343 réponses à ce sujet

[DreamerM]

Both Adam and Geralt were pre-made characters with their own distinctive, built-in personalities. Heck, Geralt has novels written about him, and nothing he does in either of the games contradicts the person he is in the books.

Maybe we're spoiled, but DA:O introduced the player to choosing not just a character's race and profession (a la Elder Scrolls) but choosing your character's backstory, and that story affected where your character started and informed where your character went.

I'm not asking for another Origins, but making another Shepard-esque pre-made character for a Dragon Age protagonist?.... I'd rather not, personally.

[DreamerM]

Begemotka wrote...
The player generated PC,however...

I think that's probably going to be DA:3's trial by fire. Can a post-EA Bioware restore agency to the PC?

Because that's going to make or break this game. Heck, I'd call that almost more important then the gameplay.

[jbrand2002uk]

seraphymon wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

I have nothing against "old style" games what im against is paying new game prices for an old rehashed formula thats been used for over 20yrs its not unreasonable to demand new ideas and innovation for £60 instead of lazy design because designer's creativity is clipped for fear of offending the old guard of fans

well i guess thats where we just differ,  As i want to pay for what is worth it it doesnt matter if its from today or 20 years back. because like i said in the category of games and movies new doesnt  automatically equal better, if it did id maybe be in the same boat. But to be a guinea pig to these "innovations" or w/e the heck DA2 ended up being , feels much worse. Lazy design? all i can think about is DA2 when i hear that, even with the budget and time. Im all for trying something new, for say a new series game, not turn a series upside down form 1 game to the next.

Well if we follow your logic in regards to EA's franchise's then your saying that The Tiger Woods and Fifa Franchises, hell throw in NHL and NBA for that matter are the best thing in gaming since sliced bread because each successive game is almost absoloutley identical to the previous one except for changes of clothes and an odd new course/golf bat thrown in so they can say hey look its different.

Experiments gone wrong are bad I grant however sticking with the same formula time and again for fear that a new idea "might not work" is even worse its better to try and fail then never to try at all.

What if our ancestors had said hey lets not build houses we'll just live in caves because well they work and if it aint broke dont fix it. or if they said hey lets not bother inventing cars and motorcycles and planes because our legs work just fine 

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Auto-dialogue to make a plot choice would suck. Auto-dialogue regarding a couple comments is perfectly fine. There is a trade there that's enormously beneficial to the amount of fun a cut scene provides. You give up the option to have the scene pause, choose from a menu, and gain a smooth cut scene where the PC would make a couple comments in keeping with what they had done the whole game.

If the Arishok said "Rar! Qunari demand city submit to our slave religion until my magic pants are recovered!" and you were auto-dialogued into a plot choice, that would suck. But if I've chosen sarcastic or joking responses to Isabela the whole game, and she says something flippant during a cut scene, there is nothing wrong with auto-dialogue having my Hawke zing her right back. They both laugh, and the cut scene continues on. If I've been mean to Isabela the whole game, then along comes that exact same cut scene where she's flippant, I don't see any problem with the cut scene having my Hawke snap at her. It's a smoother experience, it is a good expression of my Hawke, and it's better over all. Much more fun for me than leafing through menus to find a response to Isabela.

Auto-dialogue = excellent.

[AkiKishi]

DreamerM wrote...

Begemotka wrote...
The player generated PC,however...

I think that's probably going to be DA:3's trial by fire. Can a post-EA Bioware restore agency to the PC?

Because that's going to make or break this game. Heck, I'd call that almost more important then the gameplay.

I like Origins a lot, but if Bioware is going the direction of DA2 then I would prefer a fully fleshed out character in the mold of Geralt or Adam. I've played both of those games and have no complaints. Sure I gave up the creation aspect, but in return I got a character that really belonged in the story and choice and consequences that mattered. That's far more than DA2 accomplished.

