311 réponses à ce sujet

[dracuella]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

And to BobSmith101, while I agree some might see an inconsistency in it or even laziness, I doubt it will be the main body of gamers, the, as you put it, average joe gamer. Some will rave and rant as some always do but I'm confident most of us do what we did with DA2, wonder why it's not like DAO, try it out and simply decide it's just different from the predecesser.

I haven't played Skyrim but IIRC Morrowind and Oblivion both have pretty open backgrounds. Skyrim in particular is quite popular. At the same time though a Bethesda game does differ from a BioWare game.

I actually haven't played Skyrim because after I felt I wasted about 40 hours of my life on Oblivion I was super hesitant to try it out.

I remember Morrowind was rather detailed about who you were, race, gender, even starsign. But IIRC there wasn't much of a story per se except you were a prisoner and the rest was put together by yourself through the first part of the game where you were asked a lot of questions. Skyrim starts off the same way, once again a prisoner but I never got started on it more seriously, so I can't recall much about character creation.

[brushyourteeth]

I'd really be happy with having larger areas of exploration than what we've become used to but with backgrounds, cutscenes, and/or overlooks or viewpoints that show the scale of an area. I'm sure that Kirkwall had many more than just five or six noble families living in Hightown, but you'd never have known that from the environment. Places like the Wounded Coast or the top of Sundermount really impressed me because I was able to appreciate the scope of the environment I was in, even if I couldn't explore every inch of it.

Open world works for the Elder Scrolls series because they make their games to be specifically combat and linear-questing focused, therefore the exploration of the environments allows for the other hundreds of hours of gameplay. However, the player has few meaningful choices beyond "I will complete this quest" or "I will not complete this quest" (not none, but few) and dialogue is largely impersonal and limited to questgiving. They then rely on their extensive lore (done mostly in text without the help of cinematics or VA's) to make the world feel complete. I love TES and DA for the ways in which they are different. Bioware are (in my opinion) the industry's best storytellers - that's what I want from their games.

If there's a way to increase the scale and scope of our environments in DAIII without taking resources away from the depth of plot or dialogue we expect from Bioware games, I'd love to see that happen. If not, I'd say the team's best bet is to stay focused on how great storytelling can happen without relying on visual media or snazzier environments to make it happen.

[Allan Schumacher]

I grew up with PnP games... but it was never the dice and character sheets that mattered.

At the same time I know some PnP roleplayers that are just enamoured with the tactical combat elements and even use a projector to put a hex map onto a table so they can manipulate around. Different strokes for different folks and all.

[Vormaerin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I grew up with PnP games... but it was never the dice and character sheets that mattered.

At the same time I know some PnP roleplayers that are just enamoured with the tactical combat elements and even use a projector to put a hex map onto a table so they can manipulate around. Different strokes for different folks and all.

Indeed.  Its especially amusing when the "one true way to RP" folks say things like "Gygax would be rolling in his grave."  D&D was developed as an extension of skirmish miniatures games and Gary often ran games with 10+ players that were pretty much pure dungeon crawls.   He also ran RP stuff, of course, but dice and character sheet certainly mattered to him and to a lot of other D&D players.

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

The only good point of multiplayer PnP was interacting with other characters and making a story. That's the reason you play multiplayer PnP... otherwise you're just rolling dice and moving bottle caps around until one has more hits left than the rest. Modern RPGs understand this, and replace the other players with characters and story.

I grew up with PnP games... but it was never the dice and character sheets that mattered. It was the dialogue with other players and the character story that mattered. Modern RPGs are finally getting to the point where the characters are really coming alive and the boring bottle caps and dice aspect of RPGs can be left behind. It's not that most people have the wrong expections... it's that the people who really enjoyed the dice and bottle caps are getting angry that we just do not need that stuff in RPGs anymore.

Modern RPGs are more like what people got into PnP for in the first place. Modern RPGs are more like classic RPGs than they ever have been before.

But PnP games let you craft your own character.  You could control what he said or did.

These cinematic games do the opposite.

Also, those PnP games did a much better job of documenting their rulesets.  The players knew how the world worked.  They didn't need to guess.

From my PnP experience, I'd say the worst thing about PnP gaming is the other people.  Having to play with other people is what killed PnP gaming for me.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 juin 2012 - 07:57 .

[Allan Schumacher]

But PnP games let you craft your own character. You could control what he said or did.

These cinematic games do the opposite.

It's more to do with "Computer games" as opposed to "cinematics games." In any CRPG you're only allowed to do precisely what the program lets you do. You can only say what the writers have allowed you to say. You can only perform the actions that the designers have allowed you to perform. And so forth.

