311 réponses à ce sujet

[Vormaerin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Every example of the paraphrase system we have yet seen has the same problem.  How many data points do we need before it's a pattern?

Well, DA2 and DX:HR are the only two examples of the system I've seen.  I thought it was fine in DX:HR.

The problem is that you have a very narrow definition of roleplaying that excludes how a lot of the rest of us play.   As I've said in other threads, I really don't understand how you can do what you do.   Creating these "fully realized" personalities and then somehow surviving the forced dialogue choices and NPCs who react to the writer's intentions instead of your own is just kind of outre to me.

Roleplaying is playing a role.  You don't have to be the one to create the role.  If the story is well written, you can construct a role from the context pretty quickly.   Either way, you are playing by the author's script.

Frankly, I'm impressed by your ability to block out the cognitive dissonance inherent to CRPGs compared to actually playing a character you created.   Less than 10% of the dialogue options felt like something a dwarf commoner Warden would actually say, IIRC.    The Dalish didn't feel right either, but I didn't play it very long.

Maybe I'm just cursed on account of being a cultural anthropologist by educational background, so cultural and linguistic differences are real to me.   

[Allan Schumacher]

I found the emotion keyword response of Alpha Protocol also worked quite well too.

[Brockololly]

Vormaerin wrote...
Well, DA2 and DX:HR are the only two examples of the system I've seen.  I thought it was fine in DX:HR.

HR is different than DA2 in 2 important respects though- HR you're playing as a fixed protagonist with an existing personality and backstory without the player's input and you can see the full text of each response if you want.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I found the emotion keyword response of Alpha Protocol also worked quite well too.

I think it worked well given you were playing more of a fixed protagonist with an established personality in Mike Thorton and all the dialogues were timed, so the responses needed to be short by necessity.

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...
Still wondering about the whole engine thing....
Can imagine that if they will use the same engine for the next installment  there will be some 'tweaking' done to upgrade it. At least think it was  done for DA2.

Could there be more possible for the details in the environment f.e. if they did make 'improvements' on the engine?

I think the thing to think about with DA3 and whatever they will or will not be able to do depends greatly on when the game comes out. It seems like DA3 won't come out until after March 31 2013, and by most accounts, the new Sony and/or MS consoles are likely coming out late 2013. So would DA3 come out at the end of the current generation console's lifespan or would it possibly be on the next gen consoles? I doubt EA would release it later in the spring, since thats likely when GTA V is coming out and summer is a dead zone for new game releases.

If its next gen, I doubt they're keeping the same engine unless they seriously upgrade it. Otherwise I guess its possible they use Frostbite 2, since that seems the sort of engine that can bridge generations- so maybe DA3 comes out late next year on the old consoles and the new consoles, just with the next gen/PC versions looking a good deal better and maybe having more features.

The lack of detail in the environment in DA2 seemed to be a purposeful decision based on the art style change, if we are to believe some of the early interviews.

Modifié par Brockololly, 11 juin 2012 - 11:19 .

[Vormaerin]

Brockololly wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...
Well, DA2 and DX:HR are the only two examples of the system I've seen.  I thought it was fine in DX:HR.

HR is different than DA2 in 2 important respects though- HR you're playing as a fixed protagonist with an existing personality and backstory without the player's input and you can see the full text of each response if you want.

Could you see the full text?  I don't remember.    Anyway, I know HR isn't a great example.  I was just trying to think of something besides DA2 that would count as one of those "multiple data points" referred to.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think it worked well given you were playing more of a fixed protagonist with an established personality in Mike Thorton and all the dialogues were timed, so the responses needed to be short by necessity.

I'm not someone that really plays someone like Mike Thorton any different than I would play the Warden.

Mike is effectively a blank slate of a character, with minimal history, and you're allowed to direct him much the way you can direct other created characters in CRPGs.

I disagree that Mike has an established personality. The player defines the personality that Mike has based on how he proceeds through conversations.

[Brockololly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I'm not someone that really plays someone like Mike Thorton any different than I would play the Warden.

Mike is effectively a blank slate of a character, with minimal history, and you're allowed to direct him much the way you can direct other created characters in CRPGs.

I disagree that Mike has an established personality. The player defines the personality that Mike has based on how he proceeds through conversations.

