with guarding Corypheus had fell prey to his whisperings. How they all inevitably came to the same conclusion of desiring to bind Corypheus, and how they wouldn't let up about it unless they were separated from him by a significant distance. That helped establish that I also made the right choice with Larius.

I'm not sure whether this falls under the ambient storytelling that you were talking about, but I did really enjoy that. A lot of times we're left to ponder "What might have been?" when playing RPGs with choices, and finding reinforcing clues and information on the choice really helps go a long way to make a player feel like their choice made a difference.

[fchopin]

hoorayforicecream wrote...


This helps show Grace as a real threat, without undermining the player's feeling agency or effectiveness. The real enemy in this case is the dramatic irony. We know Grace is a bad egg, but Hawke doesn't, and that drives many players up the wall. As long as you keep the player in the dark about it as long as Hawke is, it doesn't feel like the player loses any agency.

I would not be happy with this as it would make my character appear weak and not prepared for the mission.
 
As the leader of a team the player character is responsible for what happens so any failings i would take the blame for not preparing and finding out enough info before starting the mission.
 
If there is no option in the game then i would blame the developers.

[krinst]

I'm sorry if these have been said before; I didn't read the whole thing through.

They're very minor.

1. Hawke's expression where she would raise her eyebrows and squint made the face look really awkward above/around the eyes. I had to see it a lot with my sarcastic Hawke.

2. The way Fenris sits always looks to me like he's poking his butt out, which is kind of funny but I think I'd have rather seen him in a chair with a back to hide that . Or slumped broodingly.

3. There were a few times in certain cinematics where the characters would be very surprised and then the camera cut to their expression. I know it's a matter of opinion, but I really liked that, especially since it usually mirrored my own reaction. I'm specifically thinking of the Aveline/Isabella conversation right before the last mission in Act 2, where Isabella mentions that the relic might have something to do with the qunari problems and Aveline interjects "What?". It happens when you see your Frankenmom as well.

[cdtrk65]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

Myself I have a hard time seeing the difference between this and writing. Personally I got a kick out of the guy in hightown looking for the dog. Maybe more desperation of the refugees trying to get into Kirkwall, other than the thugs that attack the guard everyone was pretty calm about it.

That is all I can think of right now...

[Sister Helen]

I thought the facial expressions for Hawke were pretty good, with only one or two exceptions.

My favorite facial expression though was when FemHawke was facing down Idunna (the prostitute) in the DA2 brothel: "I will not be toyed with!".

Best ... Scene ... Ever....

[hoorayforicecream]

fchopin wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...


This helps show Grace as a real threat, without undermining the player's feeling agency or effectiveness. The real enemy in this case is the dramatic irony. We know Grace is a bad egg, but Hawke doesn't, and that drives many players up the wall. As long as you keep the player in the dark about it as long as Hawke is, it doesn't feel like the player loses any agency.

I would not be happy with this as it would make my character appear weak and not prepared for the mission.
 
As the leader of a team the player character is responsible for what happens so any failings i would take the blame for not preparing and finding out enough info before starting the mission.
 
If there is no option in the game then i would blame the developers.

I'm not sure what you're not happy with. The basic idea I propose is that if the player knows something the character doesn't, it makes the player feel helpless. If the player doesn't know something, then there's no feeling of helplessness, because it's unfair to expect the character to know something the player doesn't.

This is why some people were unhappy at the end of Legacy - they were convinced that Larius or Janeka were possessed by the spirit of Corypheus, but Hawke was apparently unaware of that and it made them feel helpless. With Grace and Thrask, it's the same way - we know that she's a bad egg, but we can't do anything about it because Hawke doesn't. If we didn't know she was a bad egg until she finally springs it on us, then we don't feel helpless, because we've been surprised and blindsided, just like Hawke. This is harder to do than the evil mua-ha-ha-ing mustache-twirling melodramatic villainy, because it requires the use of subtle foreshadowing in a way that makes sense but isn't totally obvious. However, it is much more satisfying if it can be done.

By building the cinematics in such a way that we only sparingly use the dramatic irony (e.g. cutaway sequences like in DAO where Loghain and Arl Howe are talking), it doesn't take away as much of the player's sense of agency.

[TEWR]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

fchopin wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...


This helps show Grace as a real threat, without undermining the player's feeling agency or effectiveness. The real enemy in this case is the dramatic irony. We know Grace is a bad egg, but Hawke doesn't, and that drives many players up the wall. As long as you keep the player in the dark about it as long as Hawke is, it doesn't feel like the player loses any agency.