There is no reason that you could not have more than one pregerated character and perhaps even a slightly different story for each.
As long as you depersonlise the story a little it will work just as well. I just don't see EA putting up the funds required to do a voiced Origins, it's not what they want anyway,even if it is what the people who play the games might want. I also don't believe realistically that Bioware can go back to a silent protagonist at this stage.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

Is that a condemnation of the concept of a rhetorical question

Yes.

Ria wrote...

Mass Effect trilogy was a hit-or-miss laboratory of genre blending. It started like that and that's why fans were more accepting to gameplay changes. In terms of combat and inventory management they pretty much hit the sweet spot in ME3.

Aside from the dialogue system, I think the first ME was a pretty good game.

But I didn't like ME2 at all.  The combat was less stat-driven, there was less freedom to explore, the inventory system was horribly broken, and the dialogue got worse.

I didn't play ME3.  I doubt I ever will.

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Not true at all.  If my Hawke is always sarcastic, then I'd love to see the sarcastic lines in a cut scene.  It's very possible and very entertaining. 

But what if he's not always sarcastic?  What if he's sarcastic under only specific circumstances?  The auto-dialogue in DA2 relied on the game guessing correctly about what aspect of your character's personality was relevant at that moment, and and unless the PC was a very flat character the game was very bad at guessing.

And what about ME3-style auto-dialogue?  There Shepard would have whole conversations without the player having to do anything at all.  If you're looking for old-fashioned, didn't BioWare basically just steal the dialogue system from Metal Gear Solid?

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

You give up the option to have the scene pause, choose from a menu, and gain a smooth cut scene where the PC would make a couple comments in keeping with what they had done the whole game.

We should never have to give up options.

But what about an interrupt to trigger the dialogue choice event?  If you trust the game to choose well, then don't trigger the dialogue event, and you'll get your seamless cutscene.  But if I don't trust the game to choose well, I can trigger the dialogue event and make my choice.

That would give us both what we want, without forcing anyone to endure the other person's perferred style.

Would that be acceptable?  You can have your auto-dialogue, but I can avoid it, all at low development cost.

If the Arishok said "Rar! Qunari demand city submit to our slave religion until my magic pants are recovered!" and you were auto-dialogued into a plot choice, that would suck. But if I've chosen sarcastic or joking responses to Isabela the whole game, and she says something flippant during a cut scene, there is nothing wrong with auto-dialogue having my Hawke zing her right back. They both laugh, and the cut scene continues on.

And if there's something about that moment that makes you want Hawke not to be sarcastic, you're out of luck unless the option to control dialogue yourself exists.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 mai 2012 - 05:11 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I like Origins a lot, but if Bioware is going the direction of DA2 then I would prefer a fully fleshed out character in the mold of Geralt or Adam.

In theory, I have no interest at all in a full fleshed out pre-written character.

Unfortunately, I have almost no direct experience with  Geralt (the most oft-used example) because I couldn't tolerate The Wticher's appalling combat system for more than 10 minutes.

[bEVEsthda]

I'd trade voice acting for almost anything. A bisquit, a roll of toilet paper, some background music, a pencil,..

[Lenimph]

Nope

[Siansonea]

No.

I just want games to deliver on their promises, whatever those promises may be. If they don't promise something, I can't fault them for not delivering on those promises. But if they promise something, I shouldn't have to give up something else they're already providing in order to get the promised content.

Promise only what you can deliver. Deliver what you've promised. Easy formula, really.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Auto-dialogue to make a plot choice would suck. Auto-dialogue regarding a couple comments is perfectly fine. There is a trade there that's enormously beneficial to the amount of fun a cut scene provides. You give up the option to have the scene pause, choose from a menu, and gain a smooth cut scene where the PC would make a couple comments in keeping with what they had done the whole game.

