942 réponses à ce sujet

[hoorayforicecream]

The 'interactivity' argument can be applied to having anything that stops gameplay, including dialogue.

[eyesofastorm]

John Epler wrote...
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.

Yup.  You... you don't think I'm trying to do away with you?  The industry needs guys doing what you do all along the path to that bright shiny future I'm talking about where we essentially are playing interactive movies.  I'm just saying focus on what games can do that the other forms of media can't using cinematics to prop that up rather than the other way around.  

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Strawman.

Demonstrate.

I find this sort of thing SO tiring.  

Eh I chuckle at it and then when I get bored I go play something. I realize Angrypants wants what he wants just as much as I, or you, or Merin, Brock etc want what we want.

People have explained over and over why paraphrased voice overs remove the player from the equation and folks like Angrypants ignore that everytime and do the whole "strawman", or Ad hominem backhanded comment over and over. 

Prior to the voiced protagonist the player saw the whole line being said and didn't have a set tone, therefore they could set their own tone and roleplay a character how they saw fit. Sylvius explains this all the time, far better than I can, yet it falls on deaf ears.

[eyesofastorm]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Semantics only matter if there is a misunderstanding.  So do you understand me or not?

[John Epler]

eyesofastorm wrote...

John Epler wrote...
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.

Yup.  You... you don't think I'm trying to do away with you?  The industry needs guys doing what you do all along the path to that bright shiny future I'm talking about where we essentially are playing interactive movies.  I'm just saying focus on what games can do that the other forms of media can't using cinematics to prop that up rather than the other way around.  

And I think that's a great way of putting it. Cinematics should work in subservience to the gameplay, not vice-versa.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The 'interactivity' argument can be applied to having anything that stops gameplay, including dialogue.

Sums up Bioware's current target audience in a nut shell.

[John Epler]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The 'interactivity' argument can be applied to having anything that stops gameplay, including dialogue.

Sums up Bioware's current target audience in a nut shell.

This would be an example of an unnecessary post. There is not a single person who is unaware of your contempt for our theoretical 'target audience'. Let's try to keep from posting about it for a while.

[Maria Caliban]

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?

He's arguing with Sylvanus. As such, he knows that pages full of arguments can hinge on a person having a single, specific meaning for a word. I've watched them do this many times.

eyesofastorm wrote...

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.

I think it's more a matter of integrating cinematics into gameplay and knowing when you don't need cinematics to tell the story.

That is, you're talking about this as though it were a zero sum game when it's not.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 30 mars 2012 - 09:27 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Rojahar wrote...

I'd rather have a cutscene in conversations/scenes, rather than standing around like you do in most Bethesda games, even when major events are happening. If I don't care at all about emotion or story, and just want the interactivity of putting a bucket on someone's head while they give some important speech, I'll go play Elder Scrolls.

I concur.

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

People have explained over and over why paraphrased voice overs remove the player from the equation and folks like Angrypants ignore that everytime and do the whole "strawman", or Ad hominem backhanded comment over and over.  

Actually, I don't:

I understand players value the content of the line.  Xewaka has a great example he likes to use, from Mass Effect 2 when confronting the Vimire Survivor.  If you feel it is important to - such as in this example - withhold certain information from another character like avoiding the Cerberus question, paraphrases (and thus the voiced protagonist) make this impossible by obfuscating exactly what the line contents is.  Therefore, if precise control over the dialogue uttered by the PC is important to your roleplaying, a paraphrased, voiced protagonist is inherently limiting.

However when - to use the example earlier in this thread - AngryFrozenWater states that players who prefer the voiced protagonist don't like to read that is a strawman because that's, and this is the important part, not actually why the players prefer a voiced protagonist.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote... 

Prior to the voiced protagonist the player saw the whole line being said and didn't have a set tone, therefore they could set their own tone and roleplay a character how they saw fit. Sylvius explains this all the time, far better than I can, yet it falls on deaf ears.

Here you're simply confusing disagreement with denial.  I fully comprehend what Sylvius and others are doing when they use the ambiguity offered by full text/silent VO to imagine the tone as anything they chose.