I would not be happy with this as it would make my character appear weak and not prepared for the mission.
 
As the leader of a team the player character is responsible for what happens so any failings i would take the blame for not preparing and finding out enough info before starting the mission.
 
If there is no option in the game then i would blame the developers.

I'm not sure what you're not happy with. The basic idea I propose is that if the player knows something the character doesn't, it makes the player feel helpless. If the player doesn't know something, then there's no feeling of helplessness, because it's unfair to expect the character to know something the player doesn't.

This is why some people were unhappy at the end of Legacy - they were convinced that Larius or Janeka were possessed by the spirit of Corypheus, but Hawke was apparently unaware of that and it made them feel helpless. With Grace and Thrask, it's the same way - we know that she's a bad egg, but we can't do anything about it because Hawke doesn't. If we didn't know she was a bad egg until she finally springs it on us, then we don't feel helpless, because we've been surprised and blindsided, just like Hawke. This is harder to do than the evil mua-ha-ha-ing mustache-twirling melodramatic villainy, because it requires the use of subtle foreshadowing in a way that makes sense but isn't totally obvious. However, it is much more satisfying if it can be done.

By building the cinematics in such a way that we only sparingly use the dramatic irony (e.g. cutaway sequences like in DAO where Loghain and Arl Howe are talking), it doesn't take away as much of the player's sense of agency.

I'd much rather prefer not to be railroaded into the same ending for a choice, though I do like your idea for Grace killing Thrask. Here's what I propose:

This really stems back to Act 1 and what I perceived as horrible storytelling for Decimus. I go in with a group of Mage Hawke, Anders, Merrill, and Carver. When I find Decimus, he immediately attacks three mages when Grace herself was smart enough to realize they weren't Templars. Decimus doesn't even bother to find out what Hawke's intentions were.

I would've had Decimus stand down at first and ask what side Hawke is with.

A) Hawke is assisting the Templars
Hawke is going to assist Decimus and company.


Option A would lead to Decimus beginning his assault again because he and his friends will not be taken back to the Circle. Some people stand with him, and Hawke and company kill them. Grace is saddened, but she tells everyone that didn't stand with Decimus to stand down. Grace and her friends are then handed over to the Templars.

6 years later, she's mad about what happened and does your scenario (the stabbing herself with a staff was one of the biggest  moments for me)


But Option B leads to Hawke being able to assist Decimus and company by helping them out. You are then able to either: bluff your way out of it with Witty Hawke or Varric or kill Kerras right there. Thrask assists you if you decide to kill him, and Decimus and company escape.

3 years later, Decimus and company are captured. Hawke can then talk to Decimus, and he says that two of his "friends" turned out to be Loyalists and betrayed them to the Templars. He then says that he holds no grudge or malice towards Hawke, because he has shown that he is on the side of the mages.

3 years later, if Hawke is pro-mage, he heads down to the Wounded Coast to meet with them (none of that "We know you're spying for Orsino!" crap happens). Hawke then agrees with their cause, but tells them to hurry and get out of there before Cullen arrives. They agree, but before doing so Hawke tells them to use their magic to fling him and his friends into the cliff. That way, they make it look convincing that the Champion was unable to stop them.

By the endgame, you explore much of the Gallows and find out that they are helping the mages escape.


This is a very simplistic idea that's only exploring whether Hawke is consistently pro-mage.

[hoorayforicecream]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'd much rather prefer not to be railroaded into the same ending for a choice, though I do like your idea for Grace killing Thrask. Here's what I propose:

Nobody likes being railroaded, but sometimes you can't help it. I'm pretty sure that the designers would love to be able to fully branch out every decision you can make, but that's not always feasible (because of development time alotted, requirements by the overall plot, etc.). Assuming that you *have* to railroad someone (which is entirely possible in a situation like Decimus/Grace/etc.), how do you handle it? You have to hide it and make it plausible.

Remember that you only have the development time to build a total of ~X total minutes of cutscenes over the course of development. The more time spent on one cutscene, the less you have for the rest. Most of game development is operating under constraints that are outside your control (e.g. Here is where you start. Here is where you end. You have N days total to fill in that empty gap in between in an interesting and compelling manner.)

Going back to the Decimus situation, knowing that you *have* to end with him dead and the mages eventually returned to the circle, how do you do it in a reasonable fashion?