If the Arishok said "Rar! Qunari demand city submit to our slave religion until my magic pants are recovered!" and you were auto-dialogued into a plot choice, that would suck. But if I've chosen sarcastic or joking responses to Isabela the whole game, and she says something flippant during a cut scene, there is nothing wrong with auto-dialogue having my Hawke zing her right back. They both laugh, and the cut scene continues on. If I've been mean to Isabela the whole game, then along comes that exact same cut scene where she's flippant, I don't see any problem with the cut scene having my Hawke snap at her. It's a smoother experience, it is a good expression of my Hawke, and it's better over all. Much more fun for me than leafing through menus to find a response to Isabela.

Auto-dialogue = excellent.

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT MOST REAL PEOPLE (AND, BY EXTENSION, MOST GOOD CHARACTERS) ARE NOT ONE-NOTE.

SO, FOR INSTANCE, SAY A HAWKE WAS A DICK TO EVERYONE BUT ISABELLA, VARRIC, AND FAMILY MEMBERS. THAT HAWKE WOULD NOT GET CONSISTENT CHARACTERIZATION FROM THIS AUTO-DIALOGUE. OR SAY A NORMALLY JOVIAL HAWKE HAD JUST SUFFERED A TRAGIC EVENT, WAS NOT INTERESTED IN TRYING TO BE FUNNY AT THE TIME, AND WOULD REACT TO ANY ATTEMPTS TO LIGHTEN THE MOOD WITH ANNOYANCE. THESE ARE THE SORT OF THINGS THAT GOOD CHARACTERS WOULD DO AND GOOD WRPGS WOULD LET CHARACTERS DO, BUT THEY'RE NOT THINGS THAT AUTO-DIALOGUE LETS CHARACTERS DO.

Modifié par MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES, 11 mai 2012 - 06:19 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But what if he's not always sarcastic?  What if he's sarcastic under only specific circumstances?  The auto-dialogue in DA2 relied on the game guessing correctly about what aspect of your character's personality was relevant at that moment, and and unless the PC was a very flat character the game was very bad at guessing.

And what about ME3-style auto-dialogue?  There Shepard would have whole conversations without the player having to do anything at all.  If you're looking for old-fashioned, didn't BioWare basically just steal the dialogue system from Metal Gear Solid?

There are a million what-ifs, but they're not relevant.  What matters is that it's a game, that can only offer so many choices.  In some cases, those choices are best expressed with auto-dialogue.  I can't think of any place in ME3 where Shepard wasn't inline with what I wanted to see her do.  Same for DA2.

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

But what about an interrupt to trigger the dialogue choice event?  If you trust the game to choose well, then don't trigger the dialogue event, and you'll get your seamless cutscene.  But if I don't trust the game to choose well, I can trigger the dialogue event and make my choice.

That would give us both what we want, without forcing anyone to endure the other person's perferred style.

Would that be acceptable?  You can have your auto-dialogue, but I can avoid it, all at low development cost.

I wouldn't be against a game pleasing everyone, but I doubt that's going to happen.  But hey, if they can pull it off, good for BioWare!

And if there's something about that moment that makes you want Hawke not to be sarcastic, you're out of luck unless the option to control dialogue yourself exists.

I would trade a superfluorous option for a concrete payout.  Say it's Hawke and Isabela walking through a grand market full of columns and stalls and towering buildings gleaming in the sun, trailing after a chevalier sent to bring them to the Empress...  I'd rather have a good long camera sweep with auto-dialogue than have the camera pause four times while I chose to tease Isabela the same way I would probably choose anyways.  That option for a good cinematic walk and talk is worth it for me.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In theory, I have no interest at all in a full fleshed out pre-written character.

Unfortunately, I have almost no direct experience with  Geralt (the most oft-used example) because I couldn't tolerate The Wticher's appalling combat system for more than 10 minutes.

I agree with all of this.

In a perfect world, all these games would have origins and full on The Sims 3 style character creators.  But I'm willing to trade off large parts of origins and character customization in order to get more back from the story.  I think DA2 did a good job balancing character to story, but Deus Ex 3 or Witcher style pre-set character is giving up way too much to get too little back.

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

There are a million what-ifs, but they're not relevant.  What matters is that it's a game, that can only offer so many choices.

