942 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

They have been going in that direction since Kotor, DAO had a lot of cinematics so much so that one of my problems with the game is that the cinematics emphasise the muteness of the warden.

I didn't find that to be true at all.  The Warden's muteness created zero difficulties for me in DAO, cinematics or no.

In fact, the Warden's muteness actually the made the cinematics more acceptable to me, because the Warden couldn't say anything during them.

[The_11thDoctor]

I want them to evolve not devolve... DA2 was going in the right direction, but got hit by a bus in the process. There was a lot improved, but they cut tons of features needed and recycled environments making the execution feel like ramming into a brick wall. The Voiced character was an improvement and the personality choice was great. I never would have tried the female side of the game otherwise. Or the game if they had a silent MC again... hate games like that...

[omnitremere]

aang001 wrote...

I want them to evolve not devolve... DA2 was going in the right direction, but got hit by a bus in the process. There was a lot improved, but they cut tons of features needed and recycled environments making the execution feel like ramming into a brick wall. The Voiced character was an improvement and the personality choice was great. I never would have tried the female side of the game otherwise. Or the game if they had a silent MC again... hate games like that...

I strongly agree with this.  I'm fine with no voice in a game where everything is text based anyway like Final Fantasy 8.  But for everybody else to have fully fleshed out voice acting except me is just jarring.  Peronally I'd like games to go a step further and allow you to choose from more than one voice for your character.  The only game I've ever seen do this was Def Jam Vendetta and it was an awesome feature.  

[AkiKishi]

I012345 wrote...

aang001 wrote...

I want them to evolve not devolve... DA2 was going in the right direction, but got hit by a bus in the process. There was a lot improved, but they cut tons of features needed and recycled environments making the execution feel like ramming into a brick wall. The Voiced character was an improvement and the personality choice was great. I never would have tried the female side of the game otherwise. Or the game if they had a silent MC again... hate games like that...

I strongly agree with this.  I'm fine with no voice in a game where everything is text based anyway like Final Fantasy 8.  But for everybody else to have fully fleshed out voice acting except me is just jarring.  Peronally I'd like games to go a step further and allow you to choose from more than one voice for your character.  The only game I've ever seen do this was Def Jam Vendetta and it was an awesome feature.  

While I prefer the silent protagonist if the protagonist is voiced I want it as fully realised as possible.

[Maria Caliban]

In Kingdoms of Amalur, they had a silent protagonist and voiced NPCs. It worked fine. Though there was the occasional disconnect, it mostly didn't matter. Same with Fallout: New Vegas.

In DA:O and DA II, the problem is the cinematic nature of the game and the storytelling. You'd get big, emotional scenes like a woman begging you to spare her child or Alister yelling at you for sparing Loghain, and the PC stood there with a vaguely gassy look as they responded. They weren't so much a participant in events as a spectator.

The original Dead Space had the same problem. Issac was an emotionless animatron that you piloted through the world. He'd make 'urk' noises when something hit him, but otherwise you'd think he was strolling through the park instead of trapped in a ship of horrors.

But he had a great ass. Nothing to do with the subject, but whenever he stepped into his upgrade machine, I found myself marveling at his butt. It was perfect.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 29 mars 2012 - 09:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

In Kingdoms of Amalur, they had a silent protagonist and voiced NPCs. It worked fine. Though there was the occasional disconnect, it mostly didn't matter. Same with Fallout: New Vegas.

In DA:O and DA II, the problem is the cinematic nature of the game and the storytelling. You'd get big, emotional scenes like a woman begging you to spare her child or Alister yelling at you for sparing Loghain, and the PC stood there with a vaguely gassy look as they responded. They weren't so much a participant in events as a spectator.

But that's what you are when other people are talking.  You're a spectator.

[Korusus]

Maria Caliban wrote...

In Kingdoms of Amalur, they had a silent protagonist and voiced NPCs. It worked fine. Though there was the occasional disconnect, it mostly didn't matter. Same with Fallout: New Vegas.

In DA:O and DA II, the problem is the cinematic nature of the game and the storytelling. You'd get big, emotional scenes like a woman begging you to spare her child or Alister yelling at you for sparing Loghain, and the PC stood there with a vaguely gassy look as they responded. They weren't so much a participant in events as a spectator.

Maybe it's because I'm so conditioned to silent protagonists (all my favorite cRPGs are silent protag), but I've never had a problem with that.  I see it as an abstraction.  It's the cinematic approach to game design that's the problem.  More and more freedom is taken away from the player all in the name of a cinematic approach.  So yippee, we all get to watch the game play itself...all the most interesting, active things your character does are things you have no control over.  Even if you select the dialogue that leads to the action, because it's the dialogue wheel you have no idea that you were selecting that option until it happens.

