942 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
"Presentation" has nothing to do with it.  Voice acting and cinematics are not the reason we didn't go back to Orzammar in DA2 and you know it.

It has something to do with it. Again, its a zots issue. Its a resource issue. I wonder whether Alpha Protocol or TW2 would have the same diverging choices/consequences if they had to do player VO for a female version? On the flip side, if BioWare was going with a simpler presentation with more established tech they could iterate more quickly on, they could likely do more with the resources they have. If you have expensive voice acting and cinematics, those things take time to do and limit the amount of changes and writing you can put in.

Its certainly not the only reason, but if BioWare was working on a game with limited or no voice over and an Infinity engine type of presentation, I don't doubt it would be quicker and easier to iterate on making new content and more content to account for past player choices, if thats what they wanted to do.

I have no clue what you're talking about Orzammar though? Are you referring to Bhelen vs. Harrowmont?

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Though it would seem disingenous to say ME3 does well with the illusion of choice and that's it, it does implement your choices, especially the host of minor ones.  Indeed unlike The Witcher 2, at least it gives a crap who you've romanced before.

No, thats true that TW2 didn't do much with the import. It doesn't acknowledge Shianni which I think is odd, but it does for instance change some encounters at the end game with The Order of the Flaming Rose and Siegfried based on what you did in TW1, on about the same level as any import feature in ME3. That, and the fact that Geralt is a more fixed character than Hawke or Shepard, who has a more established backstory and personality.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Because what the forums define as "real choice" basically means "plot flag  setting" and if you leave major plot choices up to the player you must  then support them both in the savegame-imported sequel. 

Or ideally, they wouldn't leave the moment of big choice at the very end of the game but instead provide meaningful consequences within the game where you're making the choice.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
DA2 broadly gets around this by moving the setting to Kirkwall.  The  Witcher 2 gets around this by putting its big decision early in the  game, changing the middle, preserving the end (afaik, I haven't played  much of it).  That's why I was careful to say "endgame defining."
 

While the setting of the last act of TW2 is the same no matter what, the circumstances and people involved can be radically different. That goes for the end of the game too- depending on your choices throughout the last act, certain kings can be dead or alive, characters can change allegiance, how you perceive events depends on your past actions and so forth. They do keep certain characters alive no matter what, but they give you some major choices to mask that fact. I imagine the question is whether or not any of that will matter in TW3 or not. I"m guessing they'll let you import, but probably change the setting to Nilfgaard or move things forward in time.

Modifié par Brockololly, 31 mars 2012 - 08:47 .

[Maria Caliban]

The Witcher 2 did almost nothing with its imported save data and I'm fine with that as I never finished the Witcher.

I'm not sure if I have any DA 2 saved games on this computer, and I'm not inclined to replay DA:O, Awakenings, and DA 2 so I get a five second cameo in DA 3 or a barkeep off-handedly remarking that my Warden is alive and awesome.

If they're going to continue with the saved game import, I expect a reliable way of picking any important choices when I start up a new game. And I don't mean downloading someone else's save or saved game editor.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Maria Caliban wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

And you have fewer Zots when you push a game out the door as complex as most CPRG's are in 18 months. See DA2 as the example.

One hopes DA III is given a bit more time in the oven than DA II.

For the sake of the series lasting past 3 games one would hope. I will say, if it ends up being another DA II won't be buying new.

[Nighteye2]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

@ 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.

Lol. I remember it both ways. Both Nighteye2's version and yours. So both are true. They probably take up different amounts of mind space for different people.

I guess it's a matter of interest, which posts you're drawn to. But if the people who complained were going to complain anyway (about lack of information if nothing else), why not open up to suggestions and at least reap to creative benefits of people explaining what they'd like to see in their ideal cRPG? :innocent:

[Gotholhorakh]

nightscrawl 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.

Please note that I am not suggesting that this poll is scientific, or accurately represents the Dragon Age player base in any way.

That said, pretty much the only evidence you are going to get is from this thread and it's associated poll. Now, that thread is 8 months old, so I don't know if a new one would get the same response since many of the initial angry players have moved on and only the core who are still interested in the franchise (and forums) remain.

