337 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

HiroVoid wrote...

Part of what makes it work so well in AP is that you're encouraged to use multiple options because different NPCs respond better to different personalities, and while I don't think it's often, I know at least one instance of pi**ing someone off enough to make them have poor judgement.  Unlike in Bioware games that usually seem to encourage you to stick to
one option and keep using it.

Nope in DA2 different NPCs will respond differently to different tones and default personalities.

[Yrkoon]

Mr Fixit wrote...

I also find John's comments very illuminating, and I look forward to seeing BioWare properly implement all these nifty features he wrote about. Sadly, I don't really see them for the time being.

I think John and the  rest of the Bioware crew will eventually succeed  in doing everything they  envision with regards to creating a rich, nearly flawless cinematic experience in a game.  They've stated the goal, they've  identified the problems and the challenge.  Now its  just a  matter of  addressing those problems then carrying out the application.

But  when they do pull it off, will it  be a game I want to play?  I doubt it.  The sheer amount of personal RP elements that have to be sacrificed in order to pull off a cinematic masterpiece is... just too much for my tastes.  Too far removed from  what I consider my ideal RPG gaming experience.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 29 février 2012 - 03:36 .

[Morroian]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Now, to be fair, paraphrases do solve subvocalization issues: that is, people who find reading the text then listening to it unbearingly repetitive. Playtesting showed that people were skipping the voice acting because of this. Since they've spent a lot of zots in voice acting and want people to listen to it, they put the paraphrases in place to solve subvocalization issues.

Except they don't actually care if people listen to the voices.  They say they do, and yet they're happy to let us skip the lines.  

I'm still baffled they actually consider it the better option given the host of disadvantages it has, but they did have a reason to put them in. It's just a reason I find ridiculously flimsy when compared to the very real disadvantages it causes.

The reasons are made even more flimsy by BioWare's willingness to disregard them by letting us skip lines.

They're forced to do it due to multiple play throughs.

I like the game but Bioware must include the option to see the full line on mouseover and change the way they do paraphrasing in DA3. 

[CuriousArtemis]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I can't imagine watching a 60-hour movie with this simple a plot (and a main character whose behaviour I don't understand at all) and thinking it was interesting the whole way through.

You're just stating your opinion on the game (you obviously didn't like it), not really responding to my input on the topic at hand.

[Jitter]

JohnEpler wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Yes, that's exactly it. Not that we're looking at how another highly visual medium, films, tell stories and trying to adapt some of their techniques to gaming, as they've been developed over a century and have a lot to say about using visuals to convey emotion, tone, that sort of thing. Nope, it's because we want to make movies and cartoons. Congratulations, you've cracked the code.

Right.  Sarcasm.  Got it.    

There's a Huge difference between merging cinema techniques to games and.... interrupting the player's gameplay every 3 minutes to give them a cutscene.

When you loftily proclaim that we don't want to make games because of a particular stylistic and presentation choice we've made, well, I get a little sarcastic. It's a character flaw.

As to the rest - I don't think we've ever interrupted the game every three minutes to give a cutscene. Although I'd argue that, if we did, that isn't a problem inherent to the silent protagonist versus voiced protagonist. Hell, if we wanted to, we could just as easily do it with a silent protagonist as with a voiced one.

What a voiced protagonist gives us, otoh, is the ability to set pace and tone. It, in its best form (and I'll willingly admit that we weren't able to pull this off nearly as well as we would've liked in DA2), gives us conversations that look and feel natural. DA2 made some steps towards this, but we didn't really have the engine support necessary to handle a lot of what makes a conversation feel 'real'. Characters were limited as to where they could go, what they could do, how they could interact. This is a technical problem, and one we're working on.

Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with a silent protagonist. A game like Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines wouldn't have been the same experience with a voiced protagonist. Could it have worked? Sure, but I think it wouldn't have been the same game. On the other hand, I can't imagine a game like Alpha Protocol with a silent protagonist. Each offers its own advantages and disadvantages. Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses, and I think you can argue for one or the other.

I dont agree at all. 

If i cant customize how a charater looks. 
If i need to hear  my character talk in a voice not my own , and an accent nowhere near mine. 
Given the option to say something , and find out it was a loose interpretation of what is going to 
come out of the characters mouth and sometimes a total 180. 

Im not interested. 
To be blunt Biowares new directions sucks ... 

Seriously say it in a thick german accent. 

"Vee know vhat is best for you"
"you vill play zee game as vee tell you"
"You vill outfit charactaas as vee vish you to"
"Ze character vill speak look and act as vee vish"
"You vill valk down zese cut and paste areas , and you vill like IT!"
"Ve are above critizizim , know you place !"


You work there , tell me what were the sales ?
is this correct ?

And if so ... do you really believe what you are writing here ?

Modifié par Jitter, 29 février 2012 - 04:25 .

[HiroVoid]

Morroian wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Part of what makes it work so well in AP is that you're encouraged to use multiple options because different NPCs respond better to different personalities, and while I don't think it's often, I know at least one instance of pi**ing someone off enough to make them have poor judgement.  Unlike in Bioware games that usually seem to encourage you to stick to
one option and keep using it.

Nope in DA2 different NPCs will respond differently to different tones and default personalities.

Not in the way AP does it.  DAII still uses a dominant personality for automatic dialogue, and it uses that as its persuasion system.  AP uses its dialogue system by being able to persuade people, get them on your side, or pissing them off simply by using its dialogue system while it's just flavor for the most part in DAII aside from Friendship/rivalry.  This could end up in AP with said NPCs responding differently to Thorton and setting up different events in a future mission.

[Imrahil_]

JohnEpler wrote...
Yes, that's exactly it. Not that we're looking at how another highly visual medium, films, tell stories and trying to adapt some of their techniques to gaming, as they've been developed over a century and have a lot to say about using visuals to convey emotion, tone, that sort of thing. Nope, it's because we want to make movies and cartoons. Congratulations, you've cracked the code.

This is just a terrible approach.  IMO, obviously.  All sarcasm from your post aside, granted, you should not be looking to movies/films to tell your story.  You should be looking to the *future* of computer games, specifically cRPGs.  You should be innovating that medium.  Leading that medium.  Not looking to the past/present of movies.  If you do that, you'll only make games that lag behind movies instead of games that are at the forefront of cRPGs.

When you loftily proclaim that we don't want to make games because of a particular stylistic and presentation choice we've made, well, I get a little sarcastic. It's a character flaw.

