942 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

They want to alienate people?

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Depth of field is there to help emphasize specific things that the cinematic designer wants the viewer to focus on.

Cinematic history teaches us that there isn't only one way to do that.

Things don't have to be necessary to be useful.

I'm disputing that mandatory depth of field effects are, on balance, useful.

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

The feeling they evoke in me is anger.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 avril 2012 - 10:02 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They want to alienate people?

No, not "people." Just the ones that specifically don't want to view the story.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Why would the game want to look like a documentary?  Documentaries are things that happen to other people.  There's a camera between the viewer and the action.

If game cinematics want to make me feel like I'm there in the scene, drawing attention to the camera is just about the worst thing they could do.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

And I'll agree that it made perfect sense for Joss to use lens flare in Firefly.

But Mal didn't see lens flare.  Jayne didn't see lens flare.  So why is Hawke's perception being muddled with lens flare?

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They want to alienate people?

No, not "people." Just the ones that specifically don't want to view the story.

I find it hard to believe they actively want to alienate anyone.

I can see where they might be willing to alienate some people to achieve some other end, but actually wanting to alienate them as an end in itself seems unlikely.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They want to alienate people?

No, not "people." Just the ones that specifically don't want to view the story.

I find it hard to believe they actively want to alienate anyone.

I can see where they might be willing to alienate some people to achieve some other end, but actually wanting to alienate them as an end in itself seems unlikely.

They want you to see the story. Apparently, seeing the story alienates you, unless you see it in a way that is 100% compatible with role playing.

But they don't care if it's 100% compatible with role playing. They have a narrative, and they want you to experience it.

[Johnny Jaded]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

If the cinematographer had the new lenses already, and the effect is the same, why did he insist on using the older ones instead of simply having the lens flares added in during post-production? Because the intention is not the same: a director/cinematographer/sound engineer/whatever doesn't go out of their way to use outdated equipment unless specifically trying to capture something of the past and evoke that nostalgia. And that's usually due to a desire to pay homage to it.

That's the difference between creating an effect (especially one that is largely considered a cinematographic error) during production and editing it in in post-prod. And that's why I specified "artificially added".

[Johnny Jaded]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why would the game want to look like a documentary?  Documentaries are things that happen to other people.  There's a camera between the viewer and the action.

If game cinematics want to make me feel like I'm there in the scene, drawing attention to the camera is just about the worst thing they could do.

I completely agree with you. I'm an avid fan of film - have qualifications in Film Studies and Film Production, even worked on a short film that starred a national soap star and household name that has been entered into both Cannes and Sundance - but I dislike the use of cinematic techniques in my games; they have no place there as far as I'm concerned.

Modifié par Johnny Jaded, 02 avril 2012 - 10:23 .

[bEVEsthda]

Johnny Jaded wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why would the game want to look like a documentary?  Documentaries are things that happen to other people.  There's a camera between the viewer and the action.

If game cinematics want to make me feel like I'm there in the scene, drawing attention to the camera is just about the worst thing they could do.

I completely agree with you. I'm an avid fan of film - have qualifications in Film Studies and Film Production, even worked on a short film that starred a national soap star and household name that has been entered into both Cannes and Sundance - but I dislike the use of cinematic techniques in my games; they have no place there as far as I'm concerned.

I think it's just another sign of that it's meant to be experienced as watching a movie. It's not a 'role play' game by S.t.Mad's definition. We're watching somebody we are supposed to care about and have empathy with, just like the hero of a movie. The character is entirely Bioware's. They do the directing and acting.

[the_one_54321]

I think someone just said "hey, this would look cool." And then someone else said "yeah!"

[Nighteye2]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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?

People are free to feel any way they want. My argument is not about how I or anyone else feels while playing the game. IT's more about definition. At what point can the player be considered to be fully in control of his character, within the limitations of the game setting and the limited resources for programming choices and responses?

I argue that any action taken by the player character that is not a direct result of a command given by the player equals a loss of control by that player. Would you dispute that?

How much loss of control is considered acceptable varies from player to player, naturally - but that's not the issue here.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

They want you to see the story.

OF course they do.  And they can still present the game in a way that does that without alienating roleplayers.  That's my point.

Apparently, seeing the story alienates you, unless you see it in a way that is 100% compatible with role playing.

Yes, them breaking roleplaying alienates me.

I'm claiming that they don't need to break roleplaying to achieve their other objectives.

But they don't care if it's 100% compatible with role playing. They have a narrative, and they want you to experience it.

Those two things are not necessarily incompatible.  They've (seemingly intentionally) made them incompatible, and I don't understand why.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They've (seemingly intentionally) made them incompatible, and I don't understand why.

Because that is the narrative they are portraying.

You have a series of events and two people tell someone about those events.
Person A tells the story while leaving out once set of details.
Person B tells the story while leaving out a different set of details.

You have two different narratives.

Person A wanted to tell you one narrative, and told it to you.
Person B wanted to tell you a different narrative and told it to you.