Also, it's not accurate to characterize the opinions about one feature or another based solely on the response it has gotten on these forums. Many gamers don't know, won't bother, or have no desire to participate in extensive forum discussions such as these. One of the only ways Bioware would know about the popularity of various features would be if they did surveys of game owners about those features, just like the ones that kept popping up in my face during the SWTOR beta. And if they do indeed have numbers like that, they aren't sharing, and they probably shouldn't share, given what happened in this thread.

It does stand to reason BioWare themselves would either have some considered reason, or simply the creative inclination to do it.

What I do find confusing (hence the initial question) is why people in discussions on BSN sometimes treat it as a given that a majority wants this thing - I just don't think we can really assume it from what we see.

BobSmith101 wrote...

A better poll would be how many people
would not buy DA3 if it had a silent or voiced protagonist. While
everyone has a preference it does not mean they will exclude the game
based on that one feature.

Yeah, perhaps. What I'd like to see distinguished between:

those for whom it's a deal-breaker to have VP
those who are happy to buy SP but really want VP

Realmzmaster wrote...

You seem to suggest that there is a
majority that want a silent protagonist . My point speaks neither for
nor against anything. The opinion of the only polls on this forum shows
about a 50/50 split . So Bioware gets to make the choice and from
whatever data they have they chose voice. By the same token the market
at large may not give a flying leap about a silent protagonist. So
unless someone does a survey of Bioware's audience we will never know.

Not at all, I do doubt whether there is a majority of players for whom VP is really important because loads of people are tolerating games without VP and loving them, but I really have no clue how that relates to what they actually want or like so I can't actively claim they "want SP". For all I know they want VP but it's not a deal-breaker.

Sorry, reading back my response it reads as a little words-in-your-mouthish, when I really just meant that because I think the "majority" people were talking about is doubtful, the point about everyone's money being equally good might actually work in favour of SP.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 31 mars 2012 - 11:18 .

[Merci357]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Sorry, reading back my response it reads as a little words-in-your-mouthish, when I really just meant that because I think the "majority" people were talking about is doubtful, the point about everyone's money being equally good might actually work in favour of SP.

I don't think there is a majority favoring either voiced or silent - and if sales are any indication, RPG with a silent PC sold better, even in recent years, then any RPG with a voiced PC. (See DA:O, Skyrim)

So, what could be the reason?
Maybe they want to do it this way, because it fit's their vision of a "cinematic" game far better. I don't know, but this explanation is as good as any. And since the voiced PC is non negotionable for them, it's maybe reasonable to think they are happy with it that way.

Modifié par Merci357, 31 mars 2012 - 11:28 .

[slashthedragon]

Merci357 wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Sorry, reading back my response it reads as a little words-in-your-mouthish, when I really just meant that because I think the "majority" people were talking about is doubtful, the point about everyone's money being equally good might actually work in favour of SP.

I don't think there is a majority favoring either voiced or silent - and if sales are any indication, RPG with a silent PC sold better, even in recent years, then any RPG with a voiced PC. (See DA:O, Skyrim)

So, what could be the reason?
Maybe they want to do it this way, because it fit's their vision of a "cinematic" game far better. I don't know, but this explanation is as good as any. And since the voiced PC is non negotionable for them, it's maybe reasonable to think they are happy with it that way.

I'd be interested to know how much of the budget goes to voice acting (and why do we need movie/TV actors doing voices?)  and what parts of the game are constrained due to this budget.  If gameplay/story/ending/etc. lose out due to the money needed for VA, I'd prefer either no VA for the PC or the use of "cheaper" VAs (cheaper as in not using movie/TV/geek culture VAs, but rather "unknowns").

[upsettingshorts]

@Merci357:  The "silent protagonist outsells the voiced protagonist" argument is so bad, yet I see it so much 'round these parts.

Such comparisons would only be instructive if the features were otherwise largely the same, save the voice of protagonist or lack thereof. The signal-to-noise ratio is such that it undermines the argument completely.

Just in case I do feel like I need to mention - though I think it ought to go without saying - that there are quite a few arguments in favor of the silent protagonist, I just think some need to go away. So, sorry if it comes off like I'm picking on you in particular.

slashthedragon wrote...

