942 réponses à ce sujet

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

"==" is typically applied as a line of code designating equivilancey. In logical structure, "equvilance" implies mutual equality. That is to say, something is only equivilant if the relationship works in both directions. In this specific situation, interaction is only applicable as equivilant to itself if I can affect the game and the game can affect me. The digital of this is the "==" in code.

I affect it and it affects me, is the analog of the digital interaction == interaction.

Actually, == is code for testing equivalence. (A == will evaluate to either true or false.

[seraphymon]

Maria Caliban wrote...


But it's affecting and changing you, which means you're interacting with it. You're trying to say there are different *types* of interaction, but if interaction == interaction, that's not relevant.
Yes. You can do better.

That is not what the definition of interaction is. It's a mutal thing. Even if what you said was true, affecting or changing the person varies from person to person, and is mostly opiniated. Thereby having someone not affected, or moved by it. Thereby no interaction according to you.

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Actually, == is code for testing equivalence. (A == will evaluate to either true or false.

It can be used in an IF statement, or it can be used to initiate a change in memory storage. Such that A would become B.

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Actually, == is code for testing equivalence. (A == will evaluate to either true or false.

It can be used in an IF statement, or it can be used to initiate a change in memory storage. Such that A would become B.

No, that's an assignment operator, which is just A = B. They're two entirely different operators. If you have a line of A == B, the compiler will typically optimize it out because it doesn't do anything.

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Actually, == is code for testing equivalence. (A == will evaluate to either true or false.

It can be used in an IF statement, or it can be used to initiate a change in memory storage. Such that A would become B.

No, that's an assignment operator, which is just A = B. They're two entirely different operators. If you have a line of A == B, the compiler will typically optimize it out because it doesn't do anything.

Hmmmm.... I believe you are correct (C+). But I think the modeling software I'm working with right now may not opperate that way.

I actually hate writing code, unless it's very simple. I can do it, and it has its applications, especially in the modeling work I'm doing, but it's such a headache.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 30 mars 2012 - 10:31 .

[Maria Caliban]

Brockololly wrote...

I guess I'd rather BioWare have more of an investment in the actual digital acting of characters or whatever you want to call it than the cinematics.

John can correct me if I'm wrong, but digital acting is 'cinematics.' When you click on a NPC and the camera swings to face them and they start talking, that's a cinematic.

There is nothing more obnoxious than having some dramatic close up in ME or DA2 only to see low resolution textures or a character "acting" with all the subtlety of a muppet. I'd gladly sacrifice cinematics in terms of the camera moving about if it meant giving NPCs more convincing animations and gestures and body language in conversations, while leaving the player in the PC's point of view, something like Human Revolution's dialogue battles.

I'd say you're asking for better cinematics and textures, not less cinematics.

Basically avoid the whole thing with Vent Kid in ME3....thats an issue that goes beyond cinematics but those scenes are exacerbated by the cinematics if the player didn't give a rat's ass what happened to that kid. They're trying to convey an emotion to the player, but if the player doesn't bite, the whole thing comes across as melodramatic and laughable.

But that's more the fault of the story than the story telling. If I don't care about the kid, his death is meaningless. If I don't care about the geth, their death is meaningless. If I don't care about the krogan, the genephage is meaningless.

Making you care is the writer's job. Music and animation can try to tug at your emotion, but if there's nothing to work with, I can't blame the composer or animator.

[seraphymon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

But that's more the fault of the story than the story telling. If I don't care about the kid, his death is meaningless. If I don't care about the geth, their death is meaningless. If I don't care about the krogan, the genephage is meaningless.

Making you care is the writer's job. Music and animation can try to tug at your emotion, but if there's nothing to work with, I can't blame the composer or animator.

I disagree. I mean it could be due to storytelling, but it can be the story telling. Just like when watching 2 different sets of people putting on a play on the same story, you can like one, and not like the other due to how the storytelling, and or how good the actors are or not. Thus having nothing to do with the actual story.