BioWare has designed, written, and created a certain narrative. They want you to experience that narrative. They don't want you to experience a different narrative.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

BioWare has designed, written, and created a certain narrative. They want you to experience that narrative. They don't want you to experience a different narrative.

But they've gone farther than that.  Based on their design, it's not just that they don't want me to experience a different narrative, but that they want me not to experience a different narrative.

That's the step I don't get.

That they don't want me to experience a different narrative isn't a surprise at all.  That they want me not to experience a different narrative baffles me.

[hoorayforicecream]

Nighteye2 wrote...

People are free to feel any way they want. My argument is not about how I or anyone else feels while playing the game. IT's more about definition. At what point can the player be considered to be fully in control of his character, within the limitations of the game setting and the limited resources for programming choices and responses?

I argue that any action taken by the player character that is not a direct result of a command given by the player equals a loss of control by that player. Would you dispute that?

How much loss of control is considered acceptable varies from player to player, naturally - but that's not the issue here.

You're equating control with ownership, and that's flawed. I don't have to control a pet to own it. 

The issue is whether someone feels like he or she owns the character. You feel you don't. I feel I do. I find the act of telling me that I don't own the character based on your own subjective metric to be incredibly egocentric.

[upsettingshorts]

Egocentrism, on my BSN?

[Adanu]

Sylvius just doesn't want to accept that modern RPG games are about narrative and story and less about full control of the roleplaying experience.

It's like trying to explain colors to a blind person. He just won't get it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Adanu wrote...

Sylvius just doesn't want to accept that modern RPG games are about narrative and story and less about full control of the roleplaying experience.

I would like to point out that you're saying that modern roleplaying games are no longer about roleplaying.  I want that to be clear.

If you'd read the thread you'd see that I'm conceding the narrative.  I understand that BioWare has a specific narrative they would like players to experience.  But even given that, I cannot explain the specifics of their cinematic design.

[Adanu]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Sylvius just doesn't want to accept that modern RPG games are about narrative and story and less about full control of the roleplaying experience.

I would like to point out that you're saying that modern roleplaying games are no longer about roleplaying.  I want that to be clear.

If you'd read the thread you'd see that I'm conceding the narrative.  I understand that BioWare has a specific narrative they would like players to experience.  But even given that, I cannot explain the specifics of their cinematic design.

They are not about roleplaying in the way you're looking for them to be.

[TEWR]

Assuming the conversation is still about control and the loss of it, I'd like to toss in my own personal thoughts on the matter.

I'm exhausted, so bear with me. And I'm just speaking for myself:

When I played DAII, the paraphrases were not something I enjoyed. Sure, sometimes I could guess what Hawke was going to say, but that's precisely the problem for me. I'm guessing what Hawke will say, and if he says what I think he says then fine, no harm no foul.

But what happens if what I thought Hawke was going to say -- what I wanted Hawke to say -- is not said? What happens if he says something else that is radically different from both what I thought he was going to say, but what I wanted him to say?

Control is lost, my immersion becomes cracked, and Hawke becomes more and more Bioware's character and less mine.

I say cracked because I don't immediately lose my immersion. But the more cracks that happen, the more my immersion edges ever closer to breaking.

Here's what Hawke should look like for me, where I have complete control over his actions:


(Ignore the paraphrase at the bottom.)

And here's what he looks like because of the paraphrases:



Who does he become to me? He merely becomes a shadow of his former self, no longer a vessel for my roleplaying. Broken down and reassembled quickly and poorly, where I eventually care little for who he is because he is no longer me.

Basically, Humpty Dumpty. Hawke constantly falls off of the Wall of Roleplaying and onto Bioware's Ground, and all the Game-King's horses and all the Game-King's men couldn't put Hawke together again for him to sit back on that wall.

And I find that's a rather apt description of Hawke, compared to how I wanted him to act. In-game Hawke is an egghead compared to how I envisioned my Hawke.

It is because of this reason that I oppose the paraphrases. Even if I'm content with what is said, I should know what's being said before I say it, without having to resort to trial and error.

Gaider's comments on the matter have led me to believe that those people that want to know what's being said before they pick the option will never have that in any way, shape, or form. Even if paraphrases and full lines could coexist.

That seems like a deliberate method of alienating a portion of the fanbase.

Of course, maybe I'm misunderstanding his comment. But I doubt it, considering this was what he said:

David Gaider wrote...

I'm not going to display the full line of dialogue in a voiced-PC system. There are, however, alternatives to the way we did it in DA2.

Sure he admits to alternatives.

But he also says that the full line won't be displayed at all. So what acceptable alternative is there to those people that want to know what's being said? People have often asked that the option to see the full line appear at the top of the screen when you hover over a paraphrase for a short amount of time occur, which would have both coexisting.

And I'd be fine with that.

But it seems to go back to what Gaider said: No full line.

And why? Why I ask? Why prevent people that want to know what's being said from knowing what's said? What does Bioware hope to gain with such a plan?