Unless some really good emergent gameplay devices start coming out, I don't expect this to change at all any time soon.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's more to do with "Computer games" as opposed to "cinematics games." In any CRPG you're only allowed to do precisely what the program lets you do. You can only say what the writers have allowed you to say. You can only perform the actions that the designers have allowed you to perform. And so forth.

But prior to the introduction of the dialogue wheel, we could choose among those available options.

Now we cannot.

You're talking about freedom.  i'm talking about control.  Those are different things.

The PC should never surprise the player.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 juin 2012 - 09:19 .

[Mclouvins]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


Unless some really good emergent gameplay devices start coming out, I don't expect this to change at all any time soon.

Geth as a gaming platform.

[TJX2045]

ajbry wrote...

That's an oversimplification, and it's not a leisurely stroll. Integrate the journey into the main quest -- it'll be a good opportunity for the game to split up the repetition of urban questing and grant the player some agency in actually reaching their next destination.

I agree with you OP, that it could be implemented well and be interesting.  In skyrim I had no problems at times simply just wandering without ever hitting a quick travel at times just to explore.  As long as there is something interesting to keep me going I think I would be fine with it, but there should still be the option of quick travel for those times you don't feel like it or for the people who are not into that sort of thing.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But PnP games let you craft your own character.  You could control what he said or did.

These cinematic games do the opposite.

Also, those PnP games did a much better job of documenting their rulesets.  The players knew how the world worked.  They didn't need to guess.

From my PnP experience, I'd say the worst thing about PnP gaming is the other people.  Having to play with other people is what killed PnP gaming for me.

Yes, computer games are different from PnP games.  In a computer game, you trade control and freedom in exchange for movin' pitchurs, music, and video.  I'm fine with that.

The OP's post, and all the other conversations eventually come down to the same question... given only 8 hours to work with, do you want to dig a wide trench that's shallow (Elder Scrolls) or a narrow trench that's deep (BioWare games).  I'm ok with giving up random combat and random exploration in exchange for more character moments and story.  That's the balance I like.  I'm all cake and no steak, yo!

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Unless some really good emergent gameplay devices start coming out, I don't expect this to change at all any time soon.

Daggerfall had a fun but quirky random dungeon generator.  What are the chances something like that could be cobbled together for a future DA title?  Something like the player and party go on a patrol, and a relatively randomly generated map sets up for different combat scenarios?  Then story buffs could ignore it, and the combat buffs could slap on their murdertrunks and dive in to the scenarios?  

The patrols could be below ground on the Deep Roads, or in the Wilds, or just in the human lands.  It could be neat, and since it's not something that's going to jump in my face when I just want to talk to the characters, I might even be tempted to try it out between chunks of story.

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Yes, computer games are different from PnP games.  In a computer game, you trade control and freedom in exchange for movin' pitchurs, music, and video.  I'm fine with that.

I'll grant we trade away freedom, but I won't concede control.  Until they started hiding dialogue options from us, or having the PC act unbidden in cutscenes, we had just about as much control as we would in PnP.  Losing control only started happening in the last few years.

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Daggerfall had a fun but quirky random dungeon generator.  What are the chances something like that could be cobbled together for a future DA title?  Something like the player and party go on a patrol, and a relatively randomly generated map sets up for different combat scenarios?  Then story buffs could ignore it, and the combat buffs could slap on their murdertrunks and dive in to the scenarios?  

The patrols could be below ground on the Deep Roads, or in the Wilds, or just in the human lands.  It could be neat, and since it's not something that's going to jump in my face when I just want to talk to the characters, I might even be tempted to try it out between chunks of story.

Random dungeons can go wrong.  I like my dungeons to make sense (though having all that content is nice - there's a reason I think Arena was the best elder Scrolls game).

In NWN2, there are Orc caves that need to be navigated, and one such cave is a sort of ring pattern with various side passages.  Many of the rooms contain nothing of relevance to the PC, but they are relevant to the orcs (like a place of worship, or a dining hall).  That those side-passages exist makes the caves feel more like a place orcs actually live, rather than just a convenient place to kill them.

Also, it's not linear.  It's entirely possible to bypass most of the passages, leaving the orcs alive.

Those are terrific dungeons.  NWN2 has significant issues as a game overall (the full party control is a mess, and the plot is very linear), but the level design is wonderful.

[Allan Schumacher]

Random generation isn't out of the question. Though IMO it works better for dungeon crawler type games.

