942 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

slashthedragon wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Merci357 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I believe the upcoming Diablo III will be silent as well.

Just a quick remark regarding D3, no, it is fully voiced.

Does the PC have actual conversations, or are we talking sound bytes like "I will clear the monastery" and "Death to demons!"?

I was watching a 'Let's Play' of the demo and it looked like the NPCs had most of the spoken dialogue but the character had sound bytes.  Not sure if that will change or if it differs in later parts of the game.

Does Diablo III actually have a campaign?

[Maria Caliban]

A single player campaign? Yes.

[Merci357]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Merci357 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I believe the upcoming Diablo III will be silent as well.

Just a quick remark regarding D3, no, it is fully voiced.

Does the PC have actual conversations, or are we talking sound bytes like "I will clear the monastery" and "Death to demons!"?

I haven't played the beta myself, so I can't tell you how it's done in D3 besides watching a few youtube beta videos. That said, according to Blizzard each PC (per class/gender combination) has about 1200 voiced lines, that doesn't sound like a classic silent protagonist in my view.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Can't speak for Skyrim but in New Vegas you barely notice. It's not a cinematic game. Pulling off a cinematic game with a silent protagonist,don't think that's going to happen.

That makes the cinematics the problem.

Sorry John Epler, but if the cinematics break the game, the cinematics need to go.

[upsettingshorts]

Sorry Sylvius, but if you can't appreciate what the game offers, then you need to go.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sorry Sylvius, but if you can't appreciate what the game offers, then you need to go.

The game doesn't offer gameplay.  Non-interractive cinematics are non-interactive.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The game doesn't offer gameplay.  Non-interractive cinematics are non-interactive.

So is your imagination, yet your experience relies upon it to fabricate content that isn't there.  

[eyesofastorm]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sorry Sylvius, but if you can't appreciate what the game offers, then you need to go.

The game doesn't offer gameplay.  Non-interractive cinematics are non-interactive.

I agree.  You have to decide if you want to do what movies already do or if you want to do what games can do that no other form of entertainment can.  The day will almost certainly come when games can be cinematic and still maintain a high level of interactivity, but in the meantime, I say take advantage of your advantage.  

[Maria Caliban]

It's not an either/or. Every Bioware game I've played included cinematics and gameplay.

[upsettingshorts]

eyesofastorm wrote...

You have to decide if you want to do what movies already do or if you want to do what games can do that no other form of entertainment can.  

What are you asserting games are capable of doing?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

So is your imagination, yet your experience relies upon it to fabricate content that isn't there.

My imagination is active.  I do things in it.  And the result of that work is my actual gameplay input.  That's interactivity.

I do not do things in a cinematic.  I'm the player.  I want to play.

Moreover, there appears to be a widespread belief that I fabricate great swaths of in-game details in my imagination.  This isn't true.  I generally only fabricate my character's personality.  Everything else is an occasional safety valve.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 30 mars 2012 - 09:04 .

[eyesofastorm]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

You have to decide if you want to do what movies already do or if you want to do what games can do that no other form of entertainment can.  

What are you asserting games are capable of doing?

Being interactive.

[eyesofastorm]

Maria Caliban wrote...

It's not an either/or. Every Bioware game I've played included cinematics and gameplay.

I agree.  But as they move towards cinematics, they move away from gameplay, or more specifically in this case, interactivity.  The more scripted something is, the less interactive it is as long as resources are constrained in the way they currently are.  Obvious statement is obvious I guess.

[John Epler]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Can't speak for Skyrim but in New Vegas you barely notice. It's not a cinematic game. Pulling off a cinematic game with a silent protagonist,don't think that's going to happen.

That makes the cinematics the problem.

Sorry John Epler, but if the cinematics break the game, the cinematics need to go.

They break the game for you. Do I think we can take steps to bring back a lot of interactivity? Sure. I'm proud of what we did on DA2, but I do think that, at times, we went too far in the 'cinematics' direction. There are reasons for it, of course, but the end user doesn't really care about those reasons. What they care about is an experience they can enjoy, and I can certainly get behind putting more into in-world interactions and activities.

Are we going to get rid of the cinematics entirely? No. And if that's a deal breaker for you, so be it.

[upsettingshorts]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Being interactive.

This is insufficient.  My definition of interactive and Sylvius' are wildly different, as his reply demonstrates.

But then I think empathy exists and he doesn't.  There's not a lot of common ground there.

eyesofastorm wrote...

 The more scripted something is, the less interactive it is as long as resources are constrained in the way they currently are.

 

Also yours, because every line in every BioWare game is and has always been scripted.  Therefore, by your definition, not interactive.

That's of course not my definition.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 mars 2012 - 09:12 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

You have to decide if you want to do what movies already do or if you want to do what games can do that no other form of entertainment can.  

