942 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

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

The character exists and acts within their setting.  I play in their world.

For it to be entirely one-sided by me, I would need to create the world and all of the characters in it, as well.

I'm not asking for that.  I don't want that.  I don't want to write fiction, nor do I want to watch fiction.  I want to play a character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

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.

I write clearly if the reader makes an attempt to understand what I'm saying, rather than trying to shoehorn what I'm saying into his own pre-conceived notions.

I wouldn't need to correct people so often if they didn't make so many bad assumptions.

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.

Each person is different.  I would need to adjust my message for each reader.

That's not a credible option.

Moreover, I don't know what unfounded assumptions each person makes until I see how he interprets what I've said.

This is exactly how I select dialogue options in-game.  I want to say things that will induce informative reactions in others.  Saying the wrong thing (via paraphrases) breaks the test, and thus I don't learn anything.

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.

And I disagree.  I understand why a designer night consider the option, and I understand why a designer might see some benefits in that specific design approach, but I don't understand (I still don't) how any designer could think that heavy-handed cinematic tricks of this sort are, on balance, a good thing.

I think you're misinterpreting the phrase "good idea".

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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

You got my name right.  You haven't done that in years.

Thank you.

[Maria Caliban]

I didn't know my misspelling your name bothered you. I'll be sure to get it right in the future.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

You got my name right.  You haven't done that in years.

Thank you.

Actually, Maria got it right several days ago.  I recall being surprised at the time, because she always seems to get your name wrong...I seem to recall there was even a discussion (albeit a short one) about it at one point.

Anyway, as to the topic at hand...as has been said previously, they do understand what we want, it's just that we want so many different, conflicting things that they'll never be able to satisfy us all.

Personally, I've gotten to the point (and I think I've said this before) where I simply don't judge Bioware's games as RPG's, because, to me, they aren't anymore.  That doesn't mean they're bad (and why everyone seems to think when someone says a Bioware game isn't an RPG, they must be claiming the game is terrible is something I don't quite understand.)  I'd even go so far as to say that I think ME3 is probably the best game Bioware has ever made, despite the fact that of all the Bioware games I've played (everything since BG1 except that Sonic thing) it's probably the farthest (for me) from being an RPG.

I am saddened by Bioware's change in style, because it means that there really isn't anyone making AAA RPGs as far as I'm concerned, and the indie RPG scene has drifted away from what I'm interested in as well (though Wasteland 2 looks to be fairly close.  Not a huge post-apocalyptic fan, and I like NPC party members, but those aren't deal breakers for me.)

I do have to agree with Sylvius, though, that Depth of Field effects are annoying, even if I'm not viewing it as an RPG.  I recall a scene in ME3 where I was looking at something in the scene (I don't remember what it was off-hand) and all of a sudden I couldn't see it clearly anymore because the camera focus shifted.  If something graphically has actually caught my attention (which honestly, is unusual for me) the last thing I want is to have the focus shift so that I can't even make it out any longer.

[Xewaka]

Filament wrote...
As far as the argument that paraphrasing means I'm not really choosing, I don't buy that.

Shorts mentioned it a while ago, so let me present you with the "Horizon Situation". You're playing a Shepard that due to his past -Akuze survivor - loathes the idea of working with Cerberus, and doesn't want one of the few persons in the galaxy that might still respect him (The Virmire Survivor) to hear from Sehpard's own mouth "confirmation to the rumors" that he/she is working with the rogue human organization. Now you, as the player, choose a line of dialogue that allows this. It is implemented (that is, it is possible to have Shepard not mention it, in which case the Virmire survivor brings it up); I challenge you to get it right in the first dialogue basing yourself exclusively in the paraphrases.
When you realize you can't, other than by trial and error, you'll understand why we say that paraphrasing is not choosing dialogue, but guessing it. With terrible to the point of uselessness hints.

Modifié par Xewaka, 02 avril 2012 - 12:13 .

[AkiKishi]

Zjarcal wrote...

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.

There are different kinds of restrictions. Mechanical, which govern the game world and those which limit the kind of character you can create.
Even PnP is rarely restriction free depending on the campaign. But the step from being a Warden or a Bhaalspawn to being Hawke is a pretty big one. Since Deus Ex:HR is my favourite current example, if would be like comparing being the head of security to being Adam Jensen. Certain elements of Deus Ex would still work, but it's a much tighter fit when they can give you Adam as the fixed protagonist and then let you play the game how you choose.

[Blastback]

Maria Caliban wrote...

cRPG = Computer Role-Playing Game.