Modifié par Korusus, 29 mars 2012 - 09:49 .

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that's what you are when other people are talking.  You're a spectator.

As a player, I'm a spectator. The PC is a participant.

Unless you're talking about me in the real world. There are conversations where I'm a spectator, but if I'm emotionally engaged I don't have that mental distancing. And I say this as someone who's often accused of shutting down or becoming a brick wall when a conversation gets heated.

Korusus wrote...

Maybe it's because I'm so conditioned to silent protagonists (all my favorite cRPGs are silent protag), but I've never had a problem with that.  I see it as an abstraction.

I've played tons of games with a silent protagonist. There's no disconnect in Neverwinter Nights because the NPCs communicate through text as well. Even Jade Empire and Knights might have vocal NPCs but their facial expressions and body language were light. In that environment, the PC looked more restrained, but the basic head nodding and shifting worked.

 It's the cinematic approach to game design that's the problem.  More and more freedom is taken away from the player all in the name of a cinematic approach.  So yippee, we all get to watch the game play itself...all the most interesting, active things your character does are things you have no control over.  Even if you select the dialogue that leads to the action, because it's the dialogue wheel you have no idea that you were selecting that option until it happens.

Paraphrasing and auto-dialogue isn't really what I'm referring to.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 29 mars 2012 - 10:01 .

[AkiKishi]

Korusus wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

In Kingdoms of Amalur, they had a silent protagonist and voiced NPCs. It worked fine. Though there was the occasional disconnect, it mostly didn't matter. Same with Fallout: New Vegas.

In DA:O and DA II, the problem is the cinematic nature of the game and the storytelling. You'd get big, emotional scenes like a woman begging you to spare her child or Alister yelling at you for sparing Loghain, and the PC stood there with a vaguely gassy look as they responded. They weren't so much a participant in events as a spectator.

Maybe it's because I'm so conditioned to silent protagonists (all my favorite cRPGs are silent protag), but I've never had a problem with that.  I see it as an abstraction.  It's the cinematic approach to game design that's the problem.  More and more freedom is taken away from the player all in the name of a cinematic approach.  So yippee, we all get to watch the game play itself...all the most interesting, active things your character does are things you have no control over.  Even if you select the dialogue that leads to the action, because it's the dialogue wheel you have no idea that you were selecting that option until it happens.

There a couple of point in KOA where the fact you can't speak is lit up like neon light. Either another character monologues for you, or you get a rousing "silent" speech.

Aside from those occasions it works fine. But KOA is not a particularly cinematic game. And it's in the "cinematic" areas where you notice the lack of voice. In a more cinematic game the lack of voice would be very apparent.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that's what you are when other people are talking.  You're a spectator.

As a player, I'm a spectator. The PC is a participant.

Unless you're talking about me in the real world. There are conversations where I'm a spectator, but if I'm emotionally engaged I don't have that mental distancing. And I say this as someone who's often accused of shutting down or becoming a brick wall when a conversation gets heated.

At that point put a movie on instead. Most people play RPGS to have an interactive experience that movies and books don't give. They want to be a part of the story, not just watch it.

[Korusus]

Maria Caliban wrote...

 It's the cinematic approach to game design that's the problem.  More and more freedom is taken away from the player all in the name of a cinematic approach.  So yippee, we all get to watch the game play itself...all the most interesting, active things your character does are things you have no control over.  Even if you select the dialogue that leads to the action, because it's the dialogue wheel you have no idea that you were selecting that option until it happens.

Paraphrasing and auto-dialogue isn't really what I'm referring to.

I'm not talking about auto-dialogue (although it's certainly relevant), I'm talking about the fact that the dialogue wheel often causes the PC to perform an unexpected action in the sequence.  In addition, you have things like the reaction timers in Mass Effect that also lead to unexpected or unanticipated action that you have no real control over and no way of knowing what they will be until they happen.  That's a downside to the cinematic approach in addition to the shoehorning of a voiced protagonist.

Let me play the game.  I want to play it, not watch it.

Modifié par Korusus, 29 mars 2012 - 10:11 .

[omnitremere]

Maria Caliban wrote...

In Kingdoms of Amalur, they had a silent protagonist and voiced NPCs. It worked fine. Though there was the occasional disconnect, it mostly didn't matter. Same with Fallout: New Vegas.

In DA:O and DA II, the problem is the cinematic nature of the game and the storytelling. You'd get big, emotional scenes like a woman begging you to spare her child or Alister yelling at you for sparing Loghain, and the PC stood there with a vaguely gassy look as they responded. They weren't so much a participant in events as a spectator.

The original Dead Space had the same problem. Issac was an emotionless animatron that you piloted through the world. He'd make 'urk' noises when something hit him, but otherwise you'd think he was strolling through the park instead of trapped in a ship of horrors.