To be fair, you aren't allowed to do that, more-or-less.  You have the power to ban people.  With great power comes great responsibility. You'll literally never get banned or even warned for anything you say.  You need to conduct yourself on a higher level. Suck it up. No character flaws allowed. Sorry.  It is what is.

As to the rest - I don't think we've ever interrupted the game every three minutes to give a cutscene.

Just to digress a moment, do they teach a class in Going Literal To Combat A Point 101 at Bioware?  You know as well as everyone reading that that he didn't literally mean "every three minutes".  Y'all do this a lot.  I mean *a lot*.

What a voiced protagonist gives us, otoh, is the ability to set pace and tone.

This is disturbing.  You shouldn't set pace or tone. You should accomodate pace AND tone. The player should set pace and tone. I'm with Sylvius on this issue, even if he is mad. Really, this sort of defines the contention. If I had to level one defining, all-encompassing criticism at DA2 & the direction Bioware is heading in, it'd be "stop trying to define anything". Pace & tone included.

Make an awesome world with deep characters for us to advernture in. Stop telling us who our character is. Stop telling us what he says. Stop telling us how he reacts to events. Go back to making awesome worlds to interact with however we choose to interact with them.

JohnEpler wrote...
Unless you're building an entirely player-driven, emergent narrative, we are, at some point, setting the tone.

As has already been pointed out, a good RPG is exactly that: "an entirely player-driven, emergent narrative". Bioware used to be the pinnacle of entirely player-driven, emergent narratives. It's... somewhat astounding... that you don't even want that anymore. That you think that's something you *shouldn't* be making. That you think that's something that people don't want.

I started playing BG2 again recently.  I have dialogues that are dependent on my character's build, or stats, or what I did previously.  I'm playing a CG Mage character right now, &, having played this game enough times, I now look forward to playing again as a NE Fighter/Cleric so I can play through the Bodhi stuff instead of the Aran Linvail stuff, & handle quests differently, & pick up different companions, which means I'll probably have an easier time in the Underdark because I won't role-play the same urgency to go after Imoen ASAP. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And you don't think people want an entirely player-driven, emergent narrative? That's exactly what we want.

I'm not really talking about the tone of the player's dialogue, by the way - it would work just as well if we had the player silently mouthing their lines but never speaking. It comes down to how conversations have 'beats', and you can use those natural beats to change the tone of the story.

No, you should stop this. You should stop tyring to set/change the tone of the story. You should set up events, worlds, characters, politics, even items, which may or may not change the tone of the story, depending on what the player chooses to do.

Then let us adventure through it, changing the story as we go. Setting the tone as we go. Stop rail-roading. Stop trying to play the game for us.

As to the second, well, I hate to use the line, but that's a matter of opinion. We seem to have at least as many fans who don't feel that they're fighting the conversation, who prefer the cinematic approach and feel that it is, overall,

No, you don't.  Granted, of the people who bought DA2, that audience is split on a lot of things. Voiced protagonist, "cinematic approach", iconic companions, sure - the audience that bought DA2 is split on a lot of the changes DA2 made, But what you're forgetting/ignoring is that *DA2 lost about 3 million customers from DA:O*. Possibly more.  I'm assuming DA2 hit 2 million in actual sales.

You are literally ignoring the 3 million+ buyers of the original that didn't buy the sequel & instead focusing on half the people that did buy the sequel. And for every new buyer of DA2 who didn't play DA:O, that's en extra person that didn't buy the sequel. It's not split. It is not the case that 50% like voiced & 50% like silent. What is true is that after the 3 million drop in sales, 50% of the people who bought DA2 like voiced & 50% don't. This is important. Don't try to pretend that the Dragon Age fanbase is split. It's not. 50% of the 60%-drop-off is split  Which means 20% of your original buyers like DA2, not 50%.

You are going down the wrong path, & it's disappointing to me because it means you won't be making games I like anymore. As things stand now, from what we know, I will not buy your next game. I actually bought ME2 for the sole reason that "hey, that game was made by the DA:O" people. I knew nothing about it except that "the Bioware people made it", so I figured I'd give it a shot - turned out I didn't really like it much, but I don't regret the purchase.

I bought every single DA:O DLC, except Darkspawn Chronicles (didn't like the concept), because I wanted to support that game. I love BG1 & 2. I replay them sporadically (like now, as I mentioned).  I replay DA:O every once in a while.  Just sayin' I'm not a hater. I love Bioware. It just seems like you are determined to make games I don't like anymore.  It's not me, it's you.


Eh, that's all I can do. Thank you, John, for reading this, assuming you did. Thank you for even replying on the forums. Thank you for listening. If nothing else, you don't seem to roll a 20-sided die to determine when to lock a thread, so if nothing else, you've got that going for you.

Modifié par Imrahil_, 29 février 2012 - 04:37 .

[HolyAvenger]

I used to be a silent protagonist fan...till I played ME and DA2. Now I can't stand the silent protagonist. It really breaks my immersion something fierce. Why am I the only mute character in the whole damn game?

Was really reinforced to me playing the Amalur demo. Silent protag? NO THANKS.

[Masako52]

I don't mind silent protagonists in DAO, but if DA2 had a silent protagonist I'd seriously go crazy. If DA3 has origins, and so much variability to the protagonist, maybe silent is best, but if the protagonist is more defined, like Hawke, I'd rather have it voiced. Hawke felt more real for me, s/he felt like a legitimate character. I loved how Hawke joined in party banter, or interacted with other characters.

But as others have said, in the end, it's a case of YMMV.

[BroBear Berbil]

Anybody else find that a voiced protagonist influences their character creation? For me that's the biggest issue I have with it. There was really only one custom male Hawke I made that felt like it fit the voice while everything else felt out of place. When I did finally find that custom look that fit it was a pretty good experience.

Still, I do like a silent protagonist or, rather, how DA:O handled it. I liked that it gave my character a voice and I could just use my imagination to sort of fill it in during conversations. The biggest pro for a silent protagonist for me is that I feel like I have more ownership of the character. I'm still following the path the game sets out for me so I don't know exactly why that's the case. Maybe it's just that the lack of a voice gets my imagination going to fill in conversations that I also fill in other details and get more interested in the character. Prior to DA:O I never brought this kind of roleplaying or thought into the characters I played but I also didn't have an extensive cRPG background.

[John Epler]

[quote]Imrahil_ wrote...