When control is lost, interest also begins to wane.

There is absolutely no reason why paraphrases and full line dialogue can't exist in harmony with one another. That would sacrifice both sides of the spectrum.

I've seen some alternatives to the Dialogue Wheel itself. The one that most notably comes to mind is Crustybot's Dialogue Compass idea. And I liked part of it, where I had up to 8 possible options -- though where does information gathering fit into that?

I wasn't one to like the idea of an explanatory thought process on the other hand. But that's my personal view on the matter.

Now, perhaps if I were to see it in action -- both aspects of it -- I might change my stance on the Explanatory Thought process. And maybe this is the alternative -- or at least one of them -- that David Gaider was speaking of.

Adanu wrote...

Sylvius just doesn't want to accept that modern RPG games are about narrative and story and less about full control of the roleplaying experience.

It's like trying to explain colors to a blind person. He just won't get it.

The two aren't mutually exclusive methinks. You can have full control over what the PC does without sacrificing narrative and story, even in a game with a voiced PC.

And I believe Sylvius is quite aware of this, even if he personally doesn't like the voiced PC.

Though I would hazard a guess that he might argue that with the voiced PC, he loses some measure of control. But I digress...

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 03 avril 2012 - 12:08 .

[slashthedragon]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
*snip*

Yes, I wish the higher ups posting here would tell us WHY they are so against having the full line displayed?  I can't see any negative to it, unless the writers intend for the PC to ramble on and on after just one choice, thus making it impossible to fit the line on the screen (and I HATE auto dialogue).
If they could explain the why, I certainly would be willing to listen, especially if their reason is sound.  I know I won't buy a DA: 3 with paraphrasing, I hated that in DA:2.

[Morroian]

 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would like to point out that you're saying that modern roleplaying games are no longer about roleplaying.  I want that to be clear.

So you refuse to accept that there are degrees of role playing? 

slashthedragon wrote...

Yes, I wish the higher ups posting here would tell us WHY they are so against having the full line displayed?  

David Gaider has, can't remember what thread though. The explanation was to do with not being able to fit in the dialogue and somehow convey the full nuance of how it was being said. Personally I think they should just have a subtitle and not worry about the nuances of how its bweing said but I'm not a designer.

Modifié par Morroian, 03 avril 2012 - 01:00 .

[TEWR]

slashthedragon wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
*snip*

Yes, I wish the higher ups posting here would tell us WHY they are so against having the full line displayed?  I can't see any negative to it, unless the writers intend for the PC to ramble on and on after just one choice, thus making it impossible to fit the line on the screen (and I HATE auto dialogue).
If they could explain the why, I certainly would be willing to listen, especially if their reason is sound.  I know I won't buy a DA: 3 with paraphrasing, I hated that in DA:2.

Indeed. I'm honestly not sure what the big deal is to begin with. They're already creating paraphrases and the full line already.

So what's the big deal about allowing the full line to be seen, before the player picks an option?

From how I look at it, they're wasting more time, energy, and resources trying to create paraphrases and full lines, because they need to think of a paraphrase that best conveys what the full line is going to say. But since Bioware doesn't want the paraphrases to go away, I have to wonder why they can't have the full line show itself as a surtitle, as I suggested.

In-game, surtitles already happen when you take too long to respond and you see what was last said by the NPC you're conversing with.

But why not change that to subtitles, and have the full line be the surtitle? I'm fairly sure that the already existent surtitles -- the ones that come up when you take too long to respond -- are operated by a toggle.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 03 avril 2012 - 01:09 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
but that they want me not to experience a different narrative.

Could you rephrase, because I'm fairly certain that this is exactly what I said, and that it makes no difference.

By strict logical structure;

"Want you to experience" == "Not-want you to not-experience"

"Experience A" == "Not experience B"
Because A and B are by design, mutually exclusive.

*edit;

My mistake, but "Experience A" == "Not experience B" is false. "Experience A" = "Not experience B" is always true, but "Not experience B" = "Experience A" is not always true.

"Experience A" is a subset of "Not experience B." As a subset, every instance of "Experience A" implies that "Not experince B" has occured. So my conclusion holds, but based on a different line of logic. My original line was false.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 03 avril 2012 - 03:43 .

[Yrkoon]

Adanu wrote...

Sylvius just doesn't want to accept that modern RPG games are about narrative and story and less about full control of the roleplaying experience.
 

LOL

Skyrim  would like to have 10 million+ words with you

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 avril 2012 - 02:44 .

[Restraint]

They don't want to show the full line because it undermines the presentation, takes up a lot of UI space, and in any case wouldn't be a perfect solution to the problem of unexpected outcomes.

Origins for example was designed with full line dialogue and silent pc in mind and still there was more than one situation where the intended meaning of the sentence I chose did not mesh with the reaction it got. The problem would be exacerbated with a voiced PC who communicates like a real person.

Modifié par Restraint, 03 avril 2012 - 03:01 .