942 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

I'd rather prefer every announcement he does is written through a Malkavian mindset, would be humorous.

/goingofftopic

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 26 mars 2012 - 11:32 .

[upsettingshorts]

Brockololly wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
Far better for us to show what we mean, as opposed to having people jump to conclusions and react in horror (as Dragon Age and the TES series are fundamentally different in their design goals) and demand explanations we can't really give yet-- and, even if we could, it'd be in words only... and, even though I'm a writer, there's really only so much that words can convey.

I guess the bolded is my question then: What do you see as the design goals of Dragon Age as compared to your perceived design goals of Skyrim or TES games? Certainly there is probably some overlap in the actual goals, but you and Bethesda are simply going about achieving some of those goals in different ways?

Clearly I'm not DG and I would like to hear his answer myself but it always seemed clear to me.

BioWare's goal is to tell a story.
Bethesda's goal is to create a world.  

Someone on this forums - I forget who - explained it very well.  

In a BioWare game, you might see a house.  If you can enter the house, it's because something is going to happen there.

In a Bethesda game, you might see a house.  There's a good chance of nothing happening there, but you can go inside it because the house exists. 

[Mr Fixit]

Maria Caliban wrote...

He does not come off as a man who knows what THAC0 is and probably can't name the Ventrue clan weakness.

To be honest, I'd like to hear his take on bend bars/lift gates. Hierophant druids' experience progression could also use some clarity where I am concerned. I can't for the life of me make heads or tails of it .

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 26 mars 2012 - 11:48 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why do you play BioWare games?

Why does that question make your head explode?

[Joy Divison]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...


Her initial statement was not about DA or any game in particular. It was simply "Sequels often sell poorly when the original wasn't well received." This is demonstrably true.

I will grant you this is correct.  Because it does not accurately characterize Dragon Age, which she was specifically asked about and responding to, the statement is superfluous and disingenuous.

That is a reasonable objection

Modifié par Joy Divison, 26 mars 2012 - 11:53 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I call the phrases, marked by you as strawmen, the end states of trends.

They're biased conclusions based on assumptions that misrepresent positions.

The only end state of a trend here is your having taken consistently refuted arguments and presenting them as though you aren't aware that they've been taken apart and/or numerous times, if not by me personally in threads I clearly remember than by many others - including but not limited to those with BioWare tags - in threads I didn't participate in.

And in doing so, you are being disingenuous.  My speculation is that you're so confident in the superiority of your preferences and perspective that you're doing this casually and not cynically.  That's some small saving grace, at least.

AngryFrozenWater wrote... 

Pure speculation of course, although every new BW title seems to move into that direction. Sometimes less can be benificial, but in BW's case it seems less is all they have to offer.

That is because, as you implied, you do not appreciate their value.
It is also because, as I imply, you do not appreciate that they could have value for anyone else unless they are dumb.

In a far and gray past, I think it was you who corrected me not generalize. So, since then I am not concerned what others think. What I observe and what I don't like is what I write about. So, I don't care these could have value for "anyone else". Playing games is about fun and that is highly subjective. You may try to turn that around, by stating what I think is not general concensus, but I am not a platform of the geth.

[the_one_54321]

David Gaider wrote...
The problem is exactly what we refer to by suggesting we don't want to talk specifics until we have something to show.

What do we mean when we say Skyrim is a source of inspiration? Well, clearly we mean that DA3 would be like Syrim in every respect... a copy of the game, its action-oriented gamplay, its single protaganist and story-delivery method and so forth.

Or not.

Far better for us to show what we mean, as opposed to having people jump to conclusions and react in horror (as Dragon Age and the TES series are fundamentally different in their design goals) and demand explanations we can't really give yet-- and, even if we could, it'd be in words only... and, even though I'm a writer, there's really only so much that words can convey.

I can make the distinction very simple.

Skyrim has action combat. I want tactical combat. This is non-negotiable.

I only speak for myself, but I suspect that lots of fans (an more importantly, lots and lots of former fans) have a similar mind set.

[Satyricon331]

Bioware probably won't make anymore games I'll like, but at least their forums are endlessly entertaining.