[quote]JohnEpler wrote...
Yes, that's exactly it. Not that we're looking at how another highly visual medium, films, tell stories and trying to adapt some of their techniques to gaming, as they've been developed over a century and have a lot to say about using visuals to convey emotion, tone, that sort of thing. Nope, it's because we want to make movies and cartoons. Congratulations, you've cracked the code.
[/quote]
This is just a terrible approach.  IMO, obviously.  All sarcasm from your post aside, granted, you should not be looking to movies/films to tell your story.  You should be looking to the *future* of computer games, specifically cRPGs.  You should be innovating that medium.  Leading that medium.  Not looking to the past/present of movies.  If you do that, you'll only make games that lag behind movies instead of games that are at the forefront of cRPGs.
[/quote]

Why shouldn't we look to film and television? Our medium has its unique strengths - it's interactive, it's driven by the consumer (whereas television and film involve a passive consumer), but there's a reason why films and television employ certain storytelling methods. There's a reason that Western cinema shows left to right as a forward progression and right to left as a setback, for example. Or why a low angle is used to convey power and grandeur, while a high angle is used to make a character seem diminuitive. They're based on a library of techniques and tactics that are shown to evoke a particular emotion or thought process in the consumer, and I fail to see why we shouldn't look to other mediums to inform us on the aspects of our games that most closely resemble them. [quote]
[quote]When you loftily proclaim that we don't want to make games because of a particular stylistic and presentation choice we've made, well, I get a little sarcastic. It's a character flaw.[/quote]
To be fair, you aren't allowed to do that, more-or-less.  You have the power to ban people.  With great power comes great responsibility. You'll literally never get banned or even warned for anything you say.  You need to conduct yourself on a higher level. Suck it up. No character flaws allowed. Sorry.  It is what is.[/quote]

Tell you what, spend a year and a half on these forums, weathering torrents of abuse and then remain entirely civil at all times. I have a fairly thick skin, but yes, even I have a limit. For what it's worth, the worst anyone would ever get if they used that kind of sarcasm on another user (or myself, for that matter) would be a gentle warning. I ban over direct insults or other violations of the ToS, not sarcastic remarks. 

[quote]
[quote]As to the rest - I don't think we've ever interrupted the game every three minutes to give a cutscene.[/quote]
Just to digress a moment, do they teach a class in Going Literal To Combat A Point 101 at Bioware?  You know as well as everyone reading that that he didn't literally mean "every three minutes".  Y'all do this a lot.  I mean *a lot*.[/quote]

It's part of engaging with someone in honest debate, rather than simply trying to make your point with as much hyperbole as possible. I try to avoid hyperbole in my remarks - I never make wild, inaccurate claims and all I ask is that others not be disingenuous when they're entering into discussion with me. You're certainly welcome to complain about my pointing out hyperbole when it comes up, but it's not a tactic well-suited to serious debate. If that's not what people are looking for, fair enough. I'll recuse myself from the discussion.  But I like to think that when people are engaged in a discussion with me, they're doing so honestly.

[quote]
[quote]What a voiced protagonist gives us, otoh, is the ability to set pace and tone.[/quote]
This is disturbing.  You shouldn't set pace or tone. You should accomodate pace AND tone. The player should set pace and tone. I'm with Sylvius on this issue, even if he is mad. Really, this sort of defines the contention. If I had to level one defining, all-encompassing criticism at DA2 & the direction Bioware is heading in, it'd be "stop trying to define anything". Pace & tone included.[/quote]

We've always defined pace and tone. By the very nature of a game, it's an authored experience. Sure, some people like to distance themself from the authored side of things as much as possible. It's awesome that some games let you do that. But if you don't think that the vast majority of developers aren't, while making their games, trying to evoke a certain pacing or tone in particular elements of that game - well, I'd say you're mistaken. Whenever you interact with any piece of authored content - there's a tone that they're trying to evoke, either with gameplay elements, with writing, with audio, or with visuals. If you're able to disassociate yourself from that, you've either found one of the rare games where they aren't trying for that, or you've managed to avoid the authorial intent.

[quote]Make an awesome world with deep characters for us to advernture in. Stop telling us who our character is. Stop telling us what he says. Stop telling us how he reacts to events. Go back to making awesome worlds to interact with however we choose to interact with them.
[quote]JohnEpler wrote...
Unless you're building an entirely player-driven, emergent narrative, we are, at some point, setting the tone.[/quote]
As has already been pointed out, a good RPG is exactly that: "an entirely player-driven, emergent narrative". Bioware used to be the pinnacle of entirely player-driven, emergent narratives. It's... somewhat astounding... that you don't even want that anymore. That you think that's something you *shouldn't* be making. That you think that's something that people don't want.[/quote]

There's room for a lot more player-driven narrative than we had in DA2, I'll grant you that. But again. We've never made games that we're entirely player-driven, emergent narratives. We've always tried to tell stories in our games. If you're looking for an entirely player-driven, player-authored experience - well, that's not what we make. It's not what we've ever made. There's always an overarching plot. There are always unavoidable narrative events if you want to progress further. Yeah, I'll agree that DA2 went a little too far away from giving the player the chance to drive their own narrative, but we're not in the business of truly player-driven emergent narratives. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but it's true.

[quote]I started playing BG2 again recently.  I have dialogues that are dependent on my character's build, or stats, or what I did previously.  I'm playing a CG Mage character right now, &, having played this game enough times, I now look forward to playing again as a NE Fighter/Cleric so I can play through the Bodhi stuff instead of the Aran Linvail stuff, & handle quests differently, & pick up different companions, which means I'll probably have an easier time in the Underdark because I won't role-play the same urgency to go after Imoen ASAP. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And you don't think people want an entirely player-driven, emergent narrative? That's exactly what we want.[/quote] And here it seems we're arguing at cross purposes. When I say player-driven, emergent narrative, I mean, essentially, a game that has one entirely vague goal, and very little propelling you towards that goal. I definitely think the player needs to have agency, and we've already talked about how we want to do a lot more in the future in terms of the world reacting to your character's build and choices. DA2 lacked this, and I doubt you'll see anyone on this side disagreeing. But that's different from an entirely player-driven narrative. BG2 had an end goal, and it had waypoints along the way that you had to hit. 

[quote]

[quote]I'm not really talking about the tone of the player's dialogue, by the way - it would work just as well if we had the player silently mouthing their lines but never speaking. It comes down to how conversations have 'beats', and you can use those natural beats to change the tone of the story.[/quote]
No, you should stop this. You should stop tyring to set/change the tone of the story. You should set up events, worlds, characters, politics, even items, which may or may not change the tone of the story, depending on what the player chooses to do.