I guess how I view it is that with somebody like Thorton, due to the timed dialogue and tones, I never got caught up in the nuances of the dialogue I was selecting, since you're only selecting a tone and not the actual dialogue. Thats where I see Thorton's existing personality to come in with the precise words he speaks. Maybe it had to do with the actual voice acting and writing too, but Thorton felt like he had a more unified personality regardless of whether you picked aggressive, suave or professional options. You could switch between those and it didn't feel schizophrenic, like I felt it often was in DA2 when you chose different tones with Hawke. So picking aggressive and then professional and then suave felt like the same person just changing tones and not radically changing their whole identity.

So yes, you can direct Thorton in many different ways but AP was more of a third person role playing experience compared to DA:O and the Warden for me. Since you knew precisely what exact words your Warden could possibly say, I felt a greater sense of agency playing DA:O with my Wardens than something like AP or The Witcher or Deus Ex, where you're playing as a fixed character. Nothing against those games, but a silent protagonist or at least one where you can see exactly what your PC is going to say drastically changes how I experience the game and feel about the player character.

It comes down to RPGs that allow for more first person role playing (with silent PCs and full text) or your more third person RPGs that have fixed characters and often use paraphrasing and voice acting. And then you have stuff like Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2 which I view as being kind of in the middle and, frankly think they suffer for it.

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...
A complete new engine for DA3 is out of the question I guess because of  the time, money, manpower needed to make it right now. The frostbite  engine that you mention that works for the new generation consoles is a
possibility of course.....
But this would mean that DA3 would be  released in over a year from now. This would add the total devellopment  time up to about 27 months, little over 2 years.

Hope it will  be sooner and that they work on DA4 like they're doing it right now;  starting on the next when the previous is released. This would mean that part 4 would be done for a part when the next gen consoles come out and release dates aren't that far apart.

Maybe a lot of rambling I just wrote down here, just 'writing' out my thoughts..

I'm just guessing that any possible DA3 won't be released until after March 2013 based on EA not showing it during their Fiscal reports. Then again, DA2 was announced in early July 2010 and came out in March 2011. So I guess its possible they could announce it at Gamescom or something in August but I don't think so.

Just thinking out loud as to release date possibilities for DA3:

January-March 2013: That quarter is already packed with tons of huge games coming out. And EA would have likely shown DA3 off already if they were targeting it for that quarter.

April-May 2013: Thats Rockstar's time. Rockstar has seemingly released their games in May for the past 3 or so years and April is when they launched GTA 4. GTA 5 seems to be their next big thing and seems to be coming out this generation. So it would be crazy, especially if EA is shooting for greater mainstream success with DA, to launch anywhere near something as huge as GTA.

June-August 2013: Thats a video game dead zone. No big publishers really release big games during this time. Maybe late August I guess...I think thats when Deus Ex: Human Revolution launched last year and it did well.

September-December 2013: This is likely when I'd guess DA3 would launch. DA:O did well launching in November 09 against Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty, but it wasn't burdened with DA2's bad rap. Like I was saying, it comes down to when new consoles come out. Once that happens, people will likely be expecting much more from games visually. You're already seeing that at this E3 where presumably next gen games that simply had great visuals (Watch Dogs, Star Wars 1313) garnered a lot of attention and excitement. If DA3 launched on current gen consoles without drastically improving the visuals from a technical level, it'll struggle in comparison to next gen games that knock people's socks off, in terms of getting a mainstream audience's attention.

Nice visuals is the easiest way to get somebody to stop and pay attention to your game. And once Unreal engine 4 games start coming out next year, people will start expecting greater visual fidelity, something BioWare games have never been good at in the 3D era.

Modifié par Brockololly, 12 juin 2012 - 12:56 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

In the case of a pre-gen it does not matter. All choices are valid since they are all written for that character.

If that's how pre-gen characters work, then I have no interest at all in playing a pre-gen character.

If every available option is valid, what is my role as player?  Every decision event is now irrelevant, as there are no wrong answers.

nightscrawl wrote...

Can you give an example of that second one? Generally, I thought that specific/choice options were relegated to the triple arrow gold icon, and not the various tone icons. I can't remember exactly at the moment though...

I'm using the phrase "quest resolution" too loosely.

If I select based just on the tone, I find that Hawke tends to agree with people to whom he should object, as vice-versa.  This is as important an outcome as a quest resolution, I think, as it expresses Hawke's personality.  Agreeing with someone or disagreeing with someone is equivalent (in my eyes) to completing a quest or not
completing it, or siding with one group over another.

So, I could choose to let the slaver go, or I could choose to deliver an appropriate tone, but I could not do both.

simfamSP wrote...

The problem with the explanation is that it's so subjective and has so many variables, that it's hard to word it correctly.