I think 3D can pose some restrictions on random level creation. Or really, the engine itself. But I'm no engine guru so I'm mostly just speculating based on what I've seen about random level generation from the old 2D tile generation going forward. I think that randomizing the content within the level is a bit easier, in my experience, however.

For example, Diablo 3 still have random dungeon generation, but it's largely composed of a modular design so you get similar set pieces that are kind of connected together. Diablo 1 and 2's level creation seemed more random. You still had the odd specific set piece, but usually it was for specific encounters and whatnot.

[Vormaerin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...



I'll grant we trade away freedom, but I won't concede control.  Until they started hiding dialogue options from us, or having the PC act unbidden in cutscenes, we had just about as much control as we would in PnP.  Losing control only started happening in the last few years.

I know you think that choosing A, B, or C constitutes a meaningful level of control, but I don't agree.   You are correct that autodialogue and paraphrasing have made the lack of control more obvious in recent games.

But the idea that I ever controlled a computer character outside of a DMed NWN session is just a concept that I don't get.  It was always the DM's word choice, the DM's quest solutions.  Its just a Choose Your Own Adventure book with pretty pictures.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 07 juin 2012 - 11:57 .

[AppealToReason]

Making you think its sort of open world like the Deep Roads? Fine.

Open world? Shove off.

[Allan Schumacher]

I know you think that choosing A, B, or C constitutes a meaningful level of control, but I don't agree. You are correct that autodialogue and paraphrasing have made the lack of control more obvious in recent games.

I'm pretty ambivalent towards the dialogue wheel itself, because I typically found myself picking the option that most aligned with the general intent/emotion that I wanted to convey because the specific words were rarely precisely what I wanted to say.

I do agree that when the character suddenly makes an action that is not anticipated though, it's an issue with how the wheel is done (this applies to full text too, if the text doesn't say [Bash head] or whatever, for that matter).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vormaerin wrote...

But the idea that I ever controlled a computer character outside of a DMed NWN session is just a concept that I don't get.  It was always the DM's word choice, the DM's quest solutions.  Its just a Choose Your Own Adventure book with pretty pictures.

In a Choose Your Own Adventure book, you still get to choose.

DA2 didn't even let us do that.  That's my point.  We used be allowed to choose among the DM's word choice options, or the DM's quest solutions.  Now we're just handed one over which we had effectively no control.

How is the DA2 player supposed to know that the wheel option "Yes" will be presented as Hawke sneering "Get out of my sight!"?  He can't possibly know that, so he can't reasonably be said to have chosen to say it.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm pretty ambivalent towards the dialogue wheel itself, because I typically found myself picking the option that most aligned with the general intent/emotion that I wanted to convey because the specific words were rarely precisely what I wanted to say.

The words determine what my intent is.  I had no idea how to use the dialogue wheel in ME or DA2.  I even asked for help with that here on BSN.  I still don't understand how it's even supposed to work.

Sometimes the paraphrase was precisely what I wanted to say, and then Hawke would say something that bore no resemblance at all to what I had selected.

I do agree that when the character suddenly makes an action that is not anticipated though, it's an issue with how the wheel is done (this applies to full text too, if the text doesn't say [Bash head] or whatever, for that matter).

I would suggest that actions like [Bash Head] should be their own choice event, and not attached to specific words.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 08 juin 2012 - 12:27 .

[Vormaerin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In a Choose Your Own Adventure book, you still get to choose.

DA2 didn't even let us do that.  That's my point.  We used be allowed to choose among the DM's word choice options, or the DM's quest solutions.  Now we're just handed one over which we had effectively no control.

I can't think of any cases where they auto selected a quest resolution.  Nothing in DA2 was different than it was in DAO in that regards.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How is the DA2 player supposed to know that the wheel option "Yes" will be presented as Hawke sneering "Get out of my sight!"?  He can't possibly know that, so he can't reasonably be said to have chosen to say it.

That's a problem with poor paraphrases, not with the idea of voice acted characters and paraphrasing itself. 

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm pretty ambivalent towards the dialogue wheel itself, because I typically found myself picking the option that most aligned with the general intent/emotion that I wanted to convey because the specific words were rarely precisely what I wanted to say.

That's rather why I think the dialogue wheel in DA2  (not the paragon/renegade one in ME) is a significant improvement.  I rarely find the full text to answer how I want to anyway, so I think that the different seven or eight "intent" icons to be more useful than the words.  Especially with cinematic conversations and voice acting, where even if I picked the words, the presentation might or might not be what I expected in the absence of those icons.

[Allan Schumacher]

The words determine what my intent is.