Then let us adventure through it, changing the story as we go. Setting the tone as we go. Stop rail-roading. Stop trying to play the game for us.
[/quote]

Unless we put everything in the control of the player (and I mean everything - even the NPCs), we're going to be setting the tone at some point. If what you're looking for is a sandbox where the player sets all the rules, I'm not sure I can think of any game that does that. I don't think that's what you want, though. Eventually, no matter what you play, you're going to lose some control. Of course, our job is to make that loss of control as unobtrusive and unnoticeable as possible. Sometimes, we succeed. Other times, not so much. But by its very nature, a CRPG is going to be an authored experience to at least some degree. What degree, of course, depends on the game in question. And maybe it's true that we author that experience too much for you. That's unfortunate - I like to see as many people enjoying our games as possible - but that's the path we've chosen. We can't make everyone happy, as much as we'd love to, and the only thing I can point to is our work. I can discuss and talk however long I want, but in the end, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

[quote]
[quote]As to the second, well, I hate to use the line, but that's a matter of opinion. We seem to have at least as many fans who don't feel that they're fighting the conversation, who prefer the cinematic approach and feel that it is, overall,
[/quote]
No, you don't.  Granted, of the people who bought DA2, that audience is split on a lot of things. Voiced protagonist, "cinematic approach", iconic companions, sure - the audience that bought DA2 is split on a lot of the changes DA2 made, But what you're forgetting/ignoring is that *DA2 lost about 3 million customers from DA:O*. Possibly more.  I'm assuming DA2 hit 2 million in actual sales.

You are literally ignoring the 3 million+ buyers of the original that didn't buy the sequel & instead focusing on half the people that did buy the sequel. And for every new buyer of DA2 who didn't play DA:O, that's en extra person that didn't buy the sequel. It's not split. It is not the case that 50% like voiced & 50% like silent. What is true is that after the 3 million drop in sales, 50% of the people who bought DA2 like voiced & 50% don't. This is important. Don't try to pretend that the Dragon Age fanbase is split. It's not. 50% of the 60%-drop-off is split  Which means 20% of your original buyers like DA2, not 50%.

You are going down the wrong path, & it's disappointing to me because it means you won't be making games I like anymore. As things stand now, from what we know, I will not buy your next game. I actually bought ME2 for the sole reason that "hey, that game was made by the DA:O" people. I knew nothing about it except that "the Bioware people made it", so I figured I'd give it a shot - turned out I didn't really like it much, but I don't regret the purchase.

I bought every single DA:O DLC, except Darkspawn Chronicles (didn't like the concept), because I wanted to support that game. I love BG1 & 2. I replay them sporadically (like now, as I mentioned).  I replay DA:O every once in a while.  Just sayin' I'm not a hater. I love Bioware. It just seems like you are determined to make games I don't like anymore.  It's not me, it's you.

Eh, that's all I can do. Thank you, John, for reading this, assuming you did. Thank you for even replying on the forums. Thank you for listening. If nothing else, you don't seem to roll a 20-sided die to determine when to lock a thread, so if nothing else, you've got that going for you.[/quote]

And again. I hope that we can change your mind as to the games we're making. I don't think we can please everyone, not by a long shot, but I like to think that we'll move more towards something that fans like yourself can enjoy in the future. If not, though? That's unfortunate, but it's your money, and you should spend it supporting games you enjoy. Aside from giving feedback (which, by the way, I appreciate that you did in a respectful fashion), that's the biggest thing you can do.

Modifié par JohnEpler, 29 février 2012 - 05:32 .

[zyntifox]

Imrahil_ wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...
Yes, that's exactly it. Not that we're looking at how another highly visual medium, films, tell stories and trying to adapt some of their techniques to gaming, as they've been developed over a century and have a lot to say about using visuals to convey emotion, tone, that sort of thing. Nope, it's because we want to make movies and cartoons. Congratulations, you've cracked the code.

This is just a terrible approach.  IMO, obviously.  All sarcasm from your post aside, granted, you should not be looking to movies/films to tell your story.  You should be looking to the *future* of computer games, specifically cRPGs.  You should be innovating that medium.  Leading that medium.  Not looking to the past/present of movies.  If you do that, you'll only make games that lag behind movies instead of games that are at the forefront of cRPGs.

When you loftily proclaim that we don't want to make games because of a particular stylistic and presentation choice we've made, well, I get a little sarcastic. It's a character flaw.

To be fair, you aren't allowed to do that, more-or-less.  You have the power to ban people.  With great power comes great responsibility. You'll literally never get banned or even warned for anything you say.  You need to conduct yourself on a higher level. Suck it up. No character flaws allowed. Sorry.  It is what is.

As to the rest - I don't think we've ever interrupted the game every three minutes to give a cutscene.

Just to digress a moment, do they teach a class in Going Literal To Combat A Point 101 at Bioware?  You know as well as everyone reading that that he didn't literally mean "every three minutes".  Y'all do this a lot.  I mean *a lot*.

What a voiced protagonist gives us, otoh, is the ability to set pace and tone.

This is disturbing.  You shouldn't set pace or tone. You should accomodate pace AND tone. The player should set pace and tone. I'm with Sylvius on this issue, even if he is mad. Really, this sort of defines the contention. If I had to level one defining, all-encompassing criticism at DA2 & the direction Bioware is heading in, it'd be "stop trying to define anything". Pace & tone included.

Make an awesome world with deep characters for us to advernture in. Stop telling us who our character is. Stop telling us what he says. Stop telling us how he reacts to events. Go back to making awesome worlds to interact with however we choose to interact with them.

JohnEpler wrote...
Unless you're building an entirely player-driven, emergent narrative, we are, at some point, setting the tone.

As has already been pointed out, a good RPG is exactly that: "an entirely player-driven, emergent narrative". Bioware used to be the pinnacle of entirely player-driven, emergent narratives. It's... somewhat astounding... that you don't even want that anymore. That you think that's something you *shouldn't* be making. That you think that's something that people don't want.

I started playing BG2 again recently.  I have dialogues that are dependent on my character's build, or stats, or what I did previously.  I'm playing a CG Mage character right now, &, having played this game enough times, I now look forward to playing again as a NE Fighter/Cleric so I can play through the Bodhi stuff instead of the Aran Linvail stuff, & handle quests differently, & pick up different companions, which means I'll probably have an easier time in the Underdark because I won't role-play the same urgency to go after Imoen ASAP. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And you don't think people want an entirely player-driven, emergent narrative? That's exactly what we want.