As opposed to PnP, pen and paper.

Dejajeva wrote...

...if Bioware no longer makes the classic type of game you enjoy, surely someone else does?

Unfortunately, no. When was the last time you saw a tactical, party-based RPG with customizable protagonist, text dialogue, branching paths of C+C, and an isometric camera?

Are there any independent games of that nature out?  Curious.

[AkiKishi]

Blastback wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

cRPG = Computer Role-Playing Game.

As opposed to PnP, pen and paper.

Dejajeva wrote...

...if Bioware no longer makes the classic type of game you enjoy, surely someone else does?

Unfortunately, no. When was the last time you saw a tactical, party-based RPG with customizable protagonist, text dialogue, branching paths of C+C, and an isometric camera?

Are there any independent games of that nature out?  Curious.

Tactics Ogre:Let us cling together.
Disgaea (take your pick there are a lot).

If you are willing to drop some of the pre-requisites it can be quite a long list.

[Realmzmaster]

Basilisk games makers of Eschalon 1 & 2 (three is in the works) are very good games in the old school vein. The games are single character. There are no VO's everything is text. The graphics are not photo realistic, but quite serviceable. The community is great. Thomas Riegsecker (aka BasiliskWrangler and lead designer) is the only full-time employee (other work is contracted out). He keeps in contact with the community and has members of the community beta test his games. You have to apply and be accepted as a beta tester.

Find Basilisk games here: http://basiliskgames.com/

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 02 avril 2012 - 03:02 .

[the_one_54321]

Vaeliorin wrote...
(and why everyone seems to think when someone says a Bioware game isn't an RPG, they must be claiming the game is terrible is something I don't quite understand.)

It's a very confusing reaction, isn't it? There's lots of awesome games out there that don't have anything to do with role playing.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And I disagree. I understand why a designer night consider the option, and I understand why a designer might see some benefits in that specific design approach, but I don't understand (I still don't) how any designer could think that heavy-handed cinematic tricks of this sort are, on balance, a good thing.

We've been over this. It's because they have identified telling the story as a higher priority than letting the player role play. "We want you to experience the story, even if it means you can't do something else, or are more limited at doing something else."

It's not an issue of providing options, or creating variability. Their purpose in creating this feature is that you are meant to, and will experience it. As it is their goal for you to experience this content, they have only met that goal if you actually experience the content.

Blastback wrote...
Are there any independent games of that nature out? Curious.

There's a kickstarter for Wastelands 2 that looks interesting.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 02 avril 2012 - 03:52 .

[Mustang678]

The most disappointing part of DA2 for me was that every time I tried to decline a quest I was still forced into doing it on the spot

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I write clearly if the reader makes an attempt to understand what I'm saying, rather than trying to shoehorn what I'm saying into his own pre-conceived notions.

Each person is different.  I would need to adjust my message for each reader.

That's not a credible option.

Well, of course you need to adjust the message. I, for example, change the way I write when communicating with you compared to, let's say Tentakel or Maria. If you really wanted to avoid misunderstandings, you would at least try it. But since you apparently view communication as a one-way street where what you say has nothing to do with how it's received, I'm afraid we won't make any headway in this department.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And I disagree.  I understand why a designer might consider the option, and I understand why a designer might see some benefits in that specific design approach, but I don't understand (I still don't) how any designer could think that heavy-handed cinematic tricks of this sort are, on balance, a good thing.

What can I say? Then you don't understand what it means to be human and to be wrong. Let's say designers really are wrong no matter how you look at the matter. Let's say that a design idea is bad and doesn't advance gameplay. Designers, therefore, poorly thought it out and, frankly, did a lousy job. But that still doesn't mean I can't understand why they would think it's a good idea.

And you know what? Can we at least make an assumption that there are people who enjoy depth of field? If there are, doesn't it follow that designers thought it would be a good idea because they were having such people in mind? As long as there's an audience that appreciates their work, doesn't it mean that on some level that idea has merit?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Actually, Maria got it right several days ago. 

I stand corrected.

the_one_54321 wrote...

We've been over this. It's because they have identified telling the story as a higher priority than letting the player role play. "We want you to experience the story, even if it means you can't do something else, or are more limited at doing something else."

I've accounted for that.  These cinematic tricks don't achieve the objective you describe for the players who would like to turn them off.  They're a barrier to roleplaying, nothing more.

Roleplayers are not going to experience the story any differently as a result of these features.  They'll just roleplay less well.  Unless there's some value BioWare derives from making roleplaying, I just don't get it.

