942 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

What does cinematic flair have to do with being cute?

What is game developer's job? If their job is to create games people enjoy, then your argument is a non-starter, really.

Mass Effect trilogy, for example, is being enjoyed by millions of people. If it appealed to them while being a financial success, who are we to say that the developers don't have a clue with implementing stuff? Are you saying that all those people who liked those cinematics are wrong?

No.  How could you possibly think that's what I'm saying?

Look, you're presupposing that the people who liked ME's cinematics wouldn't like other cinematics that disrupt roleplaying less.  Even though we have evidence from the history of cinema that cinema that doesn't employ depth of field effects can be well received both critically and commercially.

Someone at BioWare, given the choice between using heavy-handed depth of field effects and not doing that, had to have decided both that the heavy-handed depth of field effects werer unequivocally better, and that all players needed to be subjected to them (because turning off the depth of field effects is trivial - since the scenes are all rendered in the engine, the depth of field effects must be added in real time).  Simply disabling them would be simple.  In fact, before DA2 came out I asked someone (John Epler, perhaps) whether we could have the option to turn them off, and he responded positively, but pointed out that programming was under a heavy burden that close to release and wouldn't likely find the time to add the feature.  This is why I'm asking now, when there's plenty of time to add it.

You're not thinking this through.  I'm question the reasoning of the designers who thought that these cinematic tricks were necessary.  Not that they were desirable, but that they were necessary.

I've explained this at length now, twice.

I just can't fathom how you don't understand what preference is.

I don understand what preference is.  Preference isn't relevant to the point I'm making.

Is their goal to earn $$$? Did they earn $$$? If they did, then I'd say they accomplished what they set out to do. They found a loyal audience that is more or less satisfied with the product. So it's really condescending to both devs and players to imply that their preference is somehow wrong just because it runs contrary to some Law of Logic.

That's remarkably shallow analysis.

[Zjarcal]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Yes, there are some nuances I missed - but despite the freedom of choice you use, you're still speaking about choosing your version of Bioware's character - not your character.

How does this argument not apply to every RPG system in existence? At some level they all have restrictions (class, skill, rules, etc.) that they impose on you for whatever reason; it's just that the acceptable levels of restriction vary from player to player.

You'd think this would be obvious, but apparently it isn't.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In short:  It's cooperative.

I think the way I do it is cooperative.  I think the way DA2 makes us do it is entirely one-sided.

The obfuscatory paraphrases guarantee that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

How does this argument not apply to every RPG system in existence? At some level they all have restrictions (class, skill, rules, etc.) that they impose on you for whatever reason; it's just that the acceptable levels of restriction vary from player to player.

The rules of the setting offer the framework in which the character's personality exists.  The difference is whether the player creates that personality by himself, or whether BioWare has a hand in it.

I would argue that DA2 went even farther than that, though, by hiding the content of the dialogue options behind the obfuscatory paraphrases.  If they'd voiced Hawke, but still let the player choose the lines, then that would have been cooperative.  Not letting the player choose lines at all, though, that wrested full control and put BioWare firmly in the driver's seat.

[Nighteye2]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Yes, there are some nuances I missed - but despite the freedom of choice you use, you're still speaking about choosing your version of Bioware's character - not your character.

How does this argument not apply to every RPG system in existence? At some level they all have restrictions (class, skill, rules, etc.) that they impose on you for whatever reason; it's just that the acceptable levels of restriction vary from player to player.

It's still possible to create your own character within the restrictions set by the game - almost all cRPGs used to allow for that. You don't need complete freedom to make a character your own - as I already explained.

Having a limited number of choices can still give you as player the feeling of being in control - if you know exactly what those choices are. The problems arise when the character that's supposed to be your own acts in a way that you didn't choose. That's the point where the character is no longer your own.

[Morroian]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In short:  It's cooperative.

I think the way I do it is cooperative.  I think the way DA2 makes us do it is entirely one-sided.

You want full control, how is that co-operative?

[Maria Caliban]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Yes, there are some nuances I missed - but despite the freedom of choice you use, you're still speaking about choosing your version of Bioware's character - not your character.

How does this argument not apply to every RPG system in existence? At some level they all have restrictions (class, skill, rules, etc.) that they impose on you for whatever reason; it's just that the acceptable levels of restriction vary from player to player.

That's what I was trying to get at with my 'songs have static' analogy.

Because I like analogies, I'll make another one.

You're driving down the road and there are a few bumps in it but they don't bother you. The person sitting beside you states that they can't enjoy the drive anymore because of all the bumps.

Far enough. It's a tolerance issue.

But then there are people in the extreme who'll say, "Because of all these bumps, this is no longer a road. We're just driving on dirt and rocks."

That's Sylvanus.

Then there are people like me or Upsettingshorts (I think) who'll say, "Off road driving is actually better than driving on the road. It's not disrupting my experience, it's making it better."

