942 réponses à ce sujet

[slashthedragon]

Rojahar wrote...

I feel more attached to Shepard than I do any Elder Scrolls protagonists, for the record.

As for the whole "What if I don't care about X!?" arguments... so what? What if I don't care about stopping the Blight or saving the world? What if I want the world to end? Then turn off the game or get over yourself?

What I was saying was that in a ROLE PLAYING game, you shouldn't be told that you feel a certain way even if you don't.  When this occurs, you aren't playing your character anymore, you are simply directing the game's character.  I don't mind directing a character in games like the Final Fantasy series.  However, I had high hopes that BW would continue to make true RPGS, which includes things like not artificially forcing an emotion onto you for the story's sake.  If they want to do that, then they should say so now, because a lot of people will not buy DA:3 if you are directing your character like the ME games.  And if they want 'their' story to be first and foremost, really, why don't they just make movies?  
Anyway, Dragon's Dogma looks promising, and surprisingly, it's coming from Japan.

Modifié par slashthedragon, 31 mars 2012 - 01:17 .

[Maria Caliban]

I'd be interested in knowing what the specific mental mechanism is that differentiates playing a character from directing a character.

There are times I feel as though I 'am' my PC in almost every game I play. Even racing games or linear action games with predefined protagonists. There are times I feel as though I'm merely directing a computer character. Even with RPGs like Skyrim or the Wizardry system.

It seems to me that some of the people here are after a specific level of control all the time and can only feel as though they're RPing when certain elements are present. From my perspective, these elements are arbitrary. Nothing a cRPG offers (outside of certain MUDs) is comparable to the control I have over my PC in a PnP game.

Paraphrases, for example, mean that I don't know what my PC is going to say until after they say it. But that's fine. I have no problem integrating new information into my concept of character. Are there times when what my PC says conflicts too much with my concept of character? Yes. I either reload to pick a different answer or I continue on and ignore the aspects I disagree with.

To me, it's a bump in the road. Static mixing with the song on the radio.

I can still enjoy the song. In fact, for some songs, I consider it a positive. Shake it up baby wouldn't be the song I like if Paul's John's hoarse throat were removed.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 31 mars 2012 - 01:54 .

[Rorschachinstein]

Johnny Jaded 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.

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).

I enjoyed those cinematics greatly no matter how small. Interactive cutscenes like in ME may cause trouble with RPG diehards. Just saying.

[Realmzmaster]

Johnny Jaded 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.

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).

I look at it from the opposite direction there should be no cinematic that do not involve either the PC or one of the party members not potential party members. Take the Loghain and Howe assassin example you mention. The PC has no way of knowing that Howe has hired an assassin. The scene should not be shown. It is information that the PC should not have until the actual ambush. The one with Fenris on the other hand involves the PC and gives insight to one of the party members. 

[Dejajeva]

I feel that way too, I mentioned in another thread that these kinds of things change the way I may play or the decisons that I make even though they shouldn't since my character doesn't technically know about them. But maybe that's putting too fine a point on it. I mean it really is just a game. Lol.

[Rorschachinstein]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Johnny Jaded 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.

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).

I look at it from the opposite direction there should be no cinematic that do not involve either the PC or one of the party members not potential party members. Take the Loghain and Howe assassin example you mention. The PC has no way of knowing that Howe has hired an assassin. The scene should not be shown. It is information that the PC should not have until the actual ambush. The one with Fenris on the other hand involves the PC and gives insight to one of the party members. 

But it builds story:blush:

[slashthedragon]

Rorschachinstein wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Johnny Jaded 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.

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).

I look at it from the opposite direction there should be no cinematic that do not involve either the PC or one of the party members not potential party members. Take the Loghain and Howe assassin example you mention. The PC has no way of knowing that Howe has hired an assassin. The scene should not be shown. It is information that the PC should not have until the actual ambush. The one with Fenris on the other hand involves the PC and gives insight to one of the party members. 

But it builds story:blush:

It breaks immersion.  Immersion should take precedence IMO.