It's not an issue of providing options, or creating variability. Their purpose in creating this feature is that you are meant to, and will experience it. As it is their goal for you to experience this content, they have only met that goal if you actually experience the content.

That's an idiotic goal.  I can see how that conclusion might have been reached - it's a fairly typical misapplication of ideal rule utilitarianism - but I would like to think someone would have realised it before it got to the public.

Mr Fixit wrote...

What can I say? Then you don't understand what it means to be human and to be wrong.

We're talking about experts in their field.  They don't, as a general rule, make obvious errors.

And you know what? Can we at least make an assumption that there are people who enjoy depth of field? If there are, doesn't it follow that designers thought it would be a good idea because they were having such people in mind? As long as there's an audience that appreciates their work, doesn't it mean that on some level that idea has merit?

If there's a cinematic designer who thinks that depth of field effects are somehow a necessary component of compelling cinematics, I'd like to hear that.

I'd also like to ask that designer about lens flare.  For the first half century or more of cinematography, lens flare was seen as an amateurish mistake that drew attention to the camera.  I agree wholeheartedly with that position, and yet now we see cinematics in games with artificial lens flare added intentionally.  What?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 avril 2012 - 04:42 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Roleplayers are not going to experience the story any differently as a result of these features.  They'll just roleplay less well.  Unless there's some value BioWare derives from making roleplaying, I just don't get it.

One cannot typically willfully delete information from their mind once they've viewed it. Forgetting happens, but is not instantaneous nor specific to desire.

Short version; if you see it then they get what they wanted.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 02 avril 2012 - 04:48 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If there's a cinematic designer who thinks that depth of field effects are somehow a necessary component of compelling cinematics, I'd like to hear that.

I'd also like to ask that designer about lens flare.  For the first half century or more of cinematography, lens flare was seen as an amateurish mistake that drew attention to the camera.  I agree wholeheartedly with that position, and yet now we see cinematics in games with artificial lens flare added intentionally.  What?

Depth of field is there to help emphasize specific things that the cinematic designer wants the viewer to focus on. Things don't have to be necessary to be useful. You don't need big toes to walk, but they sure help maintain balance.

Adding lens flare on purpose is meant to evoke certain feelings in the viewer. They provide context for the style of what you're watching, because the sort of film you'd see that had lens flares had a set of feelings and context associated with them that the cinematographer wishes to evoke in their work.

[AkiKishi]

I like cutscenes, a good cutscene sets the mood  not even close to gameplay , but when the game takes over I feel like kicking their asses for what they did to Lucia.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 02 avril 2012 - 08:27 .

[Johnny Jaded]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Adding lens flare on purpose is meant to evoke certain feelings in the viewer. They provide context for the style of what you're watching, because the sort of film you'd see that had lens flares had a set of feelings and context associated with them that the cinematographer wishes to evoke in their work.

Artificially added lens flares are meant to make the film (or game, I suppose) seem "more realistic" or documentary-like - nothing more - because, without them, the film looks too sharp and artificial. The irony being that camera lenses now have reflective coating designed specifically to prevent lens flares since, as Sylvius pointed out,  they were originally a mistake that could get a cinematographer fired. They make sense in a film like Saving Private Ryan, in which Spielberg was trying to evoke a sense of the war footage that made the newsreels, yet are out of place in films like the Star Trek reboot as it's clearly not a documentary and isn't meant to be one - in fact, fans complained about it so much that JJ Abrams had to issue a statement apologising for/defending their use. It could be argued that they are just as out place in games for the same reason.

Modifié par Johnny Jaded, 02 avril 2012 - 09:00 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Johnny Jaded wrote...

Artificially added lens flares are meant to make the film (or game, I suppose) seem "more realistic" or documentary-like - nothing more - because, without them, the film looks too sharp and artificial. The irony being that camera lenses now have reflective coating designed specifically to prevent lens flares since, as Sylvius pointed out,  they were originally a mistake that could get a cinematographer fired. They make sense in a film like Saving Private Ryan, in which Spielberg was trying to evoke a sense of the war footage that made the newsreels, yet are out of place in films like the Star Trek reboot as it's clearly not a documentary and isn't meant to be one - in fact, fans complained about it so much that JJ Abrams had to issue a statement apologising for/defending their use. It could be argued that they are just as out place in games for the same reason.

That's not entirely true. Lens flares show up in a lot of western and pulp adventure films as well. The cinematographer of the TV series Firefly specifically used older lenses for the lens flare effect in order to evoke the feeling of older television shows from the 1970s, despite being a show made in 2002 and set in the future.