[upsettingshorts]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

In a far and gray past, I think it was you who corrected me not generalize. So, since then I am not concerned what others think. What I observe and what I don't like is what I write about. So, I don't care these could have value for "anyone else". Playing games is about fun and that is highly subjective. You may try to turn that around, by stating what I think is not general concensus, but I am not a platform of the geth.

That's not the problem.  I'm not saying that everyone should feel as if the same things are fun.  Precisely the opposite.

I am saying that an honest acknowledgment that others can enjoy things you do not doesn't result in statements like those you've made.  

Everyone posting here - seeing as we're all vets/regulars - knows, and if they don't they really ought to, what people like and dislike about almost every feature we could cite.

I'm not turning anything around.  I'm saying that describing a preference for voiceover as being the result of someone hating reading is disingeuous.  Because it is.  Labeling your list-o-complaints as strawmen doesn't, as I assume you are inferring, claim that your point of view is invalid, only that your summary of the opposing view is so misrepresented - when I know you ought to know better - as to be transparently insulting in a self-serving way.

There's plenty of room for lively, reasonable debate about everything you list.  But when it's claimed that anyone who could like what you dislike is some kind of caricature of an adolescent simpleton - which is what you do when you break out a pile of strawmen or brand them with a disparaging label - intelligent discussion is a nonstarter, because why should I engage with someone who attempts to discredit me for having opinions I don't even have?

Maria Caliban wrote...

Why does that question make your head explode?

PM'd

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 mars 2012 - 12:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]hoorayforicecream wrote...
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I hope we both want the player to feel some level of ownership over his character, but I'm not sure anyone at BioWare shares this desire.[/quote]

Your ideas of ownership clearly differ from others though.[/quote]
Which is why I didn't claim it was something we both value.

In fact, I explicitly stated my suspicion that we do not.   Why you then chose to pick out that point and explain why there's a gulf between my position and theirs baffles me.
[quote]That's why it tends to be frustrating reading your posts for me; you tend to write in absolutes.[/quote]
As one should.  Why would I advance a position unless I knew it to be true?
[quote]As I understand it, player ownership is the most important quality of the game to you, and is worth sacrificing everything else for. That means you're willing to sacrifice things that Bioware is specifically not, such as a voiced protagonist, cinematic gameplay, a general sense of pacing, and character extrapolation.[/quote]
I hold that roleplaying is the most important aspect of a roleplaying game, yes.

The rest of my positions follow logically from that.  If we accept that roleplaying consists of making in-character decisions, the rest of the game needs to make that possible.
[quote]You've made it clear that you want explicit control of your character.[/quote]
I've made it clear that the demand for roleplaying requires it.  What I want is immaterial.
[quote]Nothing gets done without your say so.[/quote]
Of course not.  Any character action undertaken without the player's consent risks breaking the character.  If the character lacks a coherent persona, then in-character decision-making becomes impossible.
[quote]It doesn't matter if that means that the sense of time gets distorted, or that the whole world speaks but your character does not. These things are not jarring or immersion-breaking to you, though they are for others.[/quote]
They would be to others if they bothered to perceive the game world through their characters' eyes.

That's what roleplaying is: seeing a world through someone else's eyes.  How you, the player, perceive the game world is irrelevant to roleplaying.

I accept that some players might prefer the game world behave a certain way from their perspective.  That's a personal preference, and I can accept that.  I cannot, however, accept a design that serves that preference at the expense of allowing roleplaying.
[quote]Bioware seems to wish to want implicit control of your character. Based on your decisions W, X, and Y that they've provide, your character will probably do Z in this situation. And rather than sacrifice the sense of pacing and flow, they have the character do Z, whether this is jumping a chasm, laughing and smiling, or stabbing someone.[/quote]
And with every such action, they risk breaking any given character.
[quote]The amount of autonomy a player's character can comfortably have without the player's explicit influence varies from person to person.[/quote]
I disagree.  the amount of autonomy a player's character can comfortably have within the framework of roleplaying is zero.  The extent to which a player can accept autonomy is the extent to which the player isn't roleplaying.
[quote]The point of soliciting feedback is the attempt to find the sweet spot to balance these things.[/quote]
And I'm glad they're doing it.  I will continue to advance my position in an attempt to drag that sweet spot kicking and screaming in my direction.
[quote]There's no need for Bioware to have to defend their decisions to you.[/quote]
And yet they do sometimes do it.  Moreover, BioWare is only part of my audience.
[quote]They've already stated that if the decisions they make aren't for you, that they're sorry you feel that way, and hope you find what you're looking for elsewhere.[/quote]
This ignorees the possibility that there isn't something better elsewhere.
[quote]They aren't going to change, so the best way to make the game better is to work within the given constraints rather than tell them to throw the constraints out.[/quote]
I do that, too.  I've repeatedly asked for a simple coding change to cutscenes to improve my perception of them (I want to be able to disable depth-of-field effects).  But that is no reason to stop pointing out how badly these supposedly core features break roleplaying.