Knowing the character is a process, but that depends on how the pre-determined (PD) character is implemented.

From my experience, PD characters in RPGs start of with a clean slate, they have their own personalities, but their psychology and their agendas are up to the player to develop.

I don't understand how the player can control one without the other.  The personality is the sum of the psychology and agendas.  If I can control someone's motives and goals, then I conytrol his personality.

I have almsot no direct experience with The Witcher (because I hated the combat system), so I cannot speak directly to this example.  It's possible that The Witcher is exactly the sort of path BioWare should follow - I just don't know.

The Witcher's Geralt has a huge past to him. If you've read the novels you'll get to know Geralt.

I tried to read the novels, but they just made me sad that the game wasn't better.

In the game, Geralt still retains his moody attitude but the character develops through your means. I've read the books, I know that how Geralt thinks and what he believes in, but the Geralt I made in the game is completley different to the one in the books.

From your descriotion, it sounds very much like The Witcher succeeds where DA2 fails.  But given that The Witcher didn't use paraphrases, I'm not surprised.

The Geralt in the books would have never joined the Scoi'atel, he would have remained neutral. The Geralt in the books would have never refused a woman, he would have slept with every single one of them.

And those are just a examples. It serves to show that the PD character unfolds the way you want him/her to.

Those examples are too big.  What about small issues - issues that aren't ultimately relevant to the gameplay?  Can you control those?

This is something that bothered me in ME.  Yes, the player could determine how Shepard resolved all of the actual in-game events the designers had intended the player to resolve, but that was it.  The reasons behind any of it were denied him.  Shepard's options on tangential or unrelated issues were beyind the player;s control.  The writers seemingly added that content just for flavour, but it broke my characters again and again.

There can be no flavour written for the PC that is beyond the player's ability to control.  Otherwise the game is broken.

Tone doesn't betray the motives because tone has always applied to silent characters.

Tone has never applied to silent characters.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 juin 2012 - 03:41 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I disagree that Mike has an established personality. The player defines the personality that Mike has based on how he proceeds through conversations.

I'll agree the player defines the personality, but he isn't able to do so with any precision.

[Mark of the Dragon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

This is what I am trying to express. Thedas is a really big world wich would take an enormous time to cover on foot. You should have been there before if you want to explore the area more. But as I said in my previous post it would be great to know about places even if you are not strong enough to venture there yet at a certain point of the game. Thedas is overall covered walking. The areas that you visit should really make the effort consequential as you say @ajbry and make Thedas a complete world. Exploring and understanding a world is something that can be combined perfectly in a game if the player is taken to environments that make sense at that point or are being  interesting areas at a given point when the game requires it.

Heh, I for one really like different environments. Just take a look at the 'environment'  thread many others and I have posted on on BSN. Change in an environment is great in a game I think.

So, say a plot involves traveling to Val Royeaux from Kirkwall.  I'm definitely getting the impression that just "warping" from Kirkwall to Val Royeaux kind of makes some people go <_<.

So if you wanted exploration, here's a couple of thoughts and I'm curious which one is preferrable.  Assume that every exploration area could have gating encounters that require you to be of a certain power level to achieve.

• Allow the player to explore around Kirkwall and Val Royeaux (assuming the plot were to spend enough time around there).  That is, create exploration content around the main plot points.  This will result in the areas around those plot points being more fleshed out, but you may lose the sense of scale about the travel.
  
• The route from Kirkwall to Val Royeaux consists one large map that goes along the Imperial Highway.  Exploration off this highway exists (either the map is very large, and/or there are smaller maps for caves, or maybe smaller settlements to enter).  Basically this is a big "playground" and if you stick to the road, you'll get to Val Royeaux fairly quickly.  This would provide improved sense of scale for the distance traveled, but would result in the areas around the two cities to be minimal.  It does overlook some aspects of the region between Kirkwall and Val Royeaux.
  
• The route consists of two decently sized maps, one containing the Imperial Highway, one about traveling through the Planasene Forest.  The map isn't quite as grandiose, but you will get some variation on what you're exploring. Sense of scale of travel is maximal, as we travel through different types of areas to accent this, but ultimately it'd take longer to travel from Kirkwall to Val Royeaux and the areas around the two cities continues to be minimal.

[*]Second option, I think this will give players the feeling of immersion we are looking for and gives a chance to explore and learn more about the world itself.

[Das Tentakel]

Brockololly wrote...