I disagree that this is a fun way to play, because it isn't reactive to my satisfaction.  I also disagree that their games were ever intended to be played this way, however I acknowledge that as being mostly irrelevant.  At least until now, when that option is falling by the wayside.  

My position is, and continues to be, that while there used to be two workable approaches to playing a BioWare game their choices are making one approach more engaging and fun, and another approach alienating and frustrating.  This is another thing I believe Sylvius and I agree on.  That my approach is being supported and his is not is the only real reason why my comments tend to support BioWares recent efforts more than his.  If things had been reversed, it would clearly be different.

Maria Caliban wrote...

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?

He's arguing with Sylvanus. As such, he knows that pages full of arguments can hinge on a person having a single, specific meaning for a word. I've watched them do this many times.  

Indeed.  My discussions with Sylvius - when thoroughly explored - tend to either end up at "what is an RPG" or "what is human interaction like?"  And we don't agree on those, either.  

Except in the rare instances where we agree from the start, like GUI or documentation.  I tend to think that if we do then BioWare should probably listen, lol.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 mars 2012 - 09:36 .

[eyesofastorm]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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?

He's arguing with Sylvanus. As such, he knows that pages full of arguments can hinge on a person having a single, specific meaning for a word. I've watched them do this many times.

This is why I tend not to argue with StM.  He is many things, most of which I acutally appreciate, but he is also tedious... and proud of it damn it!

Maria Caliban wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

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.

I think it's more a matter of integrating cinematics into gameplay and knowing when you don't need cinematics to tell the story.

I'm perfectly fine with this.  I don't think what I said necesarily contradicts it.  I do think there have been precious few examples of this being done well to this point though.

Maria Caliban wrote...
That is, you're talking about this as though it were a zero sum game when it's not.

It's not.  I agree.  But I think there is at least a loose relationship there though.  And the future I've been talking about will break that relationship.  Better software will allow much more seemless integration of scripting/cinematics and interactivity/gameplay.  We're working towards it.  In the meantime, I think the loose relationship persists.   

[Brockololly]

John Epler wrote...
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.

Agreed, if you're going to do cinematics you may as well try to do them well.

I guess the question is where in the hierarchy of Dragon Age do cinematics stand in overall importance? Playing ME3, between the autodialogues and non interactive cutscenes that dragged on for minutes with no player engagement, thats not my cup of tea when playing a game, especially an RPG. In that kind of situation it reinforces the separation between gameplay where the player is actively controlling the PC and when you're stuck watching with maybe the occasional prompt for interaction.

I guess I just prefer games like Baldur's Gate or Skyrim where cutscenes are kept to a minimum and most of the action takes place from the point of view of the player. Anytime the cutscenes/cinematics draw too much attention to the actual cinematics is irritating- like hitting some specific boundary and then having the camera switch to some radical view thats entirely disconnected from where the player was controlling their PC seconds ago. Or any other extreme camera moves/shaky cam type movements that go against the style of the game as presented in the actual gameplay.


Although, this point is somewhat problematic:

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.

I get what you're saying but at the same time, going overly cinematic with close ups or different camera moves to try and elicit certain emotions from the player can just come across as very heavy handed and cheap too. Especially if you're trying to push certain motivations on to the PC this way, when the player might not be thinking the same way.

[FedericoV]

eyesofastorm wrote...

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.

I don't know: I agree that games should try as much as they can to avoid non-interactive content. At least, cinematics should not be invasive and occupy the space of player agency.

But then, it would be stupid to avoid questions like... how the hell are you going to describe something that the charachter you play is not experiencing at first hand? If we believe that the "show don't tell" principle apply to all visual arts, then it's better a good cinematic than an off screen info dump via dialogue. Yep, TW2 has a clever solution with the scene where you play a different charachter than Geralt. But that kind of solution is not going to be allways the most effective or economic one in terms of storytelling.

The list could go on. Just to say that cinematics are an effective tool to tell stories and it's a little bit conservative to think that games should never be allowed to use them. There must be a middle ground.