[Maria Caliban]

It breaks your immersion. My immersion survives a cutscene or switch to a different perspective.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

I'm well aware of that.  But that dominant position can be taken from story and given the roleplaying simply by turning those cutscenes off.  Since roleplayers are already going to ignore anything that's in those cutscenes, they already cannot be crucial to gameplay or decision-making.

In DAO, the player doesn't need to know that Loghain hired Zevran before Zevran says so.  Knowing this makes no difference at all to the experience of playing the game.

There's literally no gameplay consequence at all to turning those cutscenes off.  There's a small development cost, yes, but no other part of the game suffers in any way.  Being able to disable the cutscenes would impove many players' game experiences, while harming exactly none of them.

That's BiOWare's standard.  They don't want to implement even options with which a player could accidentally harm their gameplay experience.  This doesn't do that.

They gave me design constraints.  I can abide by those constraints.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

It breaks your immersion. My immersion survives a cutscene or switch to a different perspective.

Those cutscenes can be ignored.  I'd rather not have to ignore them, but they can be ignored.

I object more strongly to cutscenes where the PC is present, but the scene uses cinematic tricks to direct my attention.  If I, in character, am focusing on the behaviour of one specific NPC because I think he's important, and then the scene changes the focus depth to draw my attention to a different PC such that I can no longer see the first one, what then?  My PC isn't watching the thing the scene is showing me, but the blatant way in which the scene tries to make me watch it draws attention to the fact that my perspective is not my character's perspective.

That doesn't just break immersion.  That's intentionally breaking my immersion.  That scene is actively trying to send a message directly to the player, bypassing his character.  I can't imagine why any game designer ever thought that was a good idea.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

I remember we complained when Georg told us that they had intentionally removed strategic gameplay in order to focus on tactical gameplay.  But those complaints were justified, because they had done that, and in the end the game did suffer for it.

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.

Again, that was a reasonable position.  I still think a mysterious stranger option would have improved DAO (especially considering the extent to which the Origins didn't matter once the PC became a Warden).

We asked for things that made sense to request.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 31 mars 2012 - 08:30 .

[FedericoV]

I want to add one thought about cinematics: the greatest problem I have with them is that in order to have a game that support them properly and that has an overall film-like feel a la ME3, the gameplay has been heavily altered in a direction that makes the game less enjoyble to play (at least for me).

For example, if in order to have dramatic cinematics that fits the gameplay, we have to trade isometric view for fixed view in 3rd person, I prefer no cinematic at all. Because it's easier to play a tactical party based game with iso view while in 3rd person it seems to me that the gameplay and the design are at odds.

If Diablo 3, wich will probably be one of the greatest success in the history of CRPGs, is played in isometric view and without invasive cinematic, it must mean that that kind of style is not wrong in itself.

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


I object more strongly to cutscenes where the PC is present, but the scene uses cinematic tricks to direct my attention.  If I, in character, am focusing on the behaviour of one specific NPC because I think he's important, and then the scene changes the focus depth to draw my attention to a different PC such that I can no longer see the first one, what then?  My PC isn't watching the thing the scene is showing me, but the blatant way in which the scene tries to make me watch it draws attention to the fact that my perspective is not my character's perspective.

That doesn't just break immersion.  That's intentionally breaking my immersion.  That scene is actively trying to send a message directly to the player, bypassing his character. 

Fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with you, but I understand where you come from. The fact that there is a disconnect between what your character sees and what "some outside entity" (aka cinematics) force you to see can be jarring. Not to me, mind you, but I can fully appreciate your concern, and why you consider it off-putting. But...

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

I can't imagine why any game designer ever thought that was a good idea.

And here is the part you manage to incorporate into every post of yours that sometimes makes me wonder if you're being intentionally obtuse. Of course you know why they thought it was a good idea. They were putting the concerns of cinematic flair and pacing ahead of strictly first-person roleplaying concerns. You may not agree with their reasoning because of differing priorities, but that doesn't mean you can't understand what they're trying to achieve.

These kinds of replies really don't advance the point you're trying to make. They just sound like grandstanding, to be honest.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 31 mars 2012 - 10:41 .