The lack of detail in the environment in DA2 seemed to be a purposeful decision based on the art style change, if we are to believe some of the early interviews.

I detect a certain scepticism there, but it may be my imagination .

I read / listened to some interviews with the art director, Goldman, afterwards and while he’s a likeable and articulate person, I have to admit that I personally only half-believe this.
I believe Goldman when he admits to a personal preference (or perhaps ‘fondness’) for ‘sparse’ environments a la Kurosawa’s early B & W movies and ‘brutalistic’ totalitarian architecture, but I can’t shake the feeling that it was also a case of being bloody convenient, as this would make cross-platform development much easier. Less and more repetitive stuff = easier on the console hardware. There is an old problem with converting RPG’s originally developed for the PC (either developed first for PC or using an engine designed for PC).
KotOR, but also Morrowind in its time, didn’t run all that well on consoles. PC’s (provided they are at least ‘midrange’ and not too old) usually can handle stuff that consoles can’t.

Unfortunately, when people start to reference paintings (Bruegel) and 1.5-2 hour long B&W movies made with modest budgets (Kurosawa’s movies in the ‘50s) or theatrical productions, all content that is meant to be consumed more or less passively and only for a short period of time, they are probably on the wrong track.
A long game requires visual wealth and variety; sure it can do without, but people are not going to like it. There is also the matter of immersion and suspension of disbelief, which, I think, requires all kinds of visual and aural stimuli, especially in longer games. Otherwise, people are going to quickly notice, and get irritated by, the cardboard nature of the ‘setting’.

[AkiKishi]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If that's how pre-gen characters work, then I have no interest at all in playing a pre-gen character.

If every available option is valid, what is my role as player?  Every decision event is now irrelevant, as there are no wrong answers. [quote]

You liked PST ? Same principle.

It's all about how you make that first choice. You still get the consequences of the choices you make.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 12 juin 2012 - 08:50 .

[Das Tentakel]

Brockololly wrote...

I'm just guessing that any possible DA3 won't be released until after March 2013 based on EA not showing it during their Fiscal reports. Then again, DA2 was announced in early July 2010 and came out in March 2011. So I guess its possible they could announce it at Gamescom or something in August but I don't think so.

Just thinking out loud as to release date possibilities for DA3:

January-March 2013: That quarter is already packed with tons of huge games coming out. And EA would have likely shown DA3 off already if they were targeting it for that quarter.

April-May 2013: Thats Rockstar's time. Rockstar has seemingly released their games in May for the past 3 or so years and April is when they launched GTA 4. GTA 5 seems to be their next big thing and seems to be coming out this generation. So it would be crazy, especially if EA is shooting for greater mainstream success with DA, to launch anywhere near something as huge as GTA.

June-August 2013: Thats a video game dead zone. No big publishers really release big games during this time. Maybe late August I guess...I think thats when Deus Ex: Human Revolution launched last year and it did well.

September-December 2013: This is likely when I'd guess DA3 would launch. DA:O did well launching in November 09 against Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty, but it wasn't burdened with DA2's bad rap. Like I was saying, it comes down to when new consoles come out. Once that happens, people will likely be expecting much more from games visually. You're already seeing that at this E3 where presumably next gen games that simply had great visuals (Watch Dogs, Star Wars 1313) garnered a lot of attention and excitement. If DA3 launched on current gen consoles without drastically improving the visuals from a technical level, it'll struggle in comparison to next gen games that knock people's socks off, in terms of getting a mainstream audience's attention.

Nice visuals is the easiest way to get somebody to stop and pay attention to your game. And once Unreal engine 4 games start coming out next year, people will start expecting greater visual fidelity, something BioWare games have never been good at in the 3D era.

Interesting analysis, I see that you’ve closely watched the E3 news.
(darn little RPG news at E3, alas. Here’s to Larian and ‘Original Sin’, and may it rock. VLAANDEREN DE LEEUW!)

To be honest, I wonder if they are even actively developing DA3, apart from conceptual work that is. It’s not just that they asked fans for input, but the whole thing with the continuing economic crisis, Bioware’s recent ‘problems’ with DA2, ME3 and SWTOR, the expected transition to new consoles etc. makes me wonder whether we’re even going to see DA3 before 2014. Of course, that does not exclude browser and mobile games, tie-in novels and another animation movie to keep the IP ‘in the picture’ and alive for future marketing purposes.