[Maria Caliban]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Well, of course you need to adjust the message. I, for example, change the way I write when communicating with you compared to, let's say Tentakel or Maria.

You adjust your communication when you talk to me?

Now that I think about it, I don't know how to adjust my communication style. Perhaps it's something I do without thinking.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Adding lens flare on purpose is meant to evoke certain feelings in the viewer.

What feelings?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 02 avril 2012 - 09:27 .

[Johnny Jaded]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The cinematographer of the TV series Firefly specifically used older lenses for the lens flare effect in order to evoke the feeling of older television shows from the 1970s, despite being a show made in 2002 and set in the future.

Note that I said "artificially added lens flares". That's a natural occurrence since the old lenses don't have the reflective coating of modern ones. Also, that would be considered an homage to the shows he grew up watching, rather than necessarily trying to "evoke certain feelings in the viewer" - of course, "feelings" is a rather ambiguous term and perhaps you didn't mean it as a synonym for "emotions", as I took it to be.

[Maria Caliban]

I consider nostalgia a feeling.

Interestingly, I recall one movie critic said that the Star Trek movie was attempting to evoke a nostalgia for something the audience had never seen, only heard of.

[the_one_54321]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I write clearly if the reader makes an attempt to understand what I'm saying, rather than trying to shoehorn what I'm saying into his own pre-conceived notions.

Each person is different.  I would need to adjust my message for each reader.

That's not a credible option.

Well, of course you need to adjust the message. I, for example, change the way I write when communicating with you compared to, let's say Tentakel or Maria. If you really wanted to avoid misunderstandings, you would at least try it. But since you apparently view communication as a one-way street where what you say has nothing to do with how it's received, I'm afraid we won't make any headway in this department.

Consistency in communication is more effective than customization. If you change the way you speak from person to person, you end up with varying interpretations. One thing Sylvius has going for him is that almost everyone misunderstands him in the same way. So clearing up that misunderstanding becomes a straightforward, if arduous affair. And for those of us that understand his language, interacting is not difficult at all.

What does work is changing your verbal approach, to suit the person you are speaking to. This has nothing to do with saying what you mean or changing your meaning to suit. It's like playing a game. If you can't win (communicate) with one strategy (verbal path), then you try a new strategy.

[Johnny Jaded]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Now that I think about it, I don't know how to adjust my communication style. Perhaps it's something I do without thinking?

It generally is a subconscious decision. Is the way you talk to a customer service representative different to how you talk to your parents? Is that different to the way you speak to a child? Someone of higher social status?

Maria Caliban wrote...

Interestingly, I recall one movie critic said that the Star Trek movie was attempting to evoke a nostalgia for something the audience had never seen, only heard of.

Which would make the attempt redundant before it was even tried since one cannot have nostalia for something one hasn't experienced.
Professional critics have a tendancy towards pretentiousness. But I won't go into my tirade on that.

Modifié par Johnny Jaded, 02 avril 2012 - 09:36 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Johnny Jaded wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The cinematographer of the TV series Firefly specifically used older lenses for the lens flare effect in order to evoke the feeling of older television shows from the 1970s, despite being a show made in 2002 and set in the future.

Note that I said "artificially added lens flares". That's a natural occurrence since the old lenses don't have the reflective coating of modern ones. Also, that would be considered an homage to the shows he grew up watching, rather than necessarily trying to "evoke certain feelings in the viewer" - of course, "feelings" is a rather ambiguous term and perhaps you didn't mean it as a synonym for "emotions", as I took it to be.

What's the difference? Firefly's cinematographer had the new lenses, and purposely sent them back because he wanted the footage to contain lens flare. It was entirely an intentional effect. Would it have been different if they simply took the flareless footage and added the lens flares in post production? The overall effect on the viewer would remain the same, and that's what the cinematographer was aiming for. It's not to make it look more like a documentary, or more realistic. The TV show that they used this on was about space cowboys. It was about making the audience feel nostalgic and to help establish a certain mood for the show.

If the cinematographers of a game wish to evoke a similar effect, the only method they have is to go artificial. That doesn't make it any less meaningful, or any less intentional. It's there to evoke feelings in the audience.

Maria Caliban wrote...

What feelings?

Nostalgia, mostly. Familiarity, probably. Some form of comfort. I suspect they want to make you feel the same sort of feelings you get when watching an old pulpy adventure serial.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 02 avril 2012 - 09:44 .