What are you asserting games are capable of doing?

Being interactive.

AngryPants replies with some snarky personal insult in 3...2...1..

[eyesofastorm]

John Epler wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Can't speak for Skyrim but in New Vegas you barely notice. It's not a cinematic game. Pulling off a cinematic game with a silent protagonist,don't think that's going to happen.

That makes the cinematics the problem.

Sorry John Epler, but if the cinematics break the game, the cinematics need to go.

They break the game for you. Do I think we can take steps to bring back a lot of interactivity? Sure. I'm proud of what we did on DA2, but I do think that, at times, we went too far in the 'cinematics' direction. There are reasons for it, of course, but the end user doesn't really care about those reasons. What they care about is an experience they can enjoy, and I can certainly get behind putting more into in-world interactions and activities.

Are we going to get rid of the cinematics entirely? No. And if that's a deal breaker for you, so be it.

I like this.  Cinematics are just fine with me... but interactivity is more important.  You need a couple of layers of software on top of your current software before you can get where you want to go.  I'm excited for that day.  I think we all are.  The obvious solution is for you to learn to program John... and give up the whole marriage thing... that won't leave you with enough time to add those layers of software.  

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Being interactive.

This is insufficient.  My definition of interactive and Sylvius' are wildly different, as his reply demonstrates.

But then I think empathy exists and he doesn't.  There's not a lot of common ground here.

eyesofastorm wrote...

 The more scripted something is, the less interactive it is as long as resources are constrained in the way they currently are.

 

Also yours, because every line in every BioWare game is and has always been scripted.  Therefore, by your definition, not interactive.

That's of course not my definition.

Strawman.

[eyesofastorm]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Being interactive.

This is insufficient.  My definition of interactive and Sylvius' are wildly different, as his reply demonstrates.

eyesofastorm wrote...

 The more scripted something is, the less interactive it is as long as resources are constrained in the way they currently are.

 

Also yours, because every line in every BioWare game is and has always been scripted.  Therefore, by your definition, not interactive.

That's of course not my definition.

Do you know what I mean and are you just arguing semantics with me or arguing for the sake of arguing or do you truly not know what I mean?

[John Epler]

Upsettingshorts, Sarah, if you start bickering in this thread I will ban you both.

Seriously.

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Strawman.

Demonstrate.

[eyesofastorm]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Strawman.

Demonstrate.

I find this sort of thing SO tiring.  

[John Epler]

eyesofastorm wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Can't speak for Skyrim but in New Vegas you barely notice. It's not a cinematic game. Pulling off a cinematic game with a silent protagonist,don't think that's going to happen.

That makes the cinematics the problem.

Sorry John Epler, but if the cinematics break the game, the cinematics need to go.

They break the game for you. Do I think we can take steps to bring back a lot of interactivity? Sure. I'm proud of what we did on DA2, but I do think that, at times, we went too far in the 'cinematics' direction. There are reasons for it, of course, but the end user doesn't really care about those reasons. What they care about is an experience they can enjoy, and I can certainly get behind putting more into in-world interactions and activities.

Are we going to get rid of the cinematics entirely? No. And if that's a deal breaker for you, so be it.

I like this.  Cinematics are just fine with me... but interactivity is more important.  You need a couple of layers of software on top of your current software before you can get where you want to go.  I'm excited for that day.  I think we all are.  The obvious solution is for you to learn to program John... and give up the whole marriage thing... that won't leave you with enough time to add those layers of software.  

And interactivity is important. I don't disagree with that in the slightest. Nor do I think that you'll find anyone on the team who disagrees. That being said, cinematics serve a purpose - and as much as we'd like to make them more interactive, there are technical limitations, as you've said. In the interim, while they're not interactive, I think there's value in looking to other non-interactive visual media in terms of techniques and how to evoke certain emotions. That's not to say that we're trying to make choose-your-own-adventure films, not by any stretch, but the fact remains that cinematics are chunks of exposition or storytelling that have limited interactivity - a style of presentation that has been done by film and television for a very long time. There's a reason why things like the rule of thirds or left-to-right progression exist, after all, and it'd be silly of us to not recognize and respect the reasoning behind these rules.

[upsettingshorts]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Do you know what I mean and are you just arguing semantics with me or arguing for the sake of arguing or do you truly not know what I mean?

There's where Sylvius and I do have some common ground, IIRC.

Semantics matter.  If I'm saying "this is interactive" and you're saying "this isn't interactive" we either walk away at this point - as I basically do with Sylvius as we don't see eye to eye on so many fundamental concepts - or go into a semantic argument.

I'm also trying to avoid restating my position for the thousandth time to people who have read it before.