[Maria Caliban]

seraphymon wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...


But it's affecting and changing you, which means you're interacting with it. You're trying to say there are different *types* of interaction, but if interaction == interaction, that's not relevant.
Yes. You can do better.

That is not what the definition of interaction is. It's a mutal thing. Even if what you said was true, affecting or changing the person varies from person to person, and is mostly opiniated. Thereby having someone not affected, or moved by it. Thereby no interaction according to you.

When you watch something you alter it on a quantum level. If interaction requires that both subjects influence one another, my watching something is still a form of interactivity.

I'm pointing out that if any form of interaction - no matter how large or small, no matter the context or meaning - qualifies as interaction to the_one, then watching a movie is interactive.

And yes, according to me, there might not be interaction. I don't accept interaction == interaction as true. I find it simplistic and absolute.

[slashthedragon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Making you care is the writer's job. Music and animation can try to tug at your emotion, but if there's nothing to work with, I can't blame the composer or animator.

But what if you JUST DON'T REALLY CARE about x?  No matter how good or heartwarming or tearjerking the story involving the kid is, and even if it was portrayed perfectly, I still wouldn't care because I don't like kids.  I shouldn't feel obliged to care just for the sake of the story.

[Maria Caliban]

seraphymon wrote...

I disagree. I mean it could be due to storytelling, but it can be the story telling. Just like when watching 2 different sets of people putting on a play on the same story, you can like one, and not like the other due to how the storytelling, and or how good the actors are or not. Thus having nothing to do with the actual story.

The story in ME 3expects us to have an emotional reaction to a child simply because they're a child. That they die is supposed to be deeply sad or troubling or something, but the story itself gives us no basis for emotional attachment.

The sad music, the lingering shots, the expression on the PC's face - those could work in a different context, but in this one they fail for some.

Admittedly, I did leave out the player. No matter how good the story or storyteller, a player might not be inclined to react in the way the writers want. A good example of that for me would be the asari in the hospital.

slashthedragon wrote...

But what if you JUST DON'T REALLY CARE about x?  No matter how good or heartwarming or tearjerking the story involving the kid is, and even if it was portrayed perfectly, I still wouldn't care because I don't like kids.  I shouldn't feel obliged to care just for the sake of the story.

See above.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 30 mars 2012 - 10:44 .

[Wulfram]

Ideally, cutscenes should be reactive even if they're not interactive. Don't have them be one size fits all, have them reflect the players decisions. From big decisions - the player's made a major story choice which determines who is winnig a battle - to very basic ones - like giving a nod to the gender, class or race.

One reason the cutscene when you go through the Omega relay works - despite being the sort of length that would usually have me desperately ESCing or just Alt-Tabbing to go browse the internet for a bit - is because it's working off the players decisions to buy the various upgrades.  Though the music helps too.

It helps keep the player feeling like a participant rather than just a spectator.

Of course, there are costs to this so it can't always happen, I guess particularly if it's prerendered. And sometimes it might not make a whole lot of sense.

If you're doing imports, that means that even the intro can start by referencing the players earlier decisions, like ME2 did by talking about the Council's fate in ME1, which I think is a great statement to start your game with.

Modifié par Wulfram, 30 mars 2012 - 10:49 .

[seraphymon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

seraphymon wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...


But it's affecting and changing you, which means you're interacting with it. You're trying to say there are different *types* of interaction, but if interaction == interaction, that's not relevant.
Yes. You can do better.

That is not what the definition of interaction is. It's a mutal thing. Even if what you said was true, affecting or changing the person varies from person to person, and is mostly opiniated. Thereby having someone not affected, or moved by it. Thereby no interaction according to you.

When you watch something you alter it on a quantum level. If interaction requires that both subjects influence one another, my watching something is still a form of interactivity.

I'm pointing out that if any form of interaction - no matter how large or small, no matter the context or meaning - qualifies as interaction to the_one, then watching a movie is interactive.