I'd be interested to know how much of the budget goes to voice acting (and why do we need movie/TV actors doing voices?)  and what parts of the game are constrained due to this budget.  If gameplay/story/ending/etc. lose out due to the money needed for VA, I'd prefer either no VA for the PC or the use of "cheaper" VAs (cheaper as in not using movie/TV/geek culture VAs, but rather "unknowns").

 

This is where I think we, as forum users, tread dangerously close to amateur volunteer game producer.  Not that I'm not equally guilty of similar offenses all the time.

I do think it stands to reason that it makes more sense to assume the decision to opt for VA is a creative one and not a financial one.  Otherwise, they'd see from other examples that a silent protagonist in a non-cinematic game sells perfectly well.  

They just don't want to make those games, and - this is where I differ from many of the voiced protagonists' critics - I don't think they've ever been doing anything different.  Only now technology - problematic Eclipse engine aside - has caught up to their creative vision. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 31 mars 2012 - 11:40 .

[slashthedragon]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

@Merci357:  The "silent protagonist outsells the voiced protagonist" argument is so bad, yet I see it so much 'round these parts.

Such comparisons would only be instructive if the features were otherwise largely the same, save the voice of protagonist or lack thereof. The signal-to-noise ratio is such that it undermines the argument completely.

Just in case I do feel like I need to mention - though I think it ought to go without saying - that there are quite a few arguments in favor of the silent protagonist, I just think some need to go away. So, sorry if it comes off like I'm picking on you in particular.

slashthedragon wrote...

I'd be interested to know how much of the budget goes to voice acting (and why do we need movie/TV actors doing voices?)  and what parts of the game are constrained due to this budget.  If gameplay/story/ending/etc. lose out due to the money needed for VA, I'd prefer either no VA for the PC or the use of "cheaper" VAs (cheaper as in not using movie/TV/geek culture VAs, but rather "unknowns").

 

This is where I think we, as forum users, tread dangerously close to amateur volunteer game producer.  Not that I'm not equally guilty of similar offenses all the time.

I do think it stands to reason that it makes more sense to assume the decision to opt for VA is a creative one and not a financial one.  Otherwise, they'd see from other examples that a silent protagonist in a non-cinematic game sells perfectly well.  

They just don't want to make those games, and - this is where I differ from many of the voiced protagonists' critics - I don't think they've ever been doing anything different.  Only now technology - problematic Eclipse engine aside - has caught up to their creative vision. 

Amateur volunteer game producer -- is that a thing?  Can I volunteer?!?
I think I'm so used to playing/having played games without VAs, or grand cinematics, that while such things can be pretty or cool, I feel like they aren't that important.  But I grew up in the 80s.  And I have become a fuddy duddy that complains about kids these days with their fancy bluetube and thingamabobs.  My niece doesn't even know what a *Walkman* is/was.  *sigh*

Modifié par slashthedragon, 31 mars 2012 - 11:45 .

[Maria Caliban]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

It does stand to reason BioWare themselves would either have some considered reason, or simply the creative inclination to do it.

What I do find confusing (hence the initial question) is why people in discussions on BSN sometimes treat it as a given that a majority wants this thing - I just don't think we can really assume it from what we see.

Cognitive bias.

I think that that many people expect a voice protagonist from BioWare games. I have no idea how many people want these thing, or who'd feel they were missing something if it was left out.

Merci357 wrote...

I don't think there is a majority favoring either voiced or silent - and if sales are any indication, RPG with a silent PC sold better, even in recent years, then any RPG with a voiced PC. (See DA:O, Skyrim)

You seem to be forgetting the Mass Effect series. Mass Effect 3 has already beaten DA:O's week one sales.

[upsettingshorts]

Regardless of when we started gaming we've all developed our own tastes and expectations, I remember buying - well, getting my parents to buy - the speech expansion pack and a sound card for the original Wing Commander in the early 90s, before I got into RPGs.

So, take that for what it's worth.

By the way, anyone who is familiar with both Wing Commander as a series and my posts in general will be rubbing their chin right about now and saying, "Ahhh!"  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 31 mars 2012 - 11:58 .