[Yrkoon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


In DAO, the player doesn't need to know that Loghain hired Zevran before Zevran says so.  Knowing this makes no difference at all to the experience of playing the game.

There's literally no gameplay consequence at all to turning those cutscenes off. 

Ugh....  Here's where my criticism of cinematics ends.    I'm ok with those types of   "meanwhile, somewhere else, this is happening" cut scenes because they don't have an effect on game play.  They literally do nothing but enrich the story.  These types of cutscenes are good.    BG2 had them.  Its only when they suddenly take control of my character and make him do stuff that I frown upon cinematics.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 31 mars 2012 - 10:57 .

[Gotholhorakh]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

OK, well on that note here's a thought: Is there really a majority that demands voiced protagonists? If there is, where is it? Where can we see a convincing example of its spending power being exercised? (I am not suggesting you are championing these ideas, I just think your point speaks against voiced protagonists).

I think that not only does the VP-demanding majority not exist in reality, if we look at the games out now and the games of the past, in the genre and out of it, look at what's got critical acclaim and great sales/popularity, it suggests that the market at large couldn't give a rat's ass about voiced protagonists.

There's a difference between following the customers through stark realism that has you, and ignoring them through a pathological fear of getting left behind.

Is there proof that there's a majority that want a silent protagonist? Further, is there any proof that whether the protagonist is silent or not is actually a major selling point?

Hrm, well you can ask this, but do you need proof that people like something they're already buying in their millions now, and have consistently done for years - do you? Wouldn't that proof be... redundant?

A further thought is - isn't this only a factor when you are changing from one to the other? I mean Mass Effect is very successful - if it had changed to a silent protagonist and full text dialogue - that would surely alienate lots of the ME customers.

Everyone would be asking questions about that, from your own employees to gamers and reviewers at the other end.

You seem to be creating a false dichotomy here - it seems you're implying "Well, if the majority of people don't care about whether the protagonist is voiced, then you might as well have a silent protagonist"

It's not a dichotomy at all, but taken as more of a question any CEO might ask, it's not in any case invalid, is it?

If people like widgets, and some of our current customers will be alienated by New Widgets, and people this week are buying widgets in their millions... well let's hear why New Widgets are super necessary or worth it?

Even if you're right about the majority not caring,

Well, I'm not really claiming it's a stone cold fact that they don't or anything, I'm just saying that it seems like if they do, and more to the point - it cannot be the world's biggest deal-breaker if they are still happily buying games without PC voice acting throughout.

then it's all the more reason for Bioware to make the decision they want to make the game they want to make. The only popularity reason to go with a silent protagonist over a voiced one is if there's a statistically significant portion of players that care either way.

This raises a question: Have we been told that the developer that is trying to increase its target audience with DA2 to reach people who are not currently playing RPGs, or that voice acting is what people want, or that this is a matter of not getting left behind?

If we have, we can't say this is all a question of creative integrity, of principle, of making the game they want to make over such earthly concerns as seeking popularity.


More to the point: Hasn't almost every game of great critical acclaim ever, both before and after the release of DA2...... lacked a voiced protagonist?

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 31 mars 2012 - 11:03 .

[t003]

 Personally, interactivity, choice, and narrative go way way ahead of cinematics. That said, I think its completely possible to have a VO PC, Origin stories, multiple races, more than 3 main dialogue options while retaining some realistic cinematic effect. Some of this can be done by bringing it in oustide of dialogue (i.e. execution moves, cutscense that don't include the PC, like when your party goes back to tell Eamon you have been captured, atmosphere, etc..)

I think you guys need to find and meet a balance between DA:O and DAII. Sure, it will take more work but, these are the most important things in a game like this, that I believe almost everyone can agree on. Im sure you could find two actors that can fit multiple races fine, if not possibly use already contracted actors. Most have the talent to throw on multiple voices fairly well. For example, In Mass Effect, Mark Meer, male shep, also voiced the vorcha, granted the latter puts much more stress on one's voice but still.