I'm not really talking about the tone of the player's dialogue, by the way - it would work just as well if we had the player silently mouthing their lines but never speaking. It comes down to how conversations have 'beats', and you can use those natural beats to change the tone of the story.

No, you should stop this. You should stop tyring to set/change the tone of the story. You should set up events, worlds, characters, politics, even items, which may or may not change the tone of the story, depending on what the player chooses to do.

Then let us adventure through it, changing the story as we go. Setting the tone as we go. Stop rail-roading. Stop trying to play the game for us.

As to the second, well, I hate to use the line, but that's a matter of opinion. We seem to have at least as many fans who don't feel that they're fighting the conversation, who prefer the cinematic approach and feel that it is, overall,

No, you don't.  Granted, of the people who bought DA2, that audience is split on a lot of things. Voiced protagonist, "cinematic approach", iconic companions, sure - the audience that bought DA2 is split on a lot of the changes DA2 made, But what you're forgetting/ignoring is that *DA2 lost about 3 million customers from DA:O*. Possibly more.  I'm assuming DA2 hit 2 million in actual sales.

You are literally ignoring the 3 million+ buyers of the original that didn't buy the sequel & instead focusing on half the people that did buy the sequel. And for every new buyer of DA2 who didn't play DA:O, that's en extra person that didn't buy the sequel. It's not split. It is not the case that 50% like voiced & 50% like silent. What is true is that after the 3 million drop in sales, 50% of the people who bought DA2 like voiced & 50% don't. This is important. Don't try to pretend that the Dragon Age fanbase is split. It's not. 50% of the 60%-drop-off is split  Which means 20% of your original buyers like DA2, not 50%.

You are going down the wrong path, & it's disappointing to me because it means you won't be making games I like anymore. As things stand now, from what we know, I will not buy your next game. I actually bought ME2 for the sole reason that "hey, that game was made by the DA:O" people. I knew nothing about it except that "the Bioware people made it", so I figured I'd give it a shot - turned out I didn't really like it much, but I don't regret the purchase.

I bought every single DA:O DLC, except Darkspawn Chronicles (didn't like the concept), because I wanted to support that game. I love BG1 & 2. I replay them sporadically (like now, as I mentioned).  I replay DA:O every once in a while.  Just sayin' I'm not a hater. I love Bioware. It just seems like you are determined to make games I don't like anymore.  It's not me, it's you.


Eh, that's all I can do. Thank you, John, for reading this, assuming you did. Thank you for even replying on the forums. Thank you for listening. If nothing else, you don't seem to roll a 20-sided die to determine when to lock a thread, so if nothing else, you've got that going for you.

Great post Imrahil. Pretty much sums up how i feel about the whole thing.

[Rorschachinstein]

Critics loved the voiced Protag. That's not usually a bad thing

[Gibb_Shepard]

I honestly believe that if there is a voiced protagonist, they should define him. With a silent protagonist, which i am entirely in favor of, everything is left to he player. The voice, the tone, the intent, the motivations. EVERYTHING.

But when a voiced character comes in, it defines these things. But the problem is that it doesn't define them enough. What we have in DA2 is a character that shows no emotion due to "not wanting to step on the player's toes"; but is inevitably defined due to the voice over. We have a character that is too defined to create a truly unique incarnation, but not defined enough to suffice as an interesting character from a cinematic storytelling perspective.

The Witcher 2 is my absolute favourite Voiced RPG. Geralt of Rivia is defined. He is snarky, cynical, stoic and broody. You cannot change these aspects. But what you can change is his motivations, his ideals, his indifference. So basically you have an interesting character that can actually be called a character from a cinematic storytelling perspective, but his ultimatums are decided by the player. IMO, it is the absolute ideal route for any voiced protagonist. This allows much more fluid conversation mechanics (Due to the acceptance of banter without player input), it allows instances where the devs cannot possibly step on a player's toes (because they know who Geralt is and how he acts) and just generally allows the possibility of watching an interesting caharcter's stroy.

Bioware, you want to turn this into a purely cinematic franchise? A franchise that can compare to a movie's storytelling? Go ahead. I've accepted that DAO will not be made again. But for the love of god, do it right. You simply cannot have a half assed, semi defined voiced protagonist when your goal is to tell a story like a movie. I cringed when Hawke showed no emotion over his sibling's death. This would not be a problem if you defined your characters, but left the meaty aspects to us; the players.

I know that many here disagree with this, that even though the PC is voiced they want as much control is possible, but i just don't think it is possible.

Look at TW2, please. Defined protagonist, but SO MANY different avenues to take him. This is what you should be aiming for if you wish to take the franchis into a fully cinematic direction.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 29 février 2012 - 07:26 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

One of the upsides to the voiced PC that I have noticed in Mass Effect was the Interrupt option.

Really though, if you have a timed dialogue system like Alpha Protocol, then every dialogue can potentially be an interrupt, since you don't have any lulls in the flow of the conversations in the first place. And you can have a more concrete idea what the actual interrupt will be via text on the dialogue wheel/list as opposed to how ME does them via cinematics.

I agree. If you could combine DAO's storytelling and world building with Alpha Protocol's dialogue system, it would be a game I would buy in a HEARTBEAT. 

Maker bless John Epler, he really has his work cut out for him juggling us chuckleheads on the forums AND heading up the cinematic aspects of the DA games. I don't eny him either task, to be honest. 

Oh god. The dialogue wheel of Alpha Protocol in DAO?? "Sarcastic" "Angry" Charming"? Those are my dialogue options?

That's even worse than the DA2 dialogue system. At least they give me an inkling on what Hawke will say.

Why do you like AP's dialogue system? It isn't even a dialogue system, it's a tone system.

[Imrahil_]

JohnEpler wrote...
Why shouldn't we look to film and television? Our medium has its unique strengths - it's interactive, it's driven by the consumer (whereas television and film involve a passive consumer), but there's a reason why films and television employ certain storytelling methods.

First things first, I appreciate your willingness to hear me out.  I'm not going to agree with everything you said, but hopefully I'll explain why rather than just disagreeing.  I'm also about to go on a huge quote-response spree, which I understand is somewhat annoying, but, well, there you go.

With that said, in regards to the above quote /\\.

Because you *are* a different medium.  Be the best at that.  Don't borrow from other mediums.  You kind of stated my answer for me: "Our medium has its unique strengths - it's interactive, it's driven by the consumer (whereas television and film involve a passive consumer)"

You said it & I support it. Your medium has unique strengths.  Emphasize them.  Don't ignore them & subjugate them to other media which has different strengths.  Stop trying to make super-awesome-cutscenes that look like movies.  Instead, let us interact.  Let us interject.  That'd be new.  If you go down the path of making everything a movie, you're just going to lose out to movies, which do it better.