[Maria Caliban]

I didn't play video games during my childhood. We couldn't afford them and my mother was disinclined to buy mindless entertainment anyway.

[Realmzmaster]

Merci357 wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Sorry, reading back my response it reads as a little words-in-your-mouthish, when I really just meant that because I think the "majority" people were talking about is doubtful, the point about everyone's money being equally good might actually work in favour of SP.

I don't think there is a majority favoring either voiced or silent - and if sales are any indication, RPG with a silent PC sold better, even in recent years, then any RPG with a voiced PC. (See DA:O, Skyrim)

So, what could be the reason?
Maybe they want to do it this way, because it fit's their vision of a "cinematic" game far better. I don't know, but this explanation is as good as any. And since the voiced PC is non negotionable for them, it's maybe reasonable to think they are happy with it that way.

The Mass Effect series espeically Mass Effect Threee has already smashed DAO's first week sales and it is voiced. It looks to be on target to eclipse DAO in sales.  Mass Effect is a crpg no matter what others want to believe. Witcher 2 is also voiced and on the PC exceed 1 million in sales with more sales about to come from the Xbox.
Now you can point to Skyrim and say it sold 15 million and the character is silent. So the agrument  can be made from either side. So it will be up to the creative minds at Bioware to make their decision work.

[slashthedragon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I didn't play video games during my childhood. We couldn't afford them and my mother was disinclined to buy mindless entertainment anyway.

*hugs*

[Yrkoon]

BobSmith101 wrote...
one of the common "complaints" of BG II was that in chapter 2 you could quite litteraly "lose the plot" there were so many side quests and non plot related things going on. Now chapter 2 is my favourite part of the game , but it's in no way plot centric.

Wait... what?  Who ever complained about  BG2's chapter 2?  In my 7 years and 10,000+ posts on the old bioware forums I don't think I ever saw anyone complain that BG2's   second chapter was "too open ended" or that  "it lost the story".  in ANY WAY.  Probably because it didn't.  You were constantly assaulted by  dream sequences involving the  game's main villian.  There were thieves and vampires fighting on the streets every night.    

And even if there was one or two 'alternative thinkers'  on earth who complained about Chapter 2 being too 'loose', the argument itself is baseless, since its their own doing.  BG2 gives you the very Viable option to ignore all the side filler stuff and just pursue the main plot.  I once did a speed run playthrough where I was able to gather  the 15,000 Gold  on day one  in order to meet Aran Lindvail   without ever doing more than just the Copper Coronet quests.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 01 avril 2012 - 12:35 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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

The important difference, I think, is between directing a character and not directing a character.  It's when the character acts without my input that is the problem.

Without formal definitions, I'm not convinced the playing/directing distinction even exists.  But the playing/not-playing distinction exists.  And the directing/not-directing distinction exists.

Those are the distinctions that matter.

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.

Now you're conflating freedom and control.  It's the same mistake the_one was making earlier in the thread.

Control involves the player being the one telling the character what the do.  Freedom refers to the range of possible actions.

CRPGs obviously offer limited freedom.  Even tabletop games limit usually freedom to some extent (though not as much).  But CRPGs need not offer any less control than tabletop games, and have traditionally offered vastly more control than DA2 does.

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.

I find there's simply too much information to be recompiled.  Every single decision you've made since you entered character creation needs to be checked against this new characte concept.  How do you do that?

Moreover, doing that requires I extract myself from my character and re-evaluate him.  While I'm doing that, I'm missing NPC reactions to my line.  Not only do I not yet have the information I need to determine how my PC would interpret those reactions, but any attempt gather than information causes me to miss the reaction anyway.

This problem would be reduced by the ability to pause cinematics (including cinematic conversations), but it's still a gigantic barrier to enjoyment.

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.

Certainly you can do that, but I find it happens with a majority of dialogue events in DA2.  More often than not, finding the right dialogue option requires at least one reload, and that can mean 6-8 reloads per conversation.

That's beyond irritating.  DA3 needs to do a much better job at letting the player know what the paraphrase will be.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

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.

But this sort of cinematic flair runs directly contrary to first-person roleplaying concerns.