But, you guys are smart and it wouldn't surprise me at all if this has been brought up before over there, im sure you'll do good, given you have enough time and you loose the "less is more" philosophy in the name of innovation.

Modifié par t003, 31 mars 2012 - 12:58 .

[upsettingshorts]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Hrm, well you can ask this, but do you need proof that people like something they're already buying in their millions now, and have consistently done for years - do you? Wouldn't that proof be... redundant?

Not necessarily, because the old fans/new fans dichotomy is false. 

Plenty of the people who bought BioWare games that had silent protagonists - myself included - now prefer voiced.  Your model does not account for me or anyone like me.

If, as I've asserted, there have always been two major ways to play BioWare games and the voiced protagonist is embraced by one and hated by the other, then the sales figures of previous games - before the voiceover was introduced - aren't necessarily indicative of anything.

Gotholhorakh wrote... 

If people like widgets, and some of our current customers will be alienated by New Widgets, and people this week are buying widgets in their millions... well let's hear why New Widgets are super necessary or worth it?

Describing a voiced protagonist as a "new widget" and older unvoiced protagonists as "widgets" is an oversimplification and (wait for it, patient thread readers) a strawman.

Understanding is important.  There is a reason people like VO.  There is a reason people dislike VO.  There is a reason these two groups could have been playing the same games all this time different ways only to be divided on the subject of VO.  It's not as clear cut as you're putting it, and it's something a lot of people on both sides do.  The folks who dislike the voiced protagonist can't or won't understand what the benefits of it are because they don't appreciate them, and the folks who like the voiced protagonist are just as often guilty of assuming its critics are grognards afraid of change.  Neither is really true.  It has to do with different expectations, different standards for immersion, and different ideas as to what cRPGs are or have ever been about.

That's why "new widgets vs. widgets" is a bad argument.  In the same way VO actively undermines the experience for some, it dramatically improves the experience for others.  

Now who do you think is gonna be posting more on the subject, the "I love the voice, keep it up!" people or the "What are you doing to my genre?!" people?

 

Gotholhorakh wrote... 

 I'm just saying that it seems like if they do, and more to the point - it cannot be the world's biggest deal-breaker if they are still happily buying games without PC voice acting throughout.

It comes down to expectations.  I now expect a voiced protagonist in BioWare games and would be, well, as upset as many people who dislike the voice already are if they decided to go back to the silent protagonist.

On the other hand, I don't expect a voiced protagonist in Bethesda games because I can't imagine bothering to seriously play a character when the interactions in those games are as shallow as a puddle.  So "I don't care" is a good summary of my position on voices in those games.

Gotholhorakh wrote... 

This raises a question: Have we been told that the developer that is trying to increase its target audience with DA2 to reach people who are not currently playing RPGs, or that voice acting is what people want, or that this is a matter of not getting left behind?

Every developer is trying to increase its audience with every game.

This is also where we have to be careful to differentiate between what the games actually are and the marketing for them.  BioWare - especially Dragon Age - marketing is... a mess.

Gotholhorakh wrote... 

If we have, we can't say this is all a question of creative integrity, of principle, of making the game they want to make over such earthly concerns as seeking popularity.

This relies on two assumptions that cannot be proven without inside information:
1) That the goals of increasing sales and developing features they prefer are in conflict
2) The voiced protagonist is meant to increase sales, and developers don't actually like it

I'd argue that BioWare people have consistently argued otherwise on many occasions, but you're free to disbelieve them for any number of possible reasons.

However, I can think of at least one feature that I feel as though BioWare implements because they feel they have to and not because they think it makes for a good game, but it seems clear to me - from their comments and their steadfast resolution to stick with the voice - that VO is not one of them.

Gotholhorakh wrote...  

More to the point: Hasn't almost every game of great critical acclaim ever, both before and after the release of DA2...... lacked a voiced protagonist?

First, if you are counting every game ever made that seems transparently dishonest because the voiced protagonist in RPGs, such as BioWare has accomplished of late is a fairly new development.  

Second, the answer to your question is no.  Deus Ex: Human Revolution, The Witcher, and The Witcher 2 come to mind.  Not to mention Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 (various controversies aside, all three games reached levels of "great critical acclaim").  