The problem comes when we stop talking about issues of tolerance or taste, but try to present our preferred drive style and tolerance as the only thing that qualifies as driving.

Example:

Nighteye2 wrote...

Having a limited number of choices can still give you as player the feeling of being in control - if you know exactly what those choices are. The problems arise when the character that's supposed to be your own acts in a way that you didn't choose. That's the point where the character is no longer your own.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 02 avril 2012 - 12:57 .

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No.  How could you possibly think that's what I'm saying?.

Well, maybe it's because you speak in a pretty impenetrable way. As in, you don't adjust the way you communicate to suit the desired audience. I even suspect you do it on purpose, so you have an opportunity to "correct" those posters who fail to understand you. I find it very interesting to note that, as someone who is claiming to speak logically, your posts sure tend to produce a rather large amount of misunderstandings.

My advice: reevaluate the way you communicate. One ring most definitely does not rule them all.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You're not thinking this through.  I'm question the reasoning of the designers who thought that these cinematic tricks were necessary.  Not that they were desirable, but that they were necessary.

I've explained this at length now, twice.

Sylvius, you are once again perverting the whole point of my previous post, and replying to something I didn't even say.

I was replying to your post that stated this:

Again, I can't understand why any game designer ever thought it was a good idea.

I wasn't saying whether cinematics and depth of field are a good or a bad idea, I was simply saying that any honest person understands perfectly well why a game designer could think it was a good idea, whether we agree with said designers or not.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 02 avril 2012 - 01:08 .

[Mr Fixit]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The problem comes when we stop talking about issues of tolerance or taste, but try to present our preferred drive style and tolerance as the only thing that qualifies as driving.

Fair enough. But Sylvius repeatedly says that preferences aren't the subject of discussion. Admittedly, I don't really know what is the subject of discussion with him. I would appreciate another opinion on the matter. What exactly are we discussing if not preferences?

[Maria Caliban]

Communication is hard. The human brain is like a virtuoso pianist playing Hammerklavier; it might look easy to you, but that’s because you’re just enjoying the music.

Mr Fixit wrote...

Fair enough. But Sylvius repeatedly says that preferences aren't the subject of discussion. Admittedly, I don't really know what is the subject of discussion with him. I would appreciate another opinion on the matter. What exactly are we discussing if not preferences?

The larger discussion is what constitutes role-playing and what disrupts role-playing. My perception is that it's largely a question of tolerance and taste. Paraphrases and voice acting don't disrupt my RPing while for others it's too great a loss of control.

That's not Sylvius' view, which is why he says it's not a matter of preference.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 02 avril 2012 - 01:19 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Having a limited number of choices can still give you as player the feeling of being in control - if you know exactly what those choices are. The problems arise when the character that's supposed to be your own acts in a way that you didn't choose. That's the point where the character is no longer your own.

That point varies from person to person. The issue I have with what I quoted from you is that you're using your opinion to measure someone else's feeling of ownership, and that's silly. If someone else feels like he or she owns the character, who are you to tell them they aren't?

[Mr Fixit]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The larger discussion is what constitutes role-playing and what disrupts role-playing. My perception is that it's largely a question of tolerance and taste. Paraphrases and voice acting don't disrupt my RPing while for others it's too great a loss of control. 

I agree, of course. But guess what? Someone will come in and tell you that you're not roleplaying, and therefore all your points about how you roleplay are not really relevant.

I would hate to see what someone like that would do in the position of, say, a medieval agent of what is now known as Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 02 avril 2012 - 01:27 .

[Dejajeva]

At this point in the conversation I'm not sure anyone could understand what any of you want, much less Bioware.

[Maria Caliban]

The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the role-playing soul, is "What does a gamer want?"

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 02 avril 2012 - 01:36 .

[Ponendus]

Dejajeva wrote...

At this point in the conversation I'm not sure anyone could understand what any of you want, much less Bioware.

There is some merit in this statement I must say. I think the point is that everyone wants something different.

My personal argument is this:
What was the feedback to DAO - mostly positive
What was the feedback to DA2 - mostly negative

Sales are not an accurate representation of what fans want because of the high possibility that everyone bought DA2 on faith.

DAO is clearly more popular with the fans, so in my opinion, the best way for a developer to go forward is to try and gauge what made DAO popular. Then keep that model and improve upon it.

The biggest problem with DA2 is that it completely threw everything out the window and started again. That was not necessary. More importantly, I actually suspect the devs know that. I think we will see a really good game in The Next Thing, however time will tell I suppose.

In short, what I want is not what you want and what she wants and what he wants. Go with what works and improve in small increments. Do not go with what didn't work. Simplistic I know, but there you go.

[Ponendus]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

The larger discussion is what constitutes role-playing and what disrupts role-playing. My perception is that it's largely a question of tolerance and taste. Paraphrases and voice acting don't disrupt my RPing while for others it's too great a loss of control. 