In such a situation, I would have Decimus introduced acting visually very nervous (which makes sense... he's gotta be pretty paranoid). He jumps at every little thing ("What was that?!" Looks about nervously). He paces back and forth. He speaks like he's losing it, his voice is cracking occasionally, he's hunched over, his hair is frayed, etc.. He's constantly looking around. Maybe when you come upon him, he's accusing one of his own followers of betrayal, or something small like that. Maybe he actually even kills the follower to show he's not only unhinged, but he's also willing to use lethal force. The other mages are clearly terrified. The background mages cower. Maybe Grace tries to comfort him and talk him down, he still kinda listens to her. Maybe he starts to calm down a little, when they notice Hawke and co approach. A diplomatic Hawke tries to reason with him ("I'm a mage too", "You don't have to do this"), but he's clearly unbalanced and Hawke knows it. Hawke mentions that it's ok, and mentions that even Thrask only wants to help them, but that's the tipping point. Mentioning the templar by name makes Decimus go over the edge. He starts raving about how he can see right through you, about how you're just one of their lapdogs. He'll never go back, and there's no way he'd let you take him alive, and then screams at his cowering mages to attack. Some listen, some continue to cower. Decimus is killed, and the story moves on (perhaps minus the 'kill Thrask' option, which I thought was a little out of place, personally). Afterwards, the survivors (Grace) can say a few words like "He wasn't always like this... he was a gentle man, before the templars" or something.

So yeah... It'd be nice if we didn't have to be railroaded, but sometimes it has to happen. We can't get out of fighting the archdemon in DAO. We can't get out of the deep roads expedition or the Qunari conflict in DA2. So how do you do it in a plausible fashion without shattering immersion? That's the real trick.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 15 août 2011 - 10:13 .

[TEWR]

Nobody likes being railroaded, but sometimes you can't help it. I'm pretty sure that the designers would love to be able to fully branch out every decision you can make, but that's not always feasible (because of development time alotted, requirements by the overall plot, etc.). Assuming that you *have* to railroad someone (which is entirely possible in a situation like Decimus/Grace/etc.), how do you handle it? You have to hide it and make it plausible.

Remember that you only have the development time to build a total of ~X total minutes of cutscenes over the course of development. The more time spent on one cutscene, the less you have for the rest. Most of game development is operating under constraints that are outside your control (e.g. Here is where you start. Here is where you end. You have N days total to fill in that empty gap in between in an interesting and compelling manner.)

While I understand they can't branch out everything and have to railroad you sometimes, the problem with much of the railroading was that it either: made no sense whatsoever or railroads you very poorly (in some cases, it was both).

Look at Shepherding Wolves. The but-thou-must in that quest was poorly done. The reason you have to do it? It's in the journal. You're given no reason why you should have to do it other than the fact it's a main quest. Maybe have Petrice threaten to expose your mageness or your sister's mageness because she recognizes the name Hawke (at this point, Hawke is still a nobody.)

DAII railroaded Hawke for every main quest. And that isn't something I like. They don't have to railroad every quest or branch every quest. But they do need to find a balance. I can't get the elven fanatic to calm down. I can't agree with her. She was not as mad as the Arishok claims the saar-qamek makes a person.

That's one of my problems with DAII. It railroads too much.

[hoorayforicecream]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Nobody likes being railroaded, but sometimes you can't help it. I'm pretty sure that the designers would love to be able to fully branch out every decision you can make, but that's not always feasible (because of development time alotted, requirements by the overall plot, etc.). Assuming that you *have* to railroad someone (which is entirely possible in a situation like Decimus/Grace/etc.), how do you handle it? You have to hide it and make it plausible.

Remember that you only have the development time to build a total of ~X total minutes of cutscenes over the course of development. The more time spent on one cutscene, the less you have for the rest. Most of game development is operating under constraints that are outside your control (e.g. Here is where you start. Here is where you end. You have N days total to fill in that empty gap in between in an interesting and compelling manner.)

While I understand they can't branch out everything and have to railroad you sometimes, the problem with much of the railroading was that it either: made no sense whatsoever or railroads you very poorly (in some cases, it was both).

Look at Shepherding Wolves. The but-thou-must in that quest was poorly done. The reason you have to do it? It's in the journal. You're given no reason why you should have to do it other than the fact it's a main quest. Maybe have Petrice threaten to expose your mageness or your sister's mageness because she recognizes the name Hawke (at this point, Hawke is still a nobody.)