Third, your question has an implied high burden of proof.  Even if the answer to your question was yes, you couldn't then simply assume that the reason voiced protagonist-featured games failed to impress the critics was due to the voice.  Did Alpha Protocol fail because Michael Thorton was voiced?  It'd be tough to conclusively make that claim.

The only voiced protagonist BioWare game to take a beating in reviews was Dragon Age 2, an notall of that was due to the voice, the game has plenty of issues of which we are all aware.  And even then, critical response was more positive than fan response.  But people - here and elsewhere - only tend to cite critics when they agree with them, and that's true no matter what game (or even medium) being discussed.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 31 mars 2012 - 01:32 .

[Mr Fixit]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

However, I can think of at least one feature that I feel as though BioWare implements because they feel they have to and not because they think it makes for a good game, but it seems clear to me - from their comments and their steadfast resolution to stick with the voice - that VO is not one of them.

I'd be interested to know what you think that feature is.

[upsettingshorts]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

However, I can think of at least one feature that I feel as though BioWare implements because they feel they have to and not because they think it makes for a good game, but it seems clear to me - from their comments and their steadfast resolution to stick with the voice - that VO is not one of them.

I'd be interested to know what you think that feature is.

 

The unsustainable combination of branching endgame-defining choice and supporting savegame-based continuity.

We've seen the results in many complaints about BioWare games only offering the "illusion of choice," or retconning, or acknowledging decisions in letters, emails, and brief cameos.  It's because having a big choice that result in big consequences then supporting all possibile outcomes seems impossible, short of having unlimited zots.

I think they've mismanaged expectations with regards to what they're capable of delivering on this front, which has been exacerbated by fans having determining what they're getting isn't good enough, and so now there's this negative feedback loop.  

Something in this dynamic has to change or - in my opinion - it's just going to create more disappointed fans and more frustrated writers.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 31 mars 2012 - 02:52 .

[Johnny Jaded]

Rorschachinstein wrote...
I enjoyed those cinematics greatly no matter how small. Interactive cutscenes like in ME may cause trouble with RPG diehards. Just saying.

As one of those "RPG diehards", I'd much prefer an interactive cutscene to having control of my character wrest from me as I'm forced to watch it play out in a way that contradicts the personality I have ascribed to what is supposed to be my character. However, I'd rather see such cutscenes go completely.

Realmzmaster wrote...
I look at it from the opposite direction there should be no cinematic that do not involve either the PC or one of the party members not potential party members. Take the Loghain and Howe assassin example you mention. The PC has no way of knowing that Howe has hired an assassin. The scene should not be shown. It is information that the PC should not have until the actual ambush. The one with Fenris on the other hand involves the PC and gives insight to one of the party members.

And I'd agree with that to an extent. The only reason I included such meta scenes as the Loghain/Howe one is because BioWare seem intent on the cinematic approach to story-telling, but I can ignore them when roleplaying.

However, as I mentioned above, scenes like the one with Fenris remove player agency, which is frustrating and breaks immersion for many, making it unenjoyable - and games are supposed fun. By doing away with such scenes, BioWare not only reduce the risk of that, but can then spend those resources in (what I personally consider) more appropriate areas - ie. establishing shots of new areas (a sweeping pan as you entered an area for the first time would allow them to show off their vistas and grand architecture far better than the removal of the top-down camera ever could), or dramatic scenes such as when Riordan wounds the Archdemon.

Or maybe even invest some of the budget in better data compression so such cutscenes aren't of signifcantly lower quality than the rest of the game.

Modifié par Johnny Jaded, 31 mars 2012 - 02:57 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

However, I can think of at least one feature that I feel as though BioWare implements because they feel they have to and not because they think it makes for a good game, but it seems clear to me - from their comments and their steadfast resolution to stick with the voice - that VO is not one of them.

I'd be interested to know what you think that feature is.

 

The unsustainable combination of branching endgame-defining choice and supporting savegame-based continuity.