I agree, of course. But guess what? Someone will come in and tell you that you're not roleplaying, and therefore all your points about how you roleplay are not really relevant..

I see what you are saying, but there is something to be said for the fact that Dragon Age professes itself to be a roleplaying game. In that respect getting the 'roleplaying' right should be the number one priority, otherwise they should call it something else.

When it comes down to decisions like 'voice acted or not', then they need to make that decision and annoy half of roleplayers everywhere. In that light, what else is there to do but argue whether one way of doing it is better than the other? How else are they (or us) to come to the right decision?

I don't think anyone should tell you that you are 'doing it wrong' in those words, but I think the discussion needs to happen.

[hoorayforicecream]

Ponendus wrote...

I see what you are saying, but there is something to be said for the fact that Dragon Age professes itself to be a roleplaying game. In that respect getting the 'roleplaying' right should be the number one priority, otherwise they should call it something else.

There have been several pages of discussion as to what does and does not constitute role playing, not to mention the current industry-wide definition of such (experience points and levels). Since there really isn't consensus as to a real definition, I'd say that declaring whether it is or isn't is rather pointless.

When it comes down to decisions like 'voice acted or not', then they need to make that decision and annoy half of roleplayers everywhere. In that light, what else is there to do but argue whether one way of doing it is better than the other? How else are they (or us) to come to the right decision?

I don't think anyone should tell you that you are 'doing it wrong' in those words, but I think the discussion needs to happen.

They've already made the decision. They made it a long time ago, when they said "We've decided that a voiced protagonist is what we want to do" for DA2, and reaffirmed it again with the current DA project. Bioware wants to make a voiced protagonist. What we've got right now is a number of (very vocal) people who don't like the decision Bioware made, and are going about voicing their feedback in various ways.

[Ponendus]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

They've already made the decision. They made it a long time ago, when they said "We've decided that a voiced protagonist is what we want to do" for DA2, and reaffirmed it again with the current DA project. Bioware wants to make a voiced protagonist. What we've got right now is a number of (very vocal) people who don't like the decision Bioware made, and are going about voicing their feedback in various ways.

Sure, but what is wrong with that? Discussion on these very forums has clearly shifted and shaped the thinking of the developers in the past. If anything the fact that they appear to be going 'back to the drawing board' is evidence to me of their adaptability and indicates that nothing they have said is set in stone, regardless of when they said it.

[Realmzmaster]

Right decision for who? As you said regarding voice versus non-voice half the fanbase is going to be upset so the right choice is still wrong in their minds. No, Bioware has to make a choice and then take the heat one way of the other and hope that the rest of the games is amazing enough to soothe that half of the fanbase. The final vote will be by the consumer whether to buy or not.

The debate may sway one way or the other but it does not necessarily make it right. That is where the market gets to decide.

[Ponendus]

Realmzmaster wrote...
No, Bioware has to make a choice and then take the heat one way of the other and hope that the rest of the games is amazing enough to soothe that half of the fanbase.

That may well be what you think BioWare 'has' to do, but it does not mean they will. As long as they are listening, I will respectfully voice my opposition to the voice where it is appropriate to do so.

[Realmzmaster]

Ponendus wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
No, Bioware has to make a choice and then take the heat one way of the other and hope that the rest of the games is amazing enough to soothe that half of the fanbase.

That may well be what you think BioWare 'has' to do, but it does not mean they will. As long as they are listening, I will respectfully voice my opposition to the voice where it is appropriate to do so.

As I said one way or the other Bioware has to make a choice and stand by it whether it is voiced or not. Bioware is going to take heat from the side that did not get what they wanted. If the game is amazing enough that criticism may or may not fall to the wayside. Either way one side may end up unhappy.

[seraphymon]

Thing with that is, voice isnt just one thing. I mean you said doing other stuff to sway us. but from what i gather voice means a multiple of concerns. Aside from lack of immersion, we may or may not get a voice actor we cant stand, like imo did with male hawke. As well as creating limitations in other areas, first and foremost dialogue.

[Dejajeva]

This may be an unpopular opinion around here, but honestly, I've been replaying Origins (since every time I try to play DA2 I'm suddenly disconnected from xbox live and it says my downloaded content is corrupt, which, if any of you have any ideas, I'd be glad to hear them..) and it really feels like I'm playing a very old game.There's a lot to it that I love- there seems to be a lot more talking than I remember, which I like. But not having my warden voiced feels awkward after playing DA2, and the combat just sucks for a console player. Say what you will, but I'm still a valued member of the community regardless of how I choose to play the game. I'm all for a lot of the ideas you guys have - except for repackaging DAo and calling it Da3, which seems to be what a lot of guys really want.

[Ponendus]

Dejajeva wrote...
I'm all for a lot of the ideas you guys have - except for repackaging DAo and calling it Da3, which seems to be what a lot of guys really want.

I assure you the last thing I want is for it to be called Dragon Age 3...