The approach you're taking, from my point of view (can't emphasize that enough), is that you're making your games into interactive movies.  You're not taking good ideas from movies, you're turning your games into subpar movies.  My PC doesn't matter, or at least matters less & less.  Who he *is* doesn't matter.  Where he came from is defined by you. What he thinks, what he says... is defined by you. The consequences of his actions are defined by you.

I don't like this.  I would rather have a dozen choices of what to say than to limit me to to 3 ways of what you think I *should* say.  I'd like the option, no matter how stupid it may be, of attacking the first person I see. Or, since that's over the top, to not agree with him, or not accept his quest.  You can still railroad me in the long run, as long as I feel like I can choose to break out from what you've envisioned for my character (kinda like how if you didn't agree with Duncan, he Right-Of-Consciption'd you, but at least you could rebel).

Movies have 1 way of seeing things.  The way the Protagonist says them.  I'm not saying you're only giving me only 1 way to say/react/respond, but I am saying you seem to be giving me *fewer* ways to say/react/respond to a given situation.

Sorry to go on about that one point, but that's my main irritation: that you are making my choices for me & not even pretending that I can't choose anything else, like a movie.  I'll try to keep it more succinct in the next few responses. 

and I fail to see why we shouldn't look to other mediums to inform us on the aspects of our games that most closely resemble them. 

'cause you don't.  Resemble them, that is.  You are involved in a unique medium.  Again, I say, make your medium great.  You don't see movies looking to take ideas from cRPGs, do you? Well, outside of failed ventures, like Doom, or Dungeons & Dragons.  When movies tried to move closer to cRPGs, they failed miserably. There's bound to be a reason there hasn't been a WoW movie, right? Movies aren't trying to look to cRPGs.  cRPGs shouldn't look to be like movies, IMO.

spend a year and a half on these forums, weathering torrents of abuse and then remain entirely civil at all times. I have a fairly thick skin, but yes, even I have a limit. For what it's worth, the worst anyone would ever get if they used that kind of sarcasm on another user (or myself, for that matter) would be a gentle warning. I ban over direct insults or other violations of the ToS, not sarcastic remarks.

I understand.  But still... with great power comes great responsibility.  If you want to be both a poster & a moderator, you can't ever do or say anything sarcastic/demeaning/belittling.  Just saying.  Posters you respond to don't have the same power you do.  Just how I see it.  There can be no "but" about it.  IMO.  FWIW.  QED. 

We've always defined pace and tone. By the very nature of a game, it's an authored experience. Sure, some people like to distance themself from the authored side of things as much as possible. It's awesome that some games let you do that. But if you don't think that the vast majority of developers aren't, while making their games, trying to evoke a certain pacing or tone in particular elements of that game - well, I'd say you're mistaken. Whenever you interact with any piece of authored content - there's a tone that they're trying to evoke, either with gameplay elements, with writing, with audio, or with visuals. If you're able to disassociate yourself from that, you've either found one of the rare games where they aren't trying for that, or you've managed to avoid the authorial intent.

I think we may be using different defintions. I think it'd be helpful if you defined *pace* & *tone* how you're using those words.  I think you've alluded to what you mean, & other posters, including myself, have alluded to what we mean, but after reading that, I honestly think we're using those words differently.  What do you specifically mean by "pace" & "tone", in regards to a cRPG, like a spelled-out, no confusion, definition?

There's room for a lot more player-driven narrative than we had in DA2, I'll grant you that. But again. We've never made games that we're entirely player-driven, emergent narratives. We've always tried to tell stories in our games. If you're looking for an entirely player-driven, player-authored experience - well, that's not what we make. It's not what we've ever made. There's always an overarching plot.

Again, I think this may be a problem of different defintions.  I'll go first this time ('cause in the above question, I don't see how those words can mean different things, but I kind of can here).

An example may be helpful here.  In BG2, the protagonist was a Bhaalspawn, had been captured by Irenicus, & after a bit, had to either rescue Imoen or pursue Irenicus for revenge.  Beyond that, everything was player-driven.  The whole world was emergent, pretty much. You could side with the Shadow Thieves or Bodhi.  You could help the Radiant Heart, ignore them, or oppose them.  You could even side with Firkraag, betray what's-his-name in the cabin to get his deed to the land.  You could try to defeat Faldorn or poison the Grove, with the consequence that Trademeet might hate you & closeoff  certain options.

In the Underdark, you can help Adalon, betray Adalon & just avoid her, or kill Adalon.  95% of the game was player-driven.  The world consisted of people/events we ran into & could choose how to interact with them.  There were tons of stories to get involved with, but you could choose *how* your PC interacted with them.

There was an over-arcing story, yes.  You eventually had to confriont Bodhi & Irenicus.  But everything from point A to point Z was up to you how to play it.  That's what I mean.  Events happened, but you could affect them in different way depending on who your character was.  It was player-driven.  It was emergent.  That's what I mean by that.

And here it seems we're arguing at cross purposes. When I say player-driven, emergent narrative, I mean, essentially, a game that has one entirely vague goal, and very little propelling you towards that goal.

See, I think this is backwards.  It should have a pretty specific goal, but let you get there however you want.  Good. Evil. Neutral. Whatever.  That's why BG2's goal was so good.  You had a myriad of reasons to pursue it, no matter what character you decided to play.  Ditto DA:O.  You had a reason to pursue the goal no matter what reason you volunteered/got conscripted/found yourself in being a Warden.  You had an end goal, regardless, but how you chose to get there was your own story.

Unless we put everything in the control of the player (and I mean everything - even the NPCs), we're going to be setting the tone at some point.

Then give us control over everything, even the NPC's.  They should get mad & leave, sure.  They should voice their own personalities.  They shouldn't love us because we are CHARNAME.  They should be independent *personalities*, sure, but they shouldn't be like Triss in TW2.  With that said...
 

If what you're looking for is a sandbox where the player sets all the rules, I'm not sure I can think of any game that does that. I don't think that's what you want, though.

I think that's sort of what people want.  In combat, we need to be able to control our party completely.  I'm not sure what you mean by "sandbox" in this context, ' cause that makes me think of Skyrim, where we could control our companions' every move, but they were bland cutouts.  I don't want Leliana or Aerie to be a Skyrim-like zombies, but I want to be able to control them in combat: armor, weapons, spells, abilities, drink-a-potion, go here, go there, etc.  I certainly want all those things for my character.  I may just be missing your point here, though, but I do indeed want to set the rules in that sense.