We've seen the results in many complaints about BioWare games only offering the "illusion of choice," or retconning, or acknowledging decisions in letters, emails, and brief cameos.  It's because having a big choice that result in big consequences then supporting all possibile outcomes seems impossible, short of having unlimited zots.

I think they've mismanaged expectations with regards to what they're capable of delivering on this front, which has been exacerbated by fans having determining what they're getting isn't good enough, and so now there's this negative feedback loop.  

Something in this dynamic has to change or - in my opinion - it's just going to create more disappointed fans and more frustrated writers.

Agreed.

I just can't see them resolving the "Morrigan situation", for example, to peoples satisfaction. At least for those who care about it.

[Yrkoon]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Now who do you think is gonna be posting more on the subject, the "I love the voice, keep it up!" people or the "What are you doing to my genre?!" people?

Both.  Or rather, neither camp  will post more  frequently than the  other, despite the tired, overly perpetuated  myth that only complainers  waste time professing their opinions.

Pretty  much the ONLY way to measure the popularity or lack thereof of voiced/silent protagonists is to look at sales, but you've already  attempted to dismiss   those away as 'not definitive' because lack of sales could be indicative of a game's other faults or whatever.   I, though,  would argue that a voiced protagonist is a  glaring, primary thing that  defines a game almost entirely, and therefore sales is INDEED a good indicator of whether  the public prefers voiced protagonists.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 31 mars 2012 - 03:49 .

[Aly666]

i think the only thing you should learn from skyrim is the big world that it is and make dragon 3 map very big.... btw does anyone know where dragon age 3 will take place. I loved origins map very unique and i love the city very big and pretty. Stop wasting time looking at all these new rpg games if anything learn from classics. The only way you can mess up dragon age 3 is if your thinking in your head we have to accommodate the newbies and beginners.... No you don't they pick up where they left off bye a comic or goto wiki and learn what has happened. I wanna play a game that contains more of the story containing what happened in the past and new problem, character customization endless, weapons many , but most of all keep the story rich

[AkiKishi]

Aly666 wrote...

i think the only thing you should learn from skyrim is the big world that it is and make dragon 3 map very big.... btw does anyone know where dragon age 3 will take place. I loved origins map very unique and i love the city very big and pretty. Stop wasting time looking at all these new rpg games if anything learn from classics. The only way you can mess up dragon age 3 is if your thinking in your head we have to accommodate the newbies and beginners.... No you don't they pick up where they left off bye a comic or goto wiki and learn what has happened. I wanna play a game that contains more of the story containing what happened in the past and new problem, character customization endless, weapons many , but most of all keep the story rich

This is actually a bad thing for Bioware. Large maps remove you from the story for long periods of time. Characters run out of things to say and go into "calibration" mode.

Large areas and rich stories are like the polar opposites of each other.

[Realmzmaster]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Aly666 wrote...

i think the only thing you should learn from skyrim is the big world that it is and make dragon 3 map very big.... btw does anyone know where dragon age 3 will take place. I loved origins map very unique and i love the city very big and pretty. Stop wasting time looking at all these new rpg games if anything learn from classics. The only way you can mess up dragon age 3 is if your thinking in your head we have to accommodate the newbies and beginners.... No you don't they pick up where they left off bye a comic or goto wiki and learn what has happened. I wanna play a game that contains more of the story containing what happened in the past and new problem, character customization endless, weapons many , but most of all keep the story rich

This is actually a bad thing for Bioware. Large maps remove you from the story for long periods of time. Characters run out of things to say and go into "calibration" mode.

Large areas and rich stories are like the polar opposites of each other.

I agree with BobSmith101. Skyrim is essentially a single PC game. You can have companions but they are basically meat shields that contribute very little to the experience. The PC has no real conversations with them. For example in DOA one of the criticisms is that you could run a companion's conversation dialog out before you got half way through the game. 
Look at the story that comes with Skyrim. If you did only the story the game might be 30-40 hours long.  The appeal of Skyrim is the ability to explore the world, engage in other activities, do the sidequests, come back  and pick up the main story when you want.

That would not work well in a story driven crpg.