That the list of possible choices is guaranteed to be finite does not make every finite number acceptable.

And yet that's exactly what your reasoning is saying.

In some cases, those choices are best expressed with auto-dialogue.

In some cases, for some players, auto-dialogue offers the best gameplay experience.

It doesn't offer any of them choices.  It's automatic.  It is the absence of choice.  It ties you necessarily to choices you made earlier, even if those choices are no longer relevant.

If you're okay with that, then don't interrupt the scene.  Then you get your auto-dialogue and you're perfectly content.

But don't force the rest of us to sit through a movie that breaks our character.

I can't think of any place in ME3 where Shepard wasn't inline with what I wanted to see her do.  Same for DA2.

That it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it can't happen.  How you're making the least supported of all leaps: the universal generalisation.

I would trade a superfluorous option for a concrete payout.  Say it's Hawke and Isabela walking through a grand market full of columns and stalls and towering buildings gleaming in the sun, trailing after a chevalier sent to bring them to the Empress...  I'd rather have a good long camera sweep with auto-dialogue than have the camera pause four times while I chose to tease Isabela the same way I would probably choose anyways.  That option for a good cinematic walk and talk is worth it for me.

So we're agreed.  As long as you have the option for uniterrupted cinematics, you're happy with the design.

Great.  That's one disagreement solved.

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

I agree with all of this.

In a perfect world, all these games would have origins and full on The Sims 3 style character creators.  But I'm willing to trade off large parts of origins and character customization in order to get more back from the story.  I think DA2 did a good job balancing character to story, but Deus Ex 3 or Witcher style pre-set character is giving up way too much to get too little back.

And I'm willing to trade any personal connection my PC might have to the authored narrative in return for greater control over that PC.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES wrote...

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT MOST REAL PEOPLE (AND, BY EXTENSION, MOST GOOD CHARACTERS) ARE NOT ONE-NOTE.

I agree!  And auto-dialogue should not be used after an emotional event, or to make any absolute proclimations.  Only in relatively casual or common situations.

SO, FOR INSTANCE, SAY A HAWKE WAS A DICK TO EVERYONE BUT ISABELLA, VARRIC, AND FAMILY MEMBERS. THAT HAWKE WOULD NOT GET CONSISTENT CHARACTERIZATION FROM THIS AUTO-DIALOGUE. OR SAY A NORMALLY JOVIAL HAWKE HAD JUST SUFFERED A TRAGIC EVENT, WAS NOT INTERESTED IN TRYING TO BE FUNNY AT THE TIME, AND WOULD REACT TO ANY ATTEMPTS TO LIGHTEN THE MOOD WITH ANNOYANCE. THESE ARE THE SORT OF THINGS THAT GOOD CHARACTERS WOULD DO AND GOOD WRPGS WOULD LET CHARACTERS DO, BUT THEY'RE NOT THINGS THAT AUTO-DIALOGUE LETS CHARACTERS DO.

I think auto-dialogue, kept out of story or plot moments, would still work fine...  A profile of responses would have to be kept per companion or NPC character, that's all.  So there would be auto-dialogue right after Fenris accidentally ate the muffin Hawke was saving for dinner, or right as a half dozen qunari jumped out of a bush (the same bush, it's DA2 after all ), but it would not be used right after a major NPC died

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

I agree with all of this.

In a perfect world, all these games would have origins and full on The Sims 3 style character creators.  But I'm willing to trade off large parts of origins and character customization in order to get more back from the story.  I think DA2 did a good job balancing character to story, but Deus Ex 3 or Witcher style pre-set character is giving up way too much to get too little back.

And I'm willing to trade any personal connection my PC might have to the authored narrative in return for greater control over that PC.

I understand the words you're using, and what you mean, but you might as well be barking a sonata for all the sense that makes to me.  

:)

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That the list of possible choices is guaranteed to be finite does not make every finite number acceptable.

And yet that's exactly what your reasoning is saying.

In some cases, those choices are best expressed with auto-dialogue.