Of course, our job is to make that loss of control as unobtrusive and unnoticeable as possible. Sometimes, we succeed. Other times, not so much.

At the very least, we should never lose control of our character.  That's part of the problem.  When what he says/does/acts/feels/emotes is taken away from us, that's just bad.  There is no "good" way to do that.  But again, I may be misunderstanding what you're saying about loss of control.

But by its very nature, a CRPG is going to be an authored experience to at least some degree. What degree, of course, depends on the game in question. And maybe it's true that we author that experience too much for you. That's unfortunate - I like to see as many people enjoying our games as possible - but that's the path we've chosen. We can't make everyone happy, as much as we'd love to, and the only thing I can point to is our work. I can discuss and talk however long I want, but in the end, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

Yes, I agree, & my problem is more-or-less that you're doing it too much.  Or at least, going down the path of doing it too much.  The path you've chosen is to dictate my character to me.  If I can't play a game where I can be "a loveable rogue" and also "an evil, vindictive wizard", and also "an upstanding noble fighter who loves the common folk", and also "a selfish thief", and also "a naive mage", and also "a low-born warrior who only cares about his companions"... then you're just not making a game I want.

The more you dictate who I have to be & who I have to hang around with & how I have to react to things, the less I want to play it.  Basically.

[Uccio]

Cstaf wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...
Yes, that's exactly it. Not that we're looking at how another highly visual medium, films, tell stories and trying to adapt some of their techniques to gaming, as they've been developed over a century and have a lot to say about using visuals to convey emotion, tone, that sort of thing. Nope, it's because we want to make movies and cartoons. Congratulations, you've cracked the code.

This is just a terrible approach.  IMO, obviously.  All sarcasm from your post aside, granted, you should not be looking to movies/films to tell your story.  You should be looking to the *future* of computer games, specifically cRPGs.  You should be innovating that medium.  Leading that medium.  Not looking to the past/present of movies.  If you do that, you'll only make games that lag behind movies instead of games that are at the forefront of cRPGs.

When you loftily proclaim that we don't want to make games because of a particular stylistic and presentation choice we've made, well, I get a little sarcastic. It's a character flaw.

To be fair, you aren't allowed to do that, more-or-less.  You have the power to ban people.  With great power comes great responsibility. You'll literally never get banned or even warned for anything you say.  You need to conduct yourself on a higher level. Suck it up. No character flaws allowed. Sorry.  It is what is.

As to the rest - I don't think we've ever interrupted the game every three minutes to give a cutscene.

Just to digress a moment, do they teach a class in Going Literal To Combat A Point 101 at Bioware?  You know as well as everyone reading that that he didn't literally mean "every three minutes".  Y'all do this a lot.  I mean *a lot*.

What a voiced protagonist gives us, otoh, is the ability to set pace and tone.

This is disturbing.  You shouldn't set pace or tone. You should accomodate pace AND tone. The player should set pace and tone. I'm with Sylvius on this issue, even if he is mad. Really, this sort of defines the contention. If I had to level one defining, all-encompassing criticism at DA2 & the direction Bioware is heading in, it'd be "stop trying to define anything". Pace & tone included.

Make an awesome world with deep characters for us to advernture in. Stop telling us who our character is. Stop telling us what he says. Stop telling us how he reacts to events. Go back to making awesome worlds to interact with however we choose to interact with them.

JohnEpler wrote...
Unless you're building an entirely player-driven, emergent narrative, we are, at some point, setting the tone.

As has already been pointed out, a good RPG is exactly that: "an entirely player-driven, emergent narrative". Bioware used to be the pinnacle of entirely player-driven, emergent narratives. It's... somewhat astounding... that you don't even want that anymore. That you think that's something you *shouldn't* be making. That you think that's something that people don't want.

I started playing BG2 again recently.  I have dialogues that are dependent on my character's build, or stats, or what I did previously.  I'm playing a CG Mage character right now, &, having played this game enough times, I now look forward to playing again as a NE Fighter/Cleric so I can play through the Bodhi stuff instead of the Aran Linvail stuff, & handle quests differently, & pick up different companions, which means I'll probably have an easier time in the Underdark because I won't role-play the same urgency to go after Imoen ASAP. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And you don't think people want an entirely player-driven, emergent narrative? That's exactly what we want.

I'm not really talking about the tone of the player's dialogue, by the way - it would work just as well if we had the player silently mouthing their lines but never speaking. It comes down to how conversations have 'beats', and you can use those natural beats to change the tone of the story.

No, you should stop this. You should stop tyring to set/change the tone of the story. You should set up events, worlds, characters, politics, even items, which may or may not change the tone of the story, depending on what the player chooses to do.

Then let us adventure through it, changing the story as we go. Setting the tone as we go. Stop rail-roading. Stop trying to play the game for us.

As to the second, well, I hate to use the line, but that's a matter of opinion. We seem to have at least as many fans who don't feel that they're fighting the conversation, who prefer the cinematic approach and feel that it is, overall,

No, you don't.  Granted, of the people who bought DA2, that audience is split on a lot of things. Voiced protagonist, "cinematic approach", iconic companions, sure - the audience that bought DA2 is split on a lot of the changes DA2 made, But what you're forgetting/ignoring is that *DA2 lost about 3 million customers from DA:O*. Possibly more.  I'm assuming DA2 hit 2 million in actual sales.

You are literally ignoring the 3 million+ buyers of the original that didn't buy the sequel & instead focusing on half the people that did buy the sequel. And for every new buyer of DA2 who didn't play DA:O, that's en extra person that didn't buy the sequel. It's not split. It is not the case that 50% like voiced & 50% like silent. What is true is that after the 3 million drop in sales, 50% of the people who bought DA2 like voiced & 50% don't. This is important. Don't try to pretend that the Dragon Age fanbase is split. It's not. 50% of the 60%-drop-off is split  Which means 20% of your original buyers like DA2, not 50%.

You are going down the wrong path, & it's disappointing to me because it means you won't be making games I like anymore. As things stand now, from what we know, I will not buy your next game. I actually bought ME2 for the sole reason that "hey, that game was made by the DA:O" people. I knew nothing about it except that "the Bioware people made it", so I figured I'd give it a shot - turned out I didn't really like it much, but I don't regret the purchase.