And yes, according to me, there might not be interaction. I don't accept interaction == interaction as true. I find it simplistic and absolute.

The fact watching something makes your eyes send messages to the brain is an action on yourself. but again what you do has no affect whatsoever on what is on the screen. it plays the same even on a quantom lvl wether you watch it, or no one watches it. Even with musci you can techincally affect the soundwaves that come out, but thats interacting with soundwaves, not what actually comes out from the radio or whatever., unless of course like what was said you have a programs that do so.

[slashthedragon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

seraphymon wrote...

I disagree. I mean it could be due to storytelling, but it can be the story telling. Just like when watching 2 different sets of people putting on a play on the same story, you can like one, and not like the other due to how the storytelling, and or how good the actors are or not. Thus having nothing to do with the actual story.

The story in ME 3expects us to have an emotional reaction to a child simply because they're a child. That they die is supposed to be deeply sad or troubling or something, but the story itself gives us no basis for emotional attachment.

The sad music, the lingering shots, the expression on the PC's face - those could work in a different context, but in this one they fail for some.

Admittedly, I did leave out the player. No matter how good the story or storyteller, a player might not be inclined to react in the way the writers want. A good example of that for me would be the asari in the hospital.

I think that's why I can't see Shep as "me".  She will always be a character I am controlling, because I personally wouldn't be choked up about the kid/having PTSD over him.  I prefer that dreams, etc NOT be included in a RPG unless it is something more of a vision.  With dreams, they should reflect what I experience and feel as it is my brain that manufactures the dream.  Unless of course someone enters into/tries to control my dream via magic in a game.

Modifié par slashthedragon, 30 mars 2012 - 10:48 .

[Maria Caliban]

slashthedragon wrote...

I think that's why I can't see Shep as "me".  She will always be a character I am controlling, because I personally wouldn't be choked up about the kid/having PTSD over him.  I prefer that dreams, etc NOT be included in a RPG unless it is something more of a vision.  With dreams, they should reflect what I experience and feel as it is my brain that manufactures the dream.  Unless of course someone enters into/tries to control my dream via magic in a game.

I have no problem with them giving the main character in an RPG a mental landscape, but they should have included that in the first game instead of putting it in the last one.

I do agree that defined characters like Shepard create* a distance between the player and the PC that less defined characters like the heroes in Elder Scrolls don't. It's unfortunate.

*Can create

[Brockololly]

Maria Caliban wrote...

There is nothing more obnoxious than having some dramatic close up in ME or DA2 only to see low resolution textures or a character "acting" with all the subtlety of a muppet. I'd gladly sacrifice cinematics in terms of the camera moving about if it meant giving NPCs more convincing animations and gestures and body language in conversations, while leaving the player in the PC's point of view, something like Human Revolution's dialogue battles.

I'd say you're asking for better cinematics and textures, not less cinematics.

Its a matter of resources- I'd prefer fewer cinematics done better. I don't know if its a one or the other proposition, but in ME3 and in DA2 I didn't feel like the tech held up well under the greater scrutiny that the more cinematic focus brings. So unless they're going to double down on the tech, I don't see the cinematic presentation much of a plus.

Mostly when I'm talking about cinematics, I'm thinking of the camera movements and how the scenes are being framed without any player input. With things like Human Revolution's dialogue battles, they were all from the first person point of view of Jensen, so the focus was always on the body language and acting of the NPC you were speaking to. I'm ok with trying to improve the digital acting of NPCs on a technical level with better animations and better visual fidelity, but I don't necessarily want obnoxious shaky cam or bizarre camera angles and smash zooms and so forth to try and artificially inject "emotion" into a scene. I find that those often just end up becoming  a distraction from the story more than anything- that goes for movies too, but especially in games.

Maria Caliban wrote...
But that's more the fault of the story than the story telling. If I don't care about the kid, his death is meaningless. If I don't care about the geth, their death is meaningless. If I don't care about the krogan, the genephage is meaningless.