[Mike_Neel]

What I want is for Bioware and the Dragon Age team to make the game that they want to make. If it's a game I want to play great, if not no harm no foul.

As long as they're enjoying themselves and doing what makes them happy that's what matters most. I won't take it as a personal insult or injury if it's not something I'm interested in.

[The dead fish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In a Bethesda game, you might see a house.  There's a good chance of nothing happening there, but you can go inside it because the house exists. 

I'd like to see that  in dragon age as well, it doesn't need to be exclusive to Bethesda's games. I remember how I was disappointed with DAO, my first rpg game, my first bioware game, when I reached Ostagar and especially Denerim.

These cities seemed quickly borring and despite the story very interesting, It did have a negative effect on me. Besides, I do not remember, how I did to overcome my disappointment.

Maybe some people are going to say me, who cares, Bioware's games are about characters and the story, don't waste resources for those things. But I do think that they can improve other areas. I think it's also important that we can be able to be free a bit from the story at one point. ( and what is better than cities ? ). Something that feels less linear. Everything that makes the world alive, which plunges us into their game increases this effect.

In DA2, kirkwall felt useless, It didn't support the story at all. Point A to point B to do some quests, and after, point B to point C, always. The city was invisible, npcs in the streets were invisible, the world didn't help the story, on the contrary. ( since it was rushed etc ) only focused about the story and side quests. What gives a feeling about how this game is linear. ( from a point of view of someone who isn't a hardcore gamer )

In skyrim, it's more than that. My god, I have always something to do. When i am tired about following the storyline, I pause a moment to hunt animals in the wild fields, to go stealing into houses, killing some people for my pleasure, chasing thieves, Jobs to do for guilds, and sometimes, I explore simply because it is simply magnificent. Then, I start again the sidequests, etc.

The story needs to be supported by a living world for me. I do hope they will improve this area and that's why they talked about Skyrim.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 27 mars 2012 - 12:17 .

[upsettingshorts]

Mike_Neel wrote...

What I want is for Bioware and the Dragon Age team to make the game that they want to make. If it's a game I want to play great, if not no harm no foul.

As long as they're enjoying themselves and doing what makes them happy that's what matters most. I won't take it as a personal insult or injury if it's not something I'm interested in.

This is my favorite post on the BSN.

@Sylvianus:  And I'd love to play a Bethesda game with characters that had more substance than a strip of balsa wood, through a story I found compelling.  But they have different goals.  I think that is kind of what DG was getting at.  

Would I like to play a BioWare/Bethesda hybrid that somehow managed to accomplish everything each does well without carrying with it what each does poorly?  Yeah, of course.  But while that'd be great I don't think it's a reasonable expectation.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 mars 2012 - 12:18 .

[K_Tabris]

Tesclo wrote...

http://www.shacknews...r-opportunities

This is a complete joke. No we obviously do not want a Dragon Age 2 expansion. 

Speak for yourself

You should be telling the Mass Effect team to go back to their roots =/

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why do you play BioWare games?

Same-sex romances.

Specifically the romance with Silk Fox in Jade Empire. I started reading lesbian fiction in middle school and continued through high school and college. Not once, in all the books, comics, and movies that I saw did I ever encounter the story, “There was a hero. She saved the world, got the girl, and everything was awesome.”

BioWare gave me a story that dozens of lesbian authors could not, and I loved them for it.