Words are only a fraction of determining intent. I can say "I like your hair" and have it convey very, very different messages based upon the inflection in my voice and my body language.

I found the words used in older games useful in determining what I felt the intent of the line was. I did not have any trouble converting this over to the dialogue wheel, and I think it shines quite brilliantly with Alpha Protocol to which it was impossible to mistake my intent because the paraphrase from Mass Effect had been outright replaced with the emotion by which I wanted to respond.

I can (and have) picked full written dialogue options because I assumed the line was sarcastic, and the game responded as though I was being genuine.

That's rather why I think the dialogue wheel in DA2 (not the paragon/renegade one in ME) is a significant improvement. I rarely find the full text to answer how I want to anyway, so I think that the different seven or eight "intent" icons to be more useful than the words. Especially with cinematic conversations and voice acting, where even if I picked the words, the presentation might or might not be what I expected in the absence of those icons.

I felt the icons were a significant improvement in helping the player make sure the intent of the statement was what I was looking for. I specifically avoided the ones with hearts for characters I didn't care to romance because the game was explicitly alerting me that this was a response which will be conveyed as a flirt. I know some felt it was too hand holdy, but I think that's more a reflection of "choose heart to do romance" maybe being too rigid. Maybe we shouldn't require the player to pick all the heart options all the time to do the romance, and maybe (like we did in DA2) have the heart option not actually lead to an actual romance sometimes.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 juin 2012 - 01:51 .

[The Night Haunter]

I believe someone said something about looking at Skyrim, so maybe DA3 will move more towards an Open World setting (not open world, just a bit more open than Origins).

Example : City
DAO - the city is split into several sub sections that you fast travel to
DA3 (potentially) - The city is one huge map that you navigate through
However travelling from the city to a distant location would still be basically fast travelling

My idea of what would be cool for them to add to DA3

[Vormaerin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Maybe we shouldn't require the player to pick all the heart options all the time to do the romance, and maybe (like we did in DA2) have the heart option not actually lead to an actual romance sometimes.

I would like the option to have flirty conversations that don't turn into romances, but I imagine it would be pretty tricky to do.

Btw, the heart option doesn't always lead to an actual romance.  I threw a lot of hearts at Avelline that went right over the girl's head... 

[Allan Schumacher]

Btw, the heart option doesn't always lead to an actual romance. I threw a lot of hearts at Avelline that went right over the girl's head...

Yes I know. I did say "and maybe (like we did in DA2) have the heart option not actually lead to an actual romance sometimes." I liked the fact that Aveline says no too!

[Maugrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Btw, the heart option doesn't always lead to an actual romance. I threw a lot of hearts at Avelline that went right over the girl's head...

Yes I know. I did say "and maybe (like we did in DA2) have the heart option not actually lead to an actual romance sometimes." I liked the fact that Aveline says no too!

Yeah I'd love to be able to flirt with various companions again.  If we are staying with the intent symbols, and I hope we are, then one that's been modified like with say an arrow through the heart could signify locking in the romance as opposed to just flirting/building it up.

[Vormaerin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Btw, the heart option doesn't always lead to an actual romance. I threw a lot of hearts at Avelline that went right over the girl's head...

Yes I know. I did say "and maybe (like we did in DA2) have the heart option not actually lead to an actual romance sometimes." I liked the fact that Aveline says no too!

Hmm, complete reading failure there.  I spaced that parentheical element.  Bah.

And, yes, I did like that particular "romance."  I don't particularly like the whole "I chose who likes me and how much" mechanic, though I can't really think of a viable alternative.

I do find it stretches credulity that the PC can always convert the bad girl, salve the emo warrior's soul, and so on.  It tends to make me think the Morrigans, Jacks, and Viconias are just posers.

However, a lot of players would feel annoyed if they invested time in a relationship that didn't pan out.  You can see that in all the ME romance rage.

[Tommyspa]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

I believe someone said something about looking at Skyrim, so maybe DA3 will move more towards an Open World setting (not open world, just a bit more open than Origins).

Example : City
DAO - the city is split into several sub sections that you fast travel to
DA3 (potentially) - The city is one huge map that you navigate through
However travelling from the city to a distant location would still be basically fast travelling

My idea of what would be cool for them to add to DA3

This was what I first thought of when I heard them say that. I mean, overly condensing the most important city in Thedas would be a mistake, like doing it terribly with Denerim in Origins. Kirkwall's size would be good for just Val Royeaux. I certainly don't need all the doors to open or anything, it would just be nice to wonder the streets of Val Royeaux. All they need is time to make this happen. I'd also expect big nature maps too, like the ones in MotA, they looked great as well.