DAII railroaded Hawke for every main quest. And that isn't something I like. They don't have to railroad every quest or branch every quest. But they do need to find a balance. I can't get the elven fanatic to calm down. I can't agree with her. She was not as mad as the Arishok claims the saar-qamek makes a person.

That's one of my problems with DAII. It railroads too much.

As you said, some of the "But thou must" bits grated. But was it because of the inevitable nature of the quest outcomes, or was it because of the way in which they are presented? It's important to distinguish the difference between the two. Do you think it impossible to make a "But thou must" quest plausible and not break immersion? I don't think it is. There were plenty of quest outcomes that weren't railroaded. Feynriel's story, Isabela's story, Fenris' story, Merrill's story, Aveline's story, etc. all had branching outcomes over the course of the three acts. 

Let's assume that you're a cinematic designer like John, and the main story is pretty much set. You know where you're going, and you know where you're coming from, and it's your job to fill in the blanks in the middle. The goal isn't to rewrite the story (you don't have the power to do that). The goal is to make the story plausible through cinematic elements. How do you make that happen?

Edit: My point is that identifying what's wrong is more important than coming up with a solution. I usually leave that to the professional designers who have been doing it for years. It's more important that they know exactly what's wrong. Railroading is bad... or is it? I didn't feel railroaded in Legacy, despite everything dovetailing at the end anyway. I felt that was because I didn't feel like I was shoved into it, they did a better job of hiding the railroading from me. 

So some might say "Railroading is always bad", but I say "Obvious railroading is bad. We need better ways to hide the railroading."

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 15 août 2011 - 10:51 .

[TEWR]

As you said, some of the "But thou must" bits grated. But was it because of the inevitable nature of the quest outcomes, or was it because of the way in which they are presented? It's important to distinguish the difference between the two. Do you think it impossible to make a "But thou must" quest plausible and not break immersion? I don't think it is. There were plenty of quest outcomes that weren't railroaded. Feynriel's story, Isabela's story, Fenris' story, Merrill's story, Aveline's story, etc. all had branching outcomes over the course of the three acts.

Let's assume that you're a cinematic designer like John, and the main story is pretty much set. You know where you're going, and you know where you're coming from, and it's your job to fill in the blanks in the middle. The goal isn't to rewrite the story (you don't have the power to do that). The goal is to make the story plausible through cinematic elements. How do you make that happen?

While it's certainly not impossible to make one plausible and not break immersion, it comes down to what I said before: balance between railroading and branching. In the main quests of DAO, we were able to take different paths with different conclusions for the main quests (in one scenario, mages live. In the other, they all die). While there were no visible effects of that choice later on, the conclusion of the quest was far from being the same.

At the same time, we had railroad moments, but they were done well (in some instances). You're forced to be a Grey Warden, but that's because they have the Right of Conscription. Once **** hits the fan at Ostagar, that's when the railroad started to suffer. But that's another story.

And as I said above, it was in the main quests where you were railroaded too much. The side quests branched well, though I would've liked to see them maybe connect to Hawke's rise to power in some way. But that's a post for another day.

I imagine that while Mr. Epler's job is fun, it's also hard as well. The story should be made plausible through cinematics yes, but at the same time the main story needs to make sense on its own for the player who wants to have branching sometimes and not railroading.

Not that I'm saying Mr. Epler has the power to change the story, as I'm guessing he doesn't have the power to do that. But I don't know.

[Redcoat]

Showing my character's facial expression, for me at least, is something that needs to be done with great subtlety, or not at all (the exception being involuntary expressions, like grimacing in pain). During the Joining, the Warden makes a horrified expression when Duncan kills Ser Jory, and in Return to Ostagar the Warden makes a very obvious sad face when he/she finds King Cailan's body. Both were entirely out of character for my Warden (the latter much more so). It wasn't a huge "MY CHARACTER IS RUINED FOREVER!!11!!" moment, but it was irritating. If a game is going to let me create my own character, then the developers cannot know how that character will react, and any assumptions on their part as to how he'll react are just that - assumptions.

There's a great moment in ME2, during Kasumi's loyalty mission, where Shepard comes face-to-face with a statue of Saren. You see him narrow his eyes a bit, and you can tell he's thinking something, but what, exactly, is left ambiguous. It could anything from, "You're one ugly motherf-" to "Hey, why does he get a statue and I don't?" That's the limit of what level of facial expressiveness I'd like to see - something that shows the character is feeling something, but what emotion he's feeling, precisely, is left ambiguous.