Part of me would like DA3 in 2013, but honestly, I wonder whether they will be able to cook up a game that will be more than merely ‘good’ by that time. 2014, and it might actually be amazing.
I hope:unsure:.
On the other hand, 2013 might be a bit of a ‘drought’ year in terms of RPG’s, so from the perspective of commercial timing it might be the better choice, regardless of the relative quality of the game.

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 12 juin 2012 - 06:30 .

[nightscrawl]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

Can you give an example of that second one? Generally, I thought that specific/choice options were relegated to the triple arrow gold icon, and not the various tone icons. I can't remember exactly at the moment though...

I'm using the phrase "quest resolution" too loosely.

If I select based just on the tone, I find that Hawke tends to agree with people to whom he should object, as vice-versa. This is as important an outcome as a quest resolution, I think, as it expresses Hawke's personality. Agreeing with someone or disagreeing with someone is equivalent (in my eyes) to completing a quest or not completing it, or siding with one group over another.

So, I could choose to let the slaver go, or I could choose to deliver an appropriate tone, but I could not do both.

Ah yes, I see now. There were many cases where blue = agree, red = disagree, purple = neutral. I used this to my advantage in certain situations, such as the first time Anders flirts: I don't want to totally turn him down in the mean way, nor do I want to hint at interest with a positive response, so I deflect with humor instead. In a way, it can be said that using the dialogue wheel and icon this way is the most "natural" form of conversation, since you can do much the same in real life. On the other hand, moving between tones in the same conversation can be awkward.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 12 juin 2012 - 12:15 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If that's how pre-gen characters work, then I have no interest at all in playing a pre-gen character.

If every available option is valid, what is my role as player?  Every decision event is now irrelevant, as there are no wrong answers.

You liked PST ? Same principle.

It's all about how you make that first choice. You still get the consequences of the choices you make.

But I make that first choice based on a complete understanding of the character.  PST allowed me to construct a complete personality for TNO before the game ever started, and never contradicted that design.

That design, though, renders many of the available options invalid.  My TNO cannot say or do some of the things the writers made possible because those words or actions would break his character.  If the player has perfect knowledge of his character's personality, then there are wrong answers - and with full text dialogue the player can avoid those wrong answers.

[AkiKishi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But I make that first choice based on a complete understanding of the character.  PST allowed me to construct a complete personality for TNO before the game ever started, and never contradicted that design.

That design, though, renders many of the available options invalid.  My TNO cannot say or do some of the things the writers made possible because those words or actions would break his character.  If the player has perfect knowledge of his character's personality, then there are wrong answers - and with full text dialogue the player can avoid those wrong answers.

You had amnesia, that's not even possible.

Unlike regular D&D where play in your alignment PST also changed your alignment to reflect what you were doing.

[Vormaerin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If the player has perfect knowledge of his character's personality, then there are wrong answers - and with full text dialogue the player can avoid those wrong answers.

I'd argue that there are almost never *right* answers.   When I go into a game determined  to bull through it with my own character, the authors rarely write what I imagine being said.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But I make that first choice based on a complete understanding of the character.  PST allowed me to construct a complete personality for TNO before the game ever started, and never contradicted that design.

That design, though, renders many of the available options invalid.  My TNO cannot say or do some of the things the writers made possible because those words or actions would break his character.  If the player has perfect knowledge of his character's personality, then there are wrong answers - and with full text dialogue the player can avoid those wrong answers.

You had amnesia, that's not even possible.

You don't know what sort of person TNO was in his previous incarnations, but there's no requirement that those previous incarnations have any relevance at all to the current incarnation.

If you decide you want TNO to be an annoying contrarian pedant, you can do that, and it doesn't matter if the earlier TNO's were not.

I recall you held this same position regarding KotOR, and I didn't understand your perspective then, either.  What you did has no relevance to who you are if you don't remember what you did or why you did it.

Unlike regular D&D where play in your alignment PST also changed your alignment to reflect what you were doing.

You could play to your alignment in PST, as well.  And in D&D, your alignment is supposed to change to suit your behaviour.  Both NWN games modelled this, as well.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 juin 2012 - 03:25 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vormaerin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If the player has perfect knowledge of his character's personality, then there are wrong answers - and with full text dialogue the player can avoid those wrong answers.

I'd argue that there are almost never *right* answers.   When I go into a game determined  to bull through it with my own character, the authors rarely write what I imagine being said.

Is it ever really true that there's only one possible response for you, though?  In any given situation, there are some things you will not say (so don't pick those options), and some things you could say (so you can choose among those options).  Is it often the case that there is a very specific thing you absolutely have to say?