Moreover, when done well, cinematics can interact a lot with your emotions. Some of the most memorable moments of ME3 are cinematic. Don't wont to spoil anything, let's just say that I'm talking about Mordin. The scene I'm talking about are the consequences of many choices that carry through many games so it's hard to say that they are completely not interactive.

[eyesofastorm]

John Epler wrote...
And I think that's a great way of putting it. Cinematics should work in subservience to the gameplay, not vice-versa.

I think you have a bright future John.  

disclaimer:  eyesofastorm does not feel that John Epler has a bright future just because John agreed with him... not JUST because of that.  

[slashthedragon]

Brockololly wrote...

Although, this point is somewhat problematic:

John Epler wrote...

]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.

I get what you're saying but at the same time, going overly cinematic with close ups or different camera moves to try and elicit certain emotions from the player can just come across as very heavy handed and cheap too. Especially if you're trying to push certain motivations on to the PC this way, when the player might not be thinking the same way.

Agreed.  I HATE when I can tell a cinematic is basically saying "YOU MUST FEEL THIS WAY!" even if I do not.
Cinematics are nice and all, but I find that I go back and play games like Final Fantasy 6 over and over again, despite it not being CGI and not having voice acting.  It's not something that sells me on a game.

Modifié par slashthedragon, 30 mars 2012 - 09:38 .

[the_one_54321]

John Epler wrote...
And I think that's a great way of putting it. Cinematics should work in subservience to the gameplay, not vice-versa.

Yes, but it's a swinging pendulum. The more cinema you have, the less interactivity you have. A dampened inverse proportionality. That is to say, decreasing interactivity a certain amount takes a larger amount of cinema. But the relationship is observable.

hoorayforicecream wrote...
The 'interactivity' argument can be applied to having anything that stops gameplay, including dialogue.

Dialog is gameplay. The only thing that isn't gameplay is when you aren't inputting anything at all.

eyesofastorm wrote...

John Epler wrote...
And I think that's a great way of putting it. Cinematics should work in subservience to the gameplay, not vice-versa.

I think you have a bright future John.

disclaimer: eyesofastorm does not feel that John Epler has a bright future just because John agreed with him... not JUST because of that.

Hint; it's because he has a giant man-crush on John.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
My discussions with Sylvius - when thoroughly explored - tend to either end up at "what is an RPG" or "what is human interaction like?" And we don't agree on those, either.

Actually, it's been my experience that Sylvius doesn't disagree with anyone in regard to what human interaction is or isn't, so long as you are able to phrase your explanation in a manner which he properly understands. That is; to avoid any nebulous or ambiguous concepts of feelings that aren't broken down into simple biology.

eyesofastorm wrote...
but he is also tedious... and proud of it damn it!

Precision, deliberate action, and consistency are worthwhile traits, and traits that any and everyone should strive to have whenever they are engaging in a disagreement.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 30 mars 2012 - 09:44 .

[upsettingshorts]

Tesclo wrote...

As the OP of this thread i think it is not only my right but my duty to ask WHERE THE HELL WAS/IS MORRIGAN?! Thanks.

A victim of the consequences of leaving her fate up to the player in major and several minor branching choices.

How do you fully support an outcome that many players did not select?  

If players want to revisit something in the future and want its fate tied to a choice, I think they're always gonna be disappointed.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 mars 2012 - 09:43 .

[Maria Caliban]

Brockololly wrote...

I get what you're saying but at the same time, going overly cinematic with close ups or different camera moves to try and elicit certain emotions from the player can just come across as very heavy handed and cheap too. Especially if you're trying to push certain motivations on to the PC this way, when the player might not be thinking the same way.

If anything, I'd like to see more effort and style put into the cinematics.

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
The 'interactivity' argument can be applied to having anything that stops gameplay, including dialogue.

Dialog is gameplay. The only thing that isn't gameplay is when you aren't inputting anything at all.

What are you inputting while you're reading through the swaths of text that get thrown at you?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

People have explained over and over why paraphrased voice overs remove the player from the equation and folks like Angrypants ignore that everytime and do the whole "strawman", or Ad hominem backhanded comment over and over.  