The story and the storytelling are pretty closely tied. The issue is that because of the manner in which the game is trying to tell the story, it becomes a problem. Having sad piano music and Shepard reaching out to the little kid and talk in a softer tone no matter what is jarring if you don't care about the kid. Same goes for the nightmares and how those are presented. Sure, its as much of a basic story issue in BioWare trying to inject their own personality onto the PC, but its exacerbated by the methods they're using to accomplish that.

Maria Caliban wrote...
Making you care is the writer's job. Music and animation can try to tug at your emotion, but if there's nothing to work with, I can't blame the composer or animator.

Sure, but again, its potentially exacerbating the issue and making something that you could overlook into forced melodrama. Just as much you can credit the animators and composers in supplementing the writing, you can put blame on them when something falls flat. Thats the nature of a cinematic narrative- if it can't hold up in the audio/visual department then thats a problem, more so than if you had a simpler visual presentation.

Modifié par Brockololly, 30 mars 2012 - 11:34 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

I can get behind that.

On any issue where you and I agree, BioWare should listen to us.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Are you referring to scenes such as those when Imoen, the protagonist, and Gorion are confronted outside the walls of Candlekeep?

No, I was referring to the scenes introducing noteworthy areas, like the Gnoll Stronghold, or the Friendly Arm Inn.  The Nashkel cinematic even advanced the narrative by introducing kobolds into the story.

Because that seems like the kind of scene David Gaider has described as one showcasing the weakness of a silent protagonist.  The protagonist was mute and couldn't make his/her impact on the scene, aside from being forced to watch quietly.

I could be remembering the scene wrong, but I don't recall any dialogue options until after Gorion was dead and you regained total control of the PC.

The sort of scene you're describing does force the PC to stand idly by while things happen around him.  But DA2's cutscenes force the PC to take part and utter lines unbidden by the player.

Forcing the PC to do anything is not good.

Bot voiced and unvoiced, these cutscenes have inherent limitations.  Putting the PC in cutscenes has always been limiting in BioWare's games.

The cutscenes to which I was referring, didn't have the PC in them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

In these instances, developing the story is treated as more important than maintaining perfect roleplay. As I described with the dampened pendulum explanation. You lose roleplaying, but gain something else.

The distinction here is designating roleplay as less important than exposition, in these specific instances.

But unlike the PC voice, which would significantly alter large sections of the game by simply removing it, suppressing some cutscenes wouldn't change how the rest of the game played.

If a character I control isn't in the room when a cutscene happens, I don't want to see that cutscene.  NWN2 was the first time I remember this being a big problem, but DAO did it quite a bit, as well.

[Nighteye2]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
We got to discuss specifics in Dragon Age long before you had anything to show us.  That was openness.

No, you didn't. The DAO forums were complaining about how, for years, they didn't have anything concrete to discuss-- not until that last six months of development or so. I remember that quite well. It was actually quite frustrating for many people, as anything we said automatically demanded ten detailed questions in response which we couldn't answer... and failing to answer them meant the fan would just assume the answer and demand to be proven false instead.

Very productive.

We've no interest in that, and thus will discuss things in detail when we're able to provide the context that people will demand anyhow. Otherwise there will just be endless speculation and assumptions-- which, considering the environment, is not that healthy.

I don't remember anyone complaining, and I know quite a few people didn;t complain. The old Dragon Age suggestion forums were a place where we could discuss what an ideal game would look like, what we liked to see in Dragon Age - without being bogged down by knowledge about what exactly was already in development.

Sure, it was not as focused on the specific content you were working on - but it was very creative with great potential for added value. There were a lot of good ideas floating around.

Also, I don't think I've seen any speculation at all: people were discussing what they'd want the game to be like, not what they expected it to be like.