This is not to diminish the other elements of their game. If there were no same-sex romances, I’d probably buy the games – I buy over a dozen games a year - but not on day one and I wouldn’t hang around the forums. They’d be quality entertainment, but I’d be a customer, not a fan.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 mars 2012 - 12:24 .

[Dragoonlordz]

David Gaider wrote...

AgenTBC wrote...
Oh god, please don't use Skyrim as inspiration for future Bioware games. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

The problem is exactly what we refer to by suggesting we don't want to talk specifics until we have something to show.

What do we mean when we say Skyrim is a source of inspiration? Well, clearly we mean that DA3 would be like Skyrim in every respect... a copy of the game, its action-oriented gamplay, its single protaganist and story-delivery method and so forth.

Or not.

Far better for us to show what we mean, as opposed to having people jump to conclusions and react in horror (as Dragon Age and the TES series are fundamentally different in their design goals) and demand explanations we can't really give yet-- and, even if we could, it'd be in words only... and, even though I'm a writer, there's really only so much that words can convey.

So I'll just say that's not the entire story and I'd suggest caution before reading too much into that.

After the release of Mass Effect 3 and seeing just how many people are using qoutes expressed through the development that were given in the along the way in regards to answering peoples questions, where at each time it may of been true at that stage or something they wanted to do with both time and money allowing plus simple idealism.. To have such elements thrown back at them as ammunition I can fully understand the principle of saying less, but show more approach. More along the lines of what have done instead of what would like to do.

There is this horrible state at the moment where people beg for information and if that information regardless of whether part of the road map during development of a developers hopes and ideals for a title, changed over time or dropped due to restraints; those qoutes become a weapon to attack them with. People have also a nasty habit of taking these sorts of things way out of perpsective, there is too much assumption around such issues which is why it is better to show what have than say what want (imho).

So I would prefer they only talk about what is done with the juicy meat on the bone that they can show us. Also I consider it up to them what they wish to make, I will as always decide if it is something I want. If it is something I believe I will enjoy or interesting I will buy it but at this stage I am most interested to see what they do when they start doing it. There are elements in many games that they can mention have positive possible effect to the new title they want to create, whether Skyrim or in my case I mentioned Witcher 2 in my review at the bottom. To say they took inspiration from any such title does not mean will get copy paste replication of an entire game and many games have things that could improve anothers.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 mars 2012 - 01:31 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I disagree.  the amount of autonomy a player's character can comfortably have within the framework of roleplaying is zero.  The extent to which a player can accept autonomy is the extent to which the player isn't roleplaying.

If you mean this as literally as you tend to mean things, then you have never role played in a video game that wasn't also a text based adventure. Graphics based video games do not have 100% autonomy, by definition.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Clearly I'm not DG and I would like to hear his answer myself but it always seemed clear to me.

BioWare's goal is to tell a story.
Bethesda's goal is to create a world.  

I would disagree.  I think Bethesda's goal is to create a toy.  If they wanted to create a world, they wouldn't have action combat.  Action combat breaks the setting my allowing real-world variables to influence in-game results.

I want a world.  I would like a game designer to create a world in which I can roleplay.  The two things BioWare's worlds have typically done better than Bethesda's worlds are the combat mechanics (BioWare tends not to use action combat), and the background narrative.  In BioWare's games, things are happening.  You can't really get away from those things happening, so there's always something happening.  Bethesda, on the other hands, does let you get away from their story, which leaves you in a world where nothing is happening, and that's not a very interesting world.

In general, I think BioWare does a better job of creating a world than Bethesda does.  But BioWare's been getting less and less good at it.  But Bethesda's only really reached BioWare's level once (in Fallout 3).

Someone on this forums - I forget who - explained it very well.  

In a BioWare game, you might see a house.  If you can enter the house, it's because something is going to happen there.

In a Bethesda game, you might see a house.  There's a good chance of nothing happening there, but you can go inside it because the house exists.

And I woukld argue that BIoWare's approach is better.  That house you can enter is an abstraction of houses generally.  Rather than making you enter 10 houses, they only let you enter 3, and in those 3 stuff happens.

Except, they're not doing that anymore.  Now BioWare only lets you enter one, and only after telling you what's going to happen inside, and there's nowhere else to go.