Actually, I don't:

I understand players value the content of the line.  Xewaka has a great example he likes to use, from Mass Effect 2 when confronting the Vimire Survivor.  If you feel it is important to - such as in this example - withhold certain information from another character like avoiding the Cerberus question, paraphrases (and thus the voiced protagonist) make this impossible by obfuscating exactly what the line contents is.  Therefore, if precise control over the dialogue uttered by the PC is important to your roleplaying, a paraphrased, voiced protagonist is inherently limiting.

However when - to use the example earlier in this thread - AngryFrozenWater states that players who prefer the voiced protagonist don't like to read that is a strawman because that's, and this is the important part, not actually why the players prefer a voiced protagonist.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote... 

Prior to the voiced protagonist the player saw the whole line being said and didn't have a set tone, therefore they could set their own tone and roleplay a character how they saw fit. Sylvius explains this all the time, far better than I can, yet it falls on deaf ears.

Here you're simply confusing disagreement with denial.  I fully comprehend what Sylvius and others are doing when they use the ambiguity offered by full text/silent VO to imagine the tone as anything they chose.

I disagree that this is a fun way to play, because it isn't reactive to my satisfaction.  I also disagree that their games were ever intended to be played this way, however I acknowledge that as being mostly irrelevant.  At least until now, when that option is falling by the wayside.  

My position is, and continues to be, that while there used to be two workable approaches to playing a BioWare game their choices are making one approach more engaging and fun, and another approach alienating and frustrating.  This is another thing I believe Sylvius and I agree on.  That my approach is being supported and his is not is the only real reason why my comments tend to support BioWares recent efforts more than his.  If things had been reversed, it would clearly be different.

Maria Caliban wrote...

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?

He's arguing with Sylvanus. As such, he knows that pages full of arguments can hinge on a person having a single, specific meaning for a word. I've watched them do this many times.  

Indeed.  My discussions with Sylvius - when thoroughly explored - tend to either end up at "what is an RPG" or "what is human interaction like?"  And we don't agree on those, either.  

Except in the rare instances where we agree from the start, like GUI or documentation.  I tend to think that if we do then BioWare should probably listen, lol.

Appreciate the explination Angry. However much like Brock's post just a couple minutes ago the heavy use of cinematics for every thing, and random camera cuts don't draw emotion from me. Because nine out of ten times, it's so telegraphed it pulls you right out of the game. At least that's been my experience the last couple Bioware releases.  (DA2, ME3)

Cinematics are fine, heck I'm not even as stiff as Slyvanius about the voiced protagonist, the only thing I'm asking for is give me, the player, more knowledge, give me enough insight to know what an interupt is going to do so I can decide if that's what MY Shepard would actually do in that situation. Give me skill checks in conversation options for bluffs or intimidates etc.  Put agency back in the player's hand artificial or not so that me as a player feel like I actually have impact, and aren't watching a movie that ocasionally asks me to guess at a conversation choice or click a spell to kill a darkspawn.

[eyesofastorm]

the_one_54321 wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

John Epler wrote...
And I think that's a great way of putting it. Cinematics should work in subservience to the gameplay, not vice-versa.

I think you have a bright future John.

disclaimer: eyesofastorm does not feel that John Epler has a bright future just because John agreed with him... not JUST because of that.

Hint; it's because he has a giant man-crush on John.

1) This is not true.
2) Because this is not true, there is no need for you to be jealous of John and act out like this.
3) You are not and will never be my type so you might as well never be jealous or act out like this.  

I know that's harsh, but I thought it was the most humane way to go.  You'll feel better after a few days and a couple of pints of Ben and Jerry's... I promise.  

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 30 mars 2012 - 09:45 .

[eyesofastorm]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
The 'interactivity' argument can be applied to having anything that stops gameplay, including dialogue.

Dialog is gameplay. The only thing that isn't gameplay is when you aren't inputting anything at all.

What are you inputting while you're reading through the swaths of text that get thrown at you?

Responses?

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
The 'interactivity' argument can be applied to having anything that stops gameplay, including dialogue.

Dialog is gameplay. The only thing that isn't gameplay is when you aren't inputting anything at all.

What are you inputting while you're reading through the swaths of text that get thrown at you?

Your responses, obvously.