But he had a great ass. Nothing to do with the subject, but whenever he stepped into his upgrade machine, I found myself marveling at his butt. It was perfect.

It works fine in KoA because you really don't have a personality in that game.  In conversation 95% of what you do is ask questions.  You don't really develop friendships or relationships.  Not that there aren't people that travel with you but they're chosen for you, you don't actually designate them as friends. You go out, do quests, sometimes finish them in an evil or good way, and then move on to the next town.  So yeah in that situaiton it doesn't matter that you don't have a voice.  But in any game that puts a focus on your relationship with other characters(DA, ME, Witcher, etc. etc.) it seems to me that a lack of a voice would be a problem.

[Maria Caliban]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that's what you are when other people are talking.  You're a spectator.

As a player, I'm a spectator. The PC is a participant.

Unless you're talking about me in the real world. There are conversations where I'm a spectator, but if I'm emotionally engaged I don't have that mental distancing. And I say this as someone who's often accused of shutting down or becoming a brick wall when a conversation gets heated.

At that point put a movie on instead. Most people play RPGS to have an interactive experience that movies and books don't give. They want to be a part of the story, not just watch it.

Dragon Age: Origins didn't let the PC participate in these emotional scenes. That's my complaint, Sarah.

Alister is yelling at my PC. After a year of working and fighting together, of considering him my brother in arms, he's about to toss that all away. He's saying I betrayed the Order, when I'm desperately trying to save Thedas from the Blight.

What can my PC do?

Can she get in his face and yell right back at him? Can she look tired and broken? No, all she can do is stand there like a rock.

In Mass Effect 2, there's a volus who falsely accuses a quarian of stealing something. Shepard proves he was mistaken, but he and the C-Sec officer continue to harass the quarian. Shepard can show anger and outrage.

While Alister was denouncing me in front of the entire kingdom, I'd have loved a Renegade interrupt.

I want my PCs to laugh, weep, yell, and look miserable. I don't want to hit a line of text and imagine what they're feeling, I want an expression of emotion.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 29 mars 2012 - 10:20 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Except that I'm pretty sure that Sylvius wants to be allowed to not fight the blight.

I want to be able to make the choice to fight the Blight even with fighting the Blight is mandatory.

Okay. That you do have. What you do not have is the choice to not fight the blight.

[Maria Caliban]

I012345 wrote...

It works fine in KoA because you really don't have a personality in that game.  In conversation 95% of what you do is ask questions.  You don't really develop friendships or relationships.  Not that there aren't people that travel with you but they're chosen for you, you don't actually designate them as friends. You go out, do quests, sometimes finish them in an evil or good way, and then move on to the next town.  So yeah in that situaiton it doesn't matter that you don't have a voice.  But in any game that puts a focus on your relationship with other characters(DA, ME, Witcher, etc. etc.) it seems to me that a lack of a voice would be a problem.

We have reached consensus.

[the_one_54321]

I012345 wrote...
So yeah in that situaiton it doesn't matter that you don't have a voice.  But in any game that puts a focus on your relationship with other characters(DA, ME, Witcher, etc. etc.) it seems to me that a lack of a voice would be a problem.

Games used to manage this, not only without voices, but without any sound above 8bit quality. Why is it different now?

[Realmzmaster]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I012345 wrote...
So yeah in that situaiton it doesn't matter that you don't have a voice.  But in any game that puts a focus on your relationship with other characters(DA, ME, Witcher, etc. etc.) it seems to me that a lack of a voice would be a problem.

Games used to manage this, not only without voices, but without any sound above 8bit quality. Why is it different now?

Gamers expectations and demands are greater  because of what the technology is now capable of. That is the difference. Games in the 8 bit era were limited by the technology and what could be done. Even then Atari and Amiga programmers were pushing the limits of that technology to make amazing sounds and in some cases speech utilizing custom chips.

Gamers look at other game genres and ask why cannot my crpgs have photo realistic imagery? Why does my PC remain slient when in  other games or other crpgs the PC can hold a conversation? Why should crpgs live in the stone age when technology is available to take it to the next higher level.

In the 8 bit era technology limited what could be done. Those limitations and constraints are disappearing.

Whether that is a good thing or bad depends on the individual. Games are going to keep evolving as long as someone keeps pushing the envelope

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 29 mars 2012 - 10:48 .

[the_one_54321]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Gamers expectations and demands are greater  because of what the technology is now capable of.

Oh. So the gamer's expectations are the problem. Gotcha.


On a more serious note;

Realmzmaster wrote...
Those limitations and constraints are disappearing.