[t0mm06]

the main thing i really disliked about the cinimatics was the lack of touching, like when merril is crying when pol dies, i felt hawke should have (depending on there personality maybe) gone and hugged or held or even just put his hand on her back/shoulder, instead of staying back because that made it fell like 'ohh no merril it wasn't your fault he died... but i'm going to stand away from you just in case you are worse then the blight'
or when anders was about to kill the mage girl, if there was a angry/violent or a diplomatic/calm response where you could have drawn your sword and defended her, or thrown him against a wall in anger, or grabbed his hand to 'try and make him remember who he is' for a calm response.

Edit: also it would have been nice, if your love interest was in the all that remains quest, or if not then just the person with highest friendship rating, came up to u gan held u or tried to physically comfort you as your mother died. other then Varric, it doesnt seem in character for him to touch u in anyway, ironically though Varric seems to be the companion with the most cutscenes where hes standing right next to Hawke (closer then normal) and i see that as Varrics right place in the world, right next to hawke on his right hand... but no touching

Modifié par t0mm06, 15 août 2011 - 11:20 .

[axl99]

Touching animations are actually really hard to implement.Not only there's clipping you gotta be worried about, but skinning/rigging issues that vary from engine to engine. Sometimes they use different rigs altogether, that means replacing models with the new ones. That isn't something engines and programmers like dealing with all the time.

[rpgfan321]

I have to say that it is becoming obviously apparent, to me anyway, how the characters stand exactly a length apart most of the time. I guess I'm picking that up more since there really aren't that many movement in a scene.

One of the camera moments that I really liked while playing was that camera zoom on Aveline when Isabella tells her partial truth at the end of Act 2. When that camera zoomed on her face, it emphasized the surprise and exasperation of her voice and expression. Also the way I see it, the zoom highlighted a shift to Isabella and gave a visual cue, to me, that Isabella's background is becoming important for the last main quest.

That's my POV anyway. I like reading the codex, and listening to the voice actors. But I remember a lot from sight because I'm a visual person. That's why I like movies and video games a lot more than books sometimes. ^^

I guess what I'm trying to say is I wish the camera was more fluid to fill in the lack of animation/movement. Just because the setting is medieval fantasy, that doesn't mean it needs to feel static.

On a side note: I like this thread. <3  

[hoorayforicecream]

axl99 wrote...

Touching animations are actually really hard to implement.Not only there's clipping you gotta be worried about, but skinning/rigging issues that vary from engine to engine. Sometimes they use different rigs altogether, that means replacing models with the new ones. That isn't something engines and programmers like dealing with all the time.

I would like them to use the touching occasionally, for emotionally charged moments (e.g. love interest coming to comfort Hawke at the estate after All That Remains). Or  at least fake it like they did with Leandra's death, where they just get real close.

[Nadia]

Despite some complaints about it I'm very impressed by facial expressions, which often suit one of the 3 personalities Hawke could have in DA2. Thanks to that, great voice actors and dialog wheel with paraphrasing I really 'lived' my character more than in any rpg game.

Few things I find odd in cinematics were mostly not fitting to my lady-mage Hawke: the way she killed Orsino with a knife (daamn!), kicking the doors wearing these robes (but it's not a big deal) and sometimes she ran funny with very-wide-open legs like / \\

I also had hard time seeing the finishing move - I managed to see it using this spirit prison spell only once in the game. Playing rogue Hawke a finishing move or critical shot was making opponent to explode - I think it didn't look well... that's all :-)

[esper]

About the Grace situation - what baffles me is why not use the hostage? Have Grace say take one step closer and the hostage dies (Have some point weapon/spells towards the hostage) - and it is more beliaveable that Hawke let Grace kills Trask then after Trask is killed Grace could order Alain to kill the hostage which he refuses (as he does now) and proceed to protect himself and the hostage in that bubble spell all npc mages uses - leaving Hawke free to fight against Grace because the hostage is now safe.

Also it baffles me how Grace and Trask gets to the warden-sibling, espacially if the find Nathaniel quest is active, meaning that the warden sibling is in the Deep Road. The order of kidnapping should in my opinion be:
1. Sibling: Gallows
2. Romance
3. Best friend.