I bought every single DA:O DLC, except Darkspawn Chronicles (didn't like the concept), because I wanted to support that game. I love BG1 & 2. I replay them sporadically (like now, as I mentioned).  I replay DA:O every once in a while.  Just sayin' I'm not a hater. I love Bioware. It just seems like you are determined to make games I don't like anymore.  It's not me, it's you.


Eh, that's all I can do. Thank you, John, for reading this, assuming you did. Thank you for even replying on the forums. Thank you for listening. If nothing else, you don't seem to roll a 20-sided die to determine when to lock a thread, so if nothing else, you've got that going for you.

Great post Imrahil. Pretty much sums up how i feel about the whole thing.

My feelings exactly.

[rolson00]

i think most gaming studios have lost faith in the power of imagination and when you look at most of the COD crowd that loss of faith is understandable. For me i feel that the silent is more interactive, as it engages your mind into making a voice for that character yourself, thus making you feel more involved and this is one of DA:O's strongest points for me. In DA:O it made you think that you really were the Warden, that you stopped the blight.

Modifié par rolson00, 29 février 2012 - 09:39 .

[zyntifox]

I agree fully that silent is more interactive since it leaves more room for roleplaying. In origins it felt like i was playing an avatar of me, where my decisions really matter for the outcome of the game. Now the outcame may not have differ from the choices that much but BioWare did create an powerful illusion that it really did. In DA2 it felt like i was no longer in the driver-seat but instead was sitting beside a guy/girl named Hawke who was driving the car which i from time to time could tell him/her to pick the left lane or right lane. But in the end it really did not matter what lane i told him/her to drive in since you could clearly see that all lanes were going straight forward.

[Arppis]

I think in Deus Ex 3 you got full phraises of what character is going to say. But Adam Jensen was a big douche about it most of the time. Heh.

rolson00 wrote...

i think most gaming studios have lost
faith in the power of imagination and when you look at most of the COD
crowd that loss of faith is understandable. For me i feel that the
silent is more interactive, as it engages your mind into making a voice
for that character yourself, thus making you feel more involved and this
is one of DA:O's strongest points for me. In DA:O it made you think
that you really were the Warden, that you stopped the blight.

CoD had silent protagonist btw. That's one of the reasons why I didn't like it. When character is so detached from the game world that they don't react in any way of someone's death or something that happens on the screen, it's pretty poor writing.

This is what takes away from immersion from me about Silent Protagonists. Good thing in RPG's you can choose what they say and react, even when they are silent. It utterly fails in other games thou.

That said, I still pefere voiced PC's. They could change the conversation wheels, if it made people feel better. I don't really care about them. But I want to see my character react, instead of stading there with blank expression on the face, that's a huge immersion killer. FOR ME.

Well here is another alternative sollution. "Mute player character" button. Where it basicaly skips your character talks. Tadaa!

Modifié par Arppis, 29 février 2012 - 10:19 .

[Mr Fixit]

Yrkoon wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

I also find John's comments very illuminating, and I look forward to seeing BioWare properly implement all these nifty features he wrote about. Sadly, I don't really see them for the time being.

I think John and the  rest of the Bioware crew will eventually succeed  in doing everything they  envision with regards to creating a rich, nearly flawless cinematic experience in a game.  They've stated the goal, they've  identified the problems and the challenge.  Now its  just a  matter of  addressing those problems then carrying out the application.

But  when they do pull it off, will it  be a game I want to play?  I doubt it.  The sheer amount of personal RP elements that have to be sacrificed in order to pull off a cinematic masterpiece is... just too much for my tastes.  Too far removed from  what I consider my ideal RPG gaming experience.

I understand where you're coming from. Me? Well, I'm a gamer that's easy to please If they mutate into a full-blown interactive movie making company, you know what? I'll still play and enjoy their games. Yeah, they probably won't be RPGs, for my role-playing fix I'll have to look elsewhere. But, if the games are good at what they set out to be good at, I'll happily play them for what they are.

I really do not think that old school RPGs are be-all and end-all of gaming.

[rolson00]

Arppis wrote...

CoD had silent protagonist btw. That's one of the reasons why I didn't like it. When character is so detached from the game world that they don't react in any way of someone's death or something that happens on the screen, it's pretty poor writing.

Well here is another alternative sollution. "Mute player character" button. Where it basicaly skips your character talks. Tadaa!

couple of things first when i said CoD crowd i ment the people who play those style of games not the games themselves

secondly a mute button wouldnt solve anything as the disc space would still be taken up by speech actors lines, the problem isnt a talking main character its hardware issues i said this earlier until gaming studios have better consols and new discs to put their games on we're going to be having this same arguemnt til we're old men.

now i do prefer silent but only because a talking main character isnt complete enough (due to what i just said)  in a shooter (Cod and me series) talking mian chars are fine, but ina fantasy game people want to be a different race like and elf or a dwarf and are dishearted when they are forced to play human.

[Wulfram]

JohnEpler wrote...

Why shouldn't we look to film and television? Our medium has its unique strengths - it's interactive, it's driven by the consumer (whereas television and film involve a passive consumer), but there's a reason why films and television employ certain storytelling methods. There's a reason that Western cinema shows left to right as a forward progression and right to left as a setback, for example. Or why a low angle is used to convey power and grandeur, while a high angle is used to make a character seem diminuitive. They're based on a library of techniques and tactics that are shown to evoke a particular emotion or thought process in the consumer, and I fail to see why we shouldn't look to other mediums to inform us on the aspects of our games that most closely resemble them
.

But it's increasingly obvious that Bioware is prioritising copying those cinematic techniques over allowing the interactivity which is the whole point of the medium

Take the start of the ME3 demo.  Stopping to allow the player to choose the dialogue would get in the way of doing a West Wing style walk and talk, so there's no player choice.

Or right at the end of DA2.  You want to have a dramatic speech, stopping to get the player to choose the dialogue would screw up the flow.  So Hawke just launches into a speech with no player input whatsoever.

Modifié par Wulfram, 29 février 2012 - 11:39 .

[Morroian]

Wulfram wrote...

Or right at the end of DA2.  You want to have a dramatic speech, stopping to get the player to choose the dialogue would screw up the flow.  So Hawke just launches into a speech with no player input whatsoever.

As opposed to DAO where Alistair launches into speeches that should have been given by the Warden.

[HolyAvenger]

There's an argument being made in this thread btw that DA2 lost half the players of DAO for RP/silent protagonist reasons. BS. I've played both games, and there are many reasons why I would hesitate to recommend DA2, but the voiced protagonist isn't it...the railroading of story is, but that happened for other reasons (rushed to completion).