Let's compare this house implementation between NWN and DA2.  In DA2, there are 10 doors, and one of them opens.  You came to this area specifically to open that door.  There was no other reason to come here.  The next time you enter this area, a different door will open, and you will have come here specifically to open that door.

In NWN, there are 10 doors.  3 of them open.  Inside, you find one important quest item you'd been looking for, a minor combat encounter, and a quest-giving NPC you hadn't been expecting.

See the difference?  NWN (and BG, and KotOR) actually let you discover things.  DA2 does nothing of the sort.  If ever you enter any area, you know all of the possible things you will find because you were sent there specifically to find them.  The earlier games knew what we would find and where, but they didn't pretend to know whether we'd been looking for them or what our opinions of them would be.

But DA2 takes it that one step farther and doesn't just place all of the encounters but also scripts them fully, so that whatever we find the writers have already decided how we'll react.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I disagree.  the amount of autonomy a player's character can comfortably have within the framework of roleplaying is zero.  The extent to which a player can accept autonomy is the extent to which the player isn't roleplaying.

If you mean this as literally as you tend to mean things, then you have never role played in a video game that wasn't also a text based adventure. Graphics based video games do not have 100% autonomy, by definition.

You'll need to connect those dots for me.  I don't follow your reasoning.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius we disagree about reality. If we can have a productive discussion about anything related to gaming it's got to be much much narrower than what kind of games do what best. Simple things like... GUIs and documentation.

Anything broader and we will swiftly fly off the rails into off-topic land, never to return.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 mars 2012 - 12:36 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Clearly I'm not DG and I would like to hear his answer myself but it always seemed clear to me.

BioWare's goal is to tell a story.
Bethesda's goal is to create a world.  

I would disagree.  I think Bethesda's goal is to create a toy.  If they wanted to create a world, they wouldn't have action combat.  Action combat breaks the setting my allowing real-world variables to influence in-game results.

I want a world.  I would like a game designer to create a world in which I can roleplay.  The two things BioWare's worlds have typically done better than Bethesda's worlds are the combat mechanics (BioWare tends not to use action combat), and the background narrative.  In BioWare's games, things are happening.  You can't really get away from those things happening, so there's always something happening.  Bethesda, on the other hands, does let you get away from their story, which leaves you in a world where nothing is happening, and that's not a very interesting world.

In general, I think BioWare does a better job of creating a world than Bethesda does.  But BioWare's been getting less and less good at it.  But Bethesda's only really reached BioWare's level once (in Fallout 3).

Someone on this forums - I forget who - explained it very well.  

In a BioWare game, you might see a house.  If you can enter the house, it's because something is going to happen there.

In a Bethesda game, you might see a house.  There's a good chance of nothing happening there, but you can go inside it because the house exists.

And I woukld argue that BIoWare's approach is better.  That house you can enter is an abstraction of houses generally.  Rather than making you enter 10 houses, they only let you enter 3, and in those 3 stuff happens.

Except, they're not doing that anymore.  Now BioWare only lets you enter one, and only after telling you what's going to happen inside, and there's nowhere else to go.

Let's compare this house implementation between NWN and DA2.  In DA2, there are 10 doors, and one of them opens.  You came to this area specifically to open that door.  There was no other reason to come here.  The next time you enter this area, a different door will open, and you will have come here specifically to open that door.

In NWN, there are 10 doors.  3 of them open.  Inside, you find one important quest item you'd been looking for, a minor combat encounter, and a quest-giving NPC you hadn't been expecting.

See the difference?  NWN (and BG, and KotOR) actually let you discover things.  DA2 does nothing of the sort.  If ever you enter any area, you know all of the possible things you will find because you were sent there specifically to find them.  The earlier games knew what we would find and where, but they didn't pretend to know whether we'd been looking for them or what our opinions of them would be.

But DA2 takes it that one step farther and doesn't just place all of the encounters but also scripts them fully, so that whatever we find the writers have already decided how we'll react.