In some cases, for some players, auto-dialogue offers the best gameplay experience.

I'm not saying auto-dialogue is what we all should have and that you will like it or stop playing games...  I think it's a fine thing for delivering better cinematics.  If the price of better cinematics is the elimination of superflurous choices, then I went the better cinematics with auto-dialogue.

If BioWare can come up with a way to do both, then we all win and that's great too.

That it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it can't happen.  How you're making the least supported of all leaps: the universal generalisation.

That it can happen, doesn't mean it will.  I trust BioWare to design their systems to apply auto-dialogue intelligently.

So we're agreed.  As long as you have the option for uniterrupted cinematics, you're happy with the design.

Great.  That's one disagreement solved.

Options like this are fine, sure.  Who wouldn't want everyone to be happy?  But given the choice, I'd rather have auto-dialogue in certain cut scenes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

I understand the words you're using, and what you mean, but you might as well be barking a sonata for all the sense that makes to me.

One of the justifications offered for limited player control over his character's personality is so that the writers can more tightly craft the game's story (the authored narrative) around the protagonist (the PC).  For the protagonist to have a personal connection to the story, the writers need to control at least some aspects of that personality in order to anchor it to the story.

If the player can craft whatever personality he likes, the player could potentially sever that personal connection between the progagonist and the story.

But I find much more enjoyable the interaction between the character I designed and the game's setting.  The writers' story (the authored narrative) is part of the setting, and serves as a backdrop to whatever it is I have my character do.  The story that is told through that interaction between my character and the setting is unique to each player.  That's the emergent narrative, and that's the payoff for me.  I want to see how my character reacts to the things that happen to him.  What choices does he make?  How does he affect the people he meets, and the world in which he lives?

I create a character, and then I set him loose within BioWare's story to see what he does.  BioWare's story (the authored narrative) is an important building block, but it is not the result I'm looking for.

In these newest games, BioWare has taken to restricting my ability to design my character in order to write a more detailed story.  A more detailed story isn't a bad thing, but the reason I'm interested in experiencing the story at all vanishes as soon as I'm not able to craft my own character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

If BioWare can come up with a way to do both, then we all win and that's great too.

Fundamentally, they already have.  ME2's interrupt system would be great for this.  If you don't trigger it, the cutscene continues uninterrupted.

But when I trigger it, the scene will stop and ask for my input, just like regular dialogue.

That it can happen, doesn't mean it will.

Yes it does.  If something can happen, then it will eventually happen.  It is a statistical certainty.

I trust BioWare to design their systems to apply auto-dialogue intelligently.

They have failed every time so far.

Options like this are fine, sure.  Who wouldn't want everyone to be happy?  But given the choice, I'd rather have auto-dialogue in certain cut scenes.

That's what I'm giving you.  The choice.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES wrote...

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT MOST REAL PEOPLE (AND, BY EXTENSION, MOST GOOD CHARACTERS) ARE NOT ONE-NOTE.

I agree!  And auto-dialogue should not be used after an emotional event, or to make any absolute proclimations.  Only in relatively casual or common situations.

SO, FOR INSTANCE, SAY A HAWKE WAS A DICK TO EVERYONE BUT ISABELLA, VARRIC, AND FAMILY MEMBERS. THAT HAWKE WOULD NOT GET CONSISTENT CHARACTERIZATION FROM THIS AUTO-DIALOGUE. OR SAY A NORMALLY JOVIAL HAWKE HAD JUST SUFFERED A TRAGIC EVENT, WAS NOT INTERESTED IN TRYING TO BE FUNNY AT THE TIME, AND WOULD REACT TO ANY ATTEMPTS TO LIGHTEN THE MOOD WITH ANNOYANCE. THESE ARE THE SORT OF THINGS THAT GOOD CHARACTERS WOULD DO AND GOOD WRPGS WOULD LET CHARACTERS DO, BUT THEY'RE NOT THINGS THAT AUTO-DIALOGUE LETS CHARACTERS DO.