I don't think so.

But there are things you absolutely would not say (as mentioned above), which is why the paraphrase system fails so badly.  The player can't tell whether any given dialogue option is incompatible with his character design until after he's selected it.

[AkiKishi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you decide you want TNO to be an annoying contrarian pedant, you can do that, and it doesn't matter if the earlier TNO's were not.

I recall you held this same position regarding KotOR, and I didn't understand your perspective then, either.  What you did has no relevance to who you are if you don't remember what you did or why you did it.

Unlike regular D&D where play in your alignment PST also changed your alignment to reflect what you were doing.

You could play to your alignment in PST, as well.  And in D&D, your alignment is supposed to change to suit your behaviour.  Both NWN games modelled this, as well.

But that's just you deciding. It's no different to me deciding that Adam Jensen is going to respect life and try to avoid killing when he's talking to Sarif in the copter.

In D&D there were pentalties for shifting alignment.

How did you choose your first action in PST ?

Modifié par BobSmith101, 13 juin 2012 - 09:08 .

[AkiKishi]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Das Tentakel wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

The lack of detail in the environment in DA2 seemed to be a purposeful decision based on the art style change, if we are to believe some of the early interviews.

I detect a certain scepticism there, but it may be my imagination .

I read / listened to some interviews with the art director, Goldman, afterwards and while he’s a likeable and articulate person, I have to admit that I personally only half-believe this.
I believe Goldman when he admits to a personal preference (or perhaps ‘fondness’) for ‘sparse’ environments a la Kurosawa’s early B & W movies and ‘brutalistic’ totalitarian architecture, but I can’t shake the feeling that it was also a case of being bloody convenient, as this would make cross-platform development much easier. Less and more repetitive stuff = easier on the console hardware. There is an old problem with converting RPG’s originally developed for the PC (either developed first for PC or using an engine designed for PC).
KotOR, but also Morrowind in its time, didn’t run all that well on consoles. PC’s (provided they are at least ‘midrange’ and not too old) usually can handle stuff that consoles can’t.

Unfortunately, when people start to reference paintings (Bruegel) and 1.5-2 hour long B&W movies made with modest budgets (Kurosawa’s movies in the ‘50s) or theatrical productions, all content that is meant to be consumed more or less passively and only for a short period of time, they are probably on the wrong track.
A long game requires visual wealth and variety; sure it can do without, but people are not going to like it. There is also the matter of immersion and suspension of disbelief, which, I think, requires all kinds of visual and aural stimuli, especially in longer games. Otherwise, people are going to quickly notice, and get irritated by, the cardboard nature of the ‘setting’.

Guess that it all comes down to the right combination of  'eye candy'  and plausibility in the setting.
Thedas is a world that has all kinds of klimats and as a result of that a lot of different surroundings in terms of architectual and environmentual settings.

The devellopment of course is influenced bij the engine available. If the engine isn't really suited for consoles and offers challenges to implement certain elements in a game things get complicated in that regard. Problem is that there are games that offer a lot of differentiation in the environment and people notice (and like) that. It makes it more alive and lifelike in a sense....I for one am a fan of that.

Does anyone know what the engine is actually good at ? The thing that occurs to me, is that it's a lot easier to write a story around what your engine does well. Rather than trying to make the engine do something that shows off it's weaknesses.

You see it very clearly in ME3 opening level, everything you could show off poorly is in that level.

Andersons dire animation
The obvious scripted nature of events (move a bit and ship blows up, never more and it never does)
2d sprites if you look down and watch the crab people running.
Linear with a backdrop

Not the greatest first impression. Once you get into the old box room and corridor levels things are much better. London is just dire.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

But that's just you deciding. It's no different to me deciding that Adam Jensen is going to respect life and try to avoid killing when he's talking to Sarif in the copter.

It's the same if you established Adam Jensen's respect for life in the beginning, yes.  If you're deciding it in the moment because you think it would be interesting, then no, that's not similar at all.

I built the framework, and it's that framework that drives each decision.  I can't know in advance exactly how the framework is going to work within the game.  Maybe it will produce internal conflicts for the PC.  Maybe it won't.  I don't know.

If you decide what Adam Jensen's relevant characteristic is only when an associated decision is upon him, then you avoid all of those conflicts.

In D&D there were pentalties for shifting alignment.

Yes there were.  But shifts could and did happen.

How did you choose your first action in PST ?

I knew TNO's personality before I started playing the game, so how he responded to any stimulus was based on that established personality.