I prefer both there to be houses, I like the option of entering those houses some which may have something happen and others not but might show the character and personalility of the person who lives there. The option to only enter houses where something might occur or the option of seeing how the person in that world lives. A living world to me is what Dragon Age 2 lacked, it was what Skyrim and Witcher 2 did better. I get more involved in those worlds when it becomes evident I am not the only one living there and that each person has their own element or personalility in that world. To take such an element from Skyrim and Witcher 2 is not a curse on my enjoyment of the games it is in fact a blessing. From realism in how people live in that world for having their own lives not reliant on the character plus the wildlife, changing (impactful on the inhabitants) weather and such gets me more immersed in the worlds they create so I feel opposite to you here in this regard.

I covered this element in my review long ago and had a discussion with Stanley on it at the time...

Additional thoughts on future of such titles as Dragon Age regarding Immersion @ Bioware

As stated on these forums and in interviews, you guys have stated you wanted a more cinematic experience. Surely that goes hand in hand with visual aspects such as weather system, wind and day/night cycles. All of these things increase the cinematic feel of a game. Ditto with NPC reactions to your presence and actions. I can understand that different developers start at different point with different goals but they should look at each other for things they could do better.

Those things I mentioned would make your titles better especially in a cinematic way imho. Other companies are seeing what it is you have done yourselves and that is why I gave the example of Rockstar, Bethesda, Eidos and Cryptic all implementing and improving, trying to do such things as choices/conseqeunces cause/effect systems because you did so well developing them to create a demand for such things on a bigger scale. 

You can't sit back and not take note of what others are doing just because you scored a point with that system to be honest. Your stories aren't the greatest thing in gaming but the combination of your choices systems that is used to tell the story is what made you special and not the story on its own imho. Now they are trying to create such systems themselves you cannot afford to surely count on just that gameplay mechanic to keep you ahead of the rest. I am of the firm belief it is far more advisable to watch what the others are upto and try to implement the 'best' features and add it onto you own titles which might on top of that have its own special features. Tweaking the engine over time to always improve it add more stunning visuals and realism which immerses the player in that world of which you create. How can anyone seriously argue that such immersion is a bad thing for a game?

I cannot agree to any actual reason why a developer would purposefully decide against trying to build such immersion in the worlds you have created with such features that have a great affect on the aforementioned immersion. If you truly held BG as the benchmark of RPG quality then why did you move to 3D or continue to evolve the engines and visual quality of your games from back then. The same reason you evolved your games from then is the same reason you should try your best to evolve such features as the ones I have mentioned.

Bioware really has no more of a trump card than just that. Other games do specific things such as good group party combat and deep emotionally involving background and storyline for the companions in the game with or without the system I just mentioned. The fact other titles are beginning to try to emulate and incorporate such systems is a good thing and Bioware pushed it that way to a large degree with their titles. But as time progresses and the other developers get better at adding such systems Bioware can't afford to sit on it's bum and rely just on that.

Biowares stories rely on that system to tell their stories and that imho is what makes them special, the story alone or combat alone is by far not what makes their games a cut above the rest.

Just imagine how much more you could of enjoyed the game (if) a gentle breeze could blow through the grass and you see it's affects, a wind blowing through your hair and it reacting accordingly, NPCs that react not only to your presence and actions but also the weather, the weather system itself ever changing and in a immersive realistic way, NPCs that go about their lives whether you interacted with them or not and even a day and night system that changes with world and people within it acting accordingly.

The Witcher 2 titles has such things and Bioware should look at them and see if they can add any of those aspects to their own titles. How much better would the experience and immersion of been for you if they had that in DAO or DA2? It is not about whether you gleamed enough immersion from a game without it to enjoy the game. Always try to make their games better and better should be the approach and such systems do add to enjoyment and immersion in the worlds of which either company create.

My point and I feel it is a valid one is when a rival company within the same genre as Bioware (RPGs) comes up with a new mechanic or system, Bioware should examine and try to incorporate the best of those things into their games not just dismiss just because you have other things that make your games good, you should add such things to your already existing systems to make your games even better both in realism and immersion. Add such things to what may already be a great game taking it to a new level.

Examples of such features.

So when they say they they are taking inspiration from other titles I for one am glad. The reason I talk about Witcher not Skyrim is because I wrote all this prior to Skyrim even being out by a long way. I could not reference something I had not played.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 mars 2012 - 12:54 .