I think auto-dialogue, kept out of story or plot moments, would still work fine...  A profile of responses would have to be kept per companion or NPC character, that's all.  So there would be auto-dialogue right after Fenris accidentally ate the muffin Hawke was saving for dinner, or right as a half dozen qunari jumped out of a bush (the same bush, it's DA2 after all ), but it would not be used right after a major NPC died

EVEN WITHIN INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERS, AUTO-DIALOGUE WOULD OFTEN MISS THE POINT. FOR INSTANCE, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR CERTAIN HAWKES TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM MERRILL AFTER HER "ADORABLE" STUPIDITY GETS HER TRIBE KILLED. OR FOR A HAWKE TO COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING WITH A CHARACTER THEY PREVIOUSLY DISLIKED, BUT RESPOND WITH ANNOYANCE FROM TIME TO TIME WHEN TALKING WITH THAT CHARACTER. AUTO-DIALOGUE CAN'T CAPTURE THAT TYPE OF NUANCED OR DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIP.

Modifié par MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES, 11 mai 2012 - 07:45 .

[PPR223]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

seraphymon wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

I have nothing against "old style" games what im against is paying new game prices for an old rehashed formula thats been used for over 20yrs its not unreasonable to demand new ideas and innovation for £60 instead of lazy design because designer's creativity is clipped for fear of offending the old guard of fans

well i guess thats where we just differ,  As i want to pay for what is worth it it doesnt matter if its from today or 20 years back. because like i said in the category of games and movies new doesnt  automatically equal better, if it did id maybe be in the same boat. But to be a guinea pig to these "innovations" or w/e the heck DA2 ended up being , feels much worse. Lazy design? all i can think about is DA2 when i hear that, even with the budget and time. Im all for trying something new, for say a new series game, not turn a series upside down form 1 game to the next.

Well if we follow your logic in regards to EA's franchise's then your saying that The Tiger Woods and Fifa Franchises, hell throw in NHL and NBA for that matter are the best thing in gaming since sliced bread because each successive game is almost absoloutley identical to the previous one except for changes of clothes and an odd new course/golf bat thrown in so they can say hey look its different.

Experiments gone wrong are bad I grant however sticking with the same formula time and again for fear that a new idea "might not work" is even worse its better to try and fail then never to try at all.

What if our ancestors had said hey lets not build houses we'll just live in caves because well they work and if it aint broke dont fix it. or if they said hey lets not bother inventing cars and motorcycles and planes because our legs work just fine 

I am not entirely sure how your posts are actually relevent to the Dragon Age series. You are talking about "advances" and "differences", but Dragon Age 2 is effectively the same game as Dragon Age Origins. The formula of these two games is almost identical, the only real difference being the voiced/silent portagonist.

To me a voiced protagonist doesn't really count as experimenting anymore, considering they have already done it in the Mass Effect series. It worked in the Mass Effect series, so how is it that the system seems to have remained stale through Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2?

Dragon Age 2 seems almost the opposite of what you seem to want to be honest, as Bioware seem to be trying to turn Dragon Age into another Mass Effect. Is that new or different? Is that innovation? Or is it trying to stick with a formula that worked, something that you seem to be against from your post.

The voiced protagonist is no different to Mass Effect, except you now get a symbol that says whether its diplomatic, aggressive or sarcastic. This actually seems to simplify the system more than the two previous Bioware games, which have the voice.


Anyway in response to the thread, I would prefer the silent protagonist as it does make sense that more choices would be available without the voice. The resources spent on the protagonists voice can be freed up to enhance the depth and length of the companions/characters lines. That is far more interesting than hearing my character say "my name is Hawke".

I like the voiced protagonist, but it certainly makes other characters throughout the world have less depth, or limit the overall amount of characters.

These topics are slightly redundant now though, as it seems Bioware is staying with the voiced protagonist. Since they are I hope they do away with the Mass Effect theme circle menu, and give it a look that atleast suits the game.

Modifié par PPR223, 11 mai 2012 - 07:57 .