Gone with the Wind has extremely deep focus (because the scenery was mostly painted backdrops, but that's beside the point).  Clearly a shallow focus isn't necessary for compelling cinematics, and the one thing it's ever used for is something that breaks a playstuyle.

Again, I can't understand why any game designer ever thought it was a good idea.  I didn't say I couldn't undertand why a game designer might ever have considered it - watching one Sam Raimi movie should be enough to make a game designer consider it - but upon even cursory examination it's obviously a bad idea.

I maintain my initial position.  I can't understand why any game designer ever thought depth of field effects were a good idea.

The only way your response makes any sense is if we assume that game designers don't give their work any thought.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

If the player were given full party control In a wide-open game like that, he could just roleplay all of the characters.  Then they'd interact with one another to exactly the extent he wanted them to.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yrkoon wrote...

I couldn't possibly disagree more with the both of you.


  First off, what in the world  does running out of companion conversation choices early on  have to do  map size?  lol  What you're describing can  (and will) happen even if the entire game takes place in a small room.

Second, A  large world map with vast exploration can work  quite well in tandum with a driven story.  Again, look at the BG series.  Of course, it works best if the story itself is either very personal in scope, or if it's a world-based story  who's plot influences extend to the explorable areas.

Solving mysteries is also a good way to do this.  BG arguably does this (figuring out what's behind the iron shortage), but the best example is almost certainly Ultima VII.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I didn't attempt to dismiss the possibility.  I successfully dismissed that you can take such an argument for granted.

*applause*

The burden of proof lies with the person who makes the assertion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

You seem to be forgetting the Mass Effect series. Mass Effect 3 has already beaten DA:O's week one sales.

Not comparable.  Sequels tend to inpsire more pre-orders (thus inlfating week one sales), and ME3 has multiplayer, inducing purchases not just by fans, but by friends of fans.

ME3's week one sales are not useful data.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

If the player were given full party control In a wide-open game like that, he could just roleplay all of the characters.  Then they'd interact with one another to exactly the extent he wanted them to.

Which you know is not the kind of game Bioware creates. Not even BG1 & BG2. Icewind Dale 1 & 2 yes, but Bioware did not do those games. I have roleplay those types of games for decades. I no longer care to roleplay everyone. I prefer to act and react  for one character (the one I create to be the main PC) in the party inside the game world. YMMV.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 01 avril 2012 - 04:46 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

You seem to be forgetting the Mass Effect series. Mass Effect 3 has already beaten DA:O's week one sales.

Not comparable.  Sequels tend to inpsire more pre-orders (thus inlfating week one sales), and ME3 has multiplayer, inducing purchases not just by fans, but by friends of fans.

ME3's week one sales are not useful data.

You are right about first week sales, but the ME3 train is continuing to pick up steam. Sales appear to remain strong through the second and into the third week The Xbox version is particularly strong (selling over 160,000 copies in week 3). If VGChartz (which is somewhat iffy at best) is anything to go by ME3 has sold 3.21 million copies not counting digital downloads.

So it on track to be Bioware's most successful title regardless of the ending.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 01 avril 2012 - 05:09 .

[Rorschachinstein]

Filament wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But this sort of cinematic flair runs directly contrary to first-person roleplaying concerns.

Gone with the Wind has extremely deep focus (because the scenery was mostly painted backdrops, but that's beside the point).  Clearly a shallow focus isn't necessary for compelling cinematics, and the one thing it's ever used for is something that breaks a playstuyle.

Again, I can't understand why any game designer ever thought it was a good idea.  I didn't say I couldn't undertand why a game designer might ever have considered it - watching one Sam Raimi movie should be enough to make a game designer consider it - but upon even cursory examination it's obviously a bad idea.

I maintain my initial position.  I can't understand why any game designer ever thought depth of field effects were a good idea.

The only way your response makes any sense is if we assume that game designers don't give their work any thought.

They probably don't expect most of the people who play their games to be as rigid and uncompromising as you in demanding this separation between PC and player be maintained at all times. I may just be projecting, but I doubt most players see the game as strictly a roleplaying simulator as you do, but also as a vehicle for delivering a well-told story to the player... cinematic effects like that are one way of helping tell a story.

If they're anything like the one where Hawke throws a dagger into a Slavers eye,  I say have at em'