[axl99]

How can you guys understand just how encumbersome it is to implement every suggestion thtt someone of the armchair designer variety makes about narrative devices and gameplay especially when it's in the middle or the end of a project? Forget the beginning of the project where everything is so up in the air that it's difficult to find a direction to work with.

It's never as simple as DO THIS, MAKE IT HAPPEN NOW GO.

Have you guys actually been in game development? Have you guys actually spent your days doing mind numbing QA for a game that constantly changes by the week? Fixed new and old bugs that were introduced just because someone arbitrarily decided to slip something in at the last minute because they felt like it was important enough not to tell the team?

Having fans actually decide the direction of a game further excaberates the existing issue of how all game approvals are always going to be bottlenecked going up and down the chain of leads and directors and publisher execs.

And as a side note, Witcher 2 has some of the most broken game and story mechanics I've seen for a AAA title despite the sheer breadth of content it has. Don't ever use CDProjeckt as excuse to bash Bioware just because they had a longer production time to polish their game [visually anyway, which is all they can really do, and even then their characters look lifeless].

Modifié par axl99, 27 mars 2012 - 12:55 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I disagree.  the amount of autonomy a player's character can comfortably have within the framework of roleplaying is zero.  The extent to which a player can accept autonomy is the extent to which the player isn't roleplaying.

If you mean this as literally as you tend to mean things, then you have never role played in a video game that wasn't also a text based adventure. Graphics based video games do not have 100% autonomy, by definition.

You'll need to connect those dots for me.  I don't follow your reasoning.

Once games crossed the line of only giving you a description about your surroundings and letting you input a description of your actions, the autonomy of the player was decreased. It may have been only some fraction of a percent. But in some way or form, the maker of the game made some kind of decision about your character for you that you would have wanted to make on your own. Because once games started trying to do more than just give you a storyteller description of your surroundings, the limitations of coding and narrative diversity took something away from the player's ability to create and direct a character.

axl99 wrote...
How can you guys understand just how encumbersome it is to implement every suggestion thtt someone of the armchair designer variety makes about narrative devices and gameplay especially when it's in the middle or the end of a project?

Don't care. They already made games that I loved. They can go back to doing that or just count me out. It's not such a huge or hard demand. They did it a few years ago.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 12:58 .

[axl99]

Yes it is. You're asking them to do the same thing they did a few years ago.

THE.
EXACT.
SAME.
WAY.

Which is no better than casual gaming companies crapping out 6-9 games for 35-60 year olds to consume on a monthly basis.

[Dragoonlordz]

axl99 wrote...

How can you guys understand encumbersome it is to implement every suggestion thtt someone of the armchair designer variety makes about narrative devices and gameplay especially when it's in the middle or the end of a project? Forget the beginning of the project where everything is so up in the air that it's difficult to find a direction to work with. It's never as simple as DO THIS, MAKE IT HAPPEN NOW GO.

Having fans actually decide the direction of a game further excaberates the existing issue of how all game approvals are always going to be bottlenecked going up and down the chain of leads and directors and publisher execs.

And as a side note, Witcher 2 has some of the most broken game and story mechanics I've seen for a AAA title despite the sheer breadth of content it has. Don't ever use CDProjeckt as excuse to bash Bioware just because they had a longer production time to polish their game [visually anyway, which is all they can really do, and even then their characters look lifeless].

I do not think you even played it based on your response. Either way my point remains and you did not counter the very element I talked about. I was not bashing Bioware by mentioniing Witcher 2, do not get so defensive just because you did not enjoy a game that a truly immense amount of people did. Both Skyrim and Witcher 2 had elements that could improve a Bioware product, dismissing it out of hand the way you did does not add credability to your own stance. Adding elements that can improve another title while at same time keeping what made that title great is not a negative thing.

The way to improve a product is not to stick your nose up at everyone else out of arrogance and many games have things that can improve your own products. The one part we agree on is what they create should be up to them but they should not dismiss out of hand all things anyone else says without thinking about if something they might like to do. They do not have to agree but it is nice they listened. I for one do not wish for another BG even though I loved DA:O, I also liked ME3 and did not enjoy DA2.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 mars 2012 - 01:11 .