Very significant new limitations now exist. We've traded significant content and customization for a voiced protagonist.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 29 mars 2012 - 11:00 .

[omnitremere]

Realmzmaster wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

I012345 wrote...
So yeah in that situaiton it doesn't matter that you don't have a voice.  But in any game that puts a focus on your relationship with other characters(DA, ME, Witcher, etc. etc.) it seems to me that a lack of a voice would be a problem.

Games used to manage this, not only without voices, but without any sound above 8bit quality. Why is it different now?

Gamers expectations and demands are greater  because of what the technology is now capable of. That is the difference. Games in the 8 bit era were limited by the technology and what could be done. Even then Atari and Amiga programmers were pushing the limits of that technology to make amazing sounds and in some cases speech utilizing custom chips.

Gamers look at other game genres and ask why cannot my crpgs have photo realistic imagery? Why does my PC remain slient when in  other games or other crpgs the PC can hold a conversation? Why should crpgs live in the stone age when technology is available to take it to the next higher level.

In the 8 bit era technology limited what could be done. Those limitations and constraints are disappearing.

Whether that is a good thing or bad depends on the individual. Games are going to keep evolving as long as someone keeps pushing the envelope

Not only that but frankly anything that stays stagnant dies.  They can't just keep doing the same **** over and over.  You're supposed to push the envelope and try different things in order to improve your product.  Sometimes you get a hit like Caliban loving your Jade Empire romance.  Other times you miss like when I012345 hates the ME3 ending.  But either way by trying to do something different you're developing and hopefully working towards even greater products.  Taking several steps backwards can't be the answer.

[Xewaka]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Gamers look at other game genres and ask why cannot my crpgs have photo realistic imagery? Why does my PC remain slient when in  other games or other crpgs the PC can hold a conversation? Why should crpgs live in the stone age when technology is available to take it to the next higher level.

Why cannot I roleplay my character? Why am I suddenly having about a third of the content I used to have?
Technology can branch in various different evolutive paths. What fits for one genre does not automatically fit the others. People go to different games to find different things. I don't play Civilization for the same reasons I play SPEESH MEHREEN, nor I play SPEESH MEHREEN for the same reasons I play Deus Ex Human Revolution, nor I play DX:HR for the same reasons I play Team Fortress 2. Each game covers a different set of needs from the player, and those different needs make some features mutually exclusive.

You don't make a dog make its neccesities in a litterbox.

Modifié par Xewaka, 29 mars 2012 - 10:58 .

[MagmaSaiyan]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that's what you are when other people are talking.  You're a spectator.

As a player, I'm a spectator. The PC is a participant.

Unless you're talking about me in the real world. There are conversations where I'm a spectator, but if I'm emotionally engaged I don't have that mental distancing. And I say this as someone who's often accused of shutting down or becoming a brick wall when a conversation gets heated.

At that point put a movie on instead. Most people play RPGS to have an interactive experience that movies and books don't give. They want to be a part of the story, not just watch it.

yes but there is still a difference, once you push play or start, the movie can continue without you, to continue through a game its gonna need your control

[Realmzmaster]

Xewaka wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Gamers look at other game genres and ask why cannot my crpgs have photo realistic imagery? Why does my PC remain slient when in  other games or other crpgs the PC can hold a conversation? Why should crpgs live in the stone age when technology is available to take it to the next higher level.

Why cannot I roleplay my character? Why am I suddenly having about a third of the content I used to have?
Technology can branch in various different evolutive paths. What fits for one genre needs not fit the others.

You don't make a dog make its neccesities in a litterbox.

Actually depends on the dog. I know quite a few breeds where the owners have them using litter boxes. Why? because everyone does not roleplay the same way or want to roleplay the way you do. Technology is available now that those gamers can see the way they want to roleplay realized.

[the_one_54321]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Technology is available now that those gamers can see the way they want to roleplay realized.

Why should I care? I still want the game that I want to play. The fact that others are finding new things means nothing to me.

[Realmzmaster]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Technology is available now that those gamers can see the way they want to roleplay realized.

Why should I care? I still want the game that I want to play. The fact that others are finding new things means nothing to me.

It does not have to mean anything to you. It does to developers who are making games and those people are asking that their way of playing be part of the equation. Last time I checked their money is just as acceptable as yours. It comes down to where the majority of the gamers want to proceed. One is either on the train or left at the station.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Except that I'm pretty sure that Sylvius wants to be allowed to not fight the blight.

I want to be able to make the choice to fight the Blight even with fighting the Blight is mandatory.

Okay. That you do have. What you do not have is the choice to not fight the blight.

Yes, but once again that's the issue of freedom vs. control.

Even without freedom, we need control.  And certainly we cannot have freedom without first havng control.  So let's get control back and then see where we can go from there.