[Sinuphro]

Tesclo wrote...

http://www.shacknews...r-opportunities

This is a complete joke. No we obviously do not want a Dragon Age 2 expansion. To be honest, I don't even think many would buy DLC. We do NOT want more of the same. Bioware, we wan't the "spiritual successor" to Baulder's Gate. It's that simple. We want what was promised to us in Dragon Age: Origins. This is so simple to grasp, yet you refuse to give the paying customers what they want. Give us back Origins. You have your FPS in Mass Effect. This series was supposed to be for us. And there IS a market for it. People still play RPGs.

I can't believe I actually have to even write this. Go back to your roots Bioware.

zzzzz   err...u should be smarter than this. Bioware does know what their main consumers want. They just refuse to deliver so the best thing to do is stop buying their products in order to make them do what they ought to do for their consumers

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
In these instances, developing the story is treated as more important than maintaining perfect roleplay. As I described with the dampened pendulum explanation. You lose roleplaying, but gain something else.

The distinction here is designating roleplay as less important than exposition, in these specific instances.

But unlike the PC voice, which would significantly alter large sections of the game by simply removing it, suppressing some cutscenes wouldn't change how the rest of the game played.

If a character I control isn't in the room when a cutscene happens, I don't want to see that cutscene.  NWN2 was the first time I remember this being a big problem, but DAO did it quite a bit, as well.

Exposition. As in story telling rather than role playing. Those scenes are telling you that the story is viewed as more important than your ability to roleplay. I know you don't agree, but agreeing is not the point. That's why they are there, and that's why they are not going away. Because sometimes the game treats exposion as more important that roleplaying.

[BubbleDncr]

I thought the opening of Arkham City was an amazing example of keeping interactivity and telling the story as the same time. If that had all be a non-interactive cutscene, I would have forgotten it in minutes. But even though I never got very far into that game, I remember the opening as fondly as a remember some of my favorite parts of Dragon Age.

The only other game I played that had a lot of "interactivity in cutscenes" was Heavy Rain, and that was more or less, "I'm gonna walk over here and lean against the desk. I'm gonna sit in the chair now." And that sort of thing, I while a little fun, made me not pay much attention to the conversations. So I would prefer that, for the most part, to stay out of Dragon Age.

[Maria Caliban]

@ Nighteye2

There was complaining on the old Dragon Age forums. I assume David remembers it better than you do because it was aimed at him or the developers in general.

After Neverwinter Nights and the earlier BG games, quite a few BioWare forum goers were DnD fans. When David and Georg told us there were no monks, paladins, clerics, multiclass, or half-elves, people were upset. They could only imagine 'DnD with stuff missing' and David couldn't explain what we were getting because they hadn't finished and it was still under wraps.

Same with the Origins. People have forgotten, but the first reaction to the origins was incredibly negative. Having pre-defined background with friends and a history restricted people's role-playing. There was a big push for a 'mysterious stranger' origin so people wouldn't be constrained by the various scenarios that the writers came up with.

I'll admit that I contributed to this. I kept a huge Word document with developer quotes and information. In my mind, if a developer said something would be in then they'd made a promise. When I learned that it wasn't in the final product, I'd upset.

Multiplayer, human commoner, wandering barbarian, and a necromancer that could rule the world - people complained about the lack of those years after the developers had decided that they wouldn't include them.

Yes, a great deal of complaining would have been nipped in the bud if the developers had stayed quiet about things or at least waited until they had a fancy video to show us. Though I'll point out that we would have just complained about the lack of information then.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 31 mars 2012 - 01:03 .

[Johnny Jaded]

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.

I freely admit this is my personal bias, but until you can make them more interactive, maybe it would be best if the cinematics were limited to establishing shots and major plot points that don't involve the player character (such as the conversation between Loghain and Howe about hiring an assassin). While I'm sure there was a significant amount of work involved - and I don't mean to belittle that - the cinematics between companions and Hawke, like the one where Fenris throws a bottle of wine against the wall, added nothing for me compared to the talking heads of Origins, making them a waste of resources (in my opinion).