311 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

FFXII.

That is all.

[AkiKishi]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

FFXII.

That is all.

White Knight Chronicles, Xenoblade all very similiar when it comes to maps and exploration.

Wandering into the Necrohol of Nabudis, even though it ruined my progress curve was a highlight. That sort of sense of danger and risk/reward is really missing from scaled games.

[AkiKishi]

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.

Me either, I have a backlog in double figures

I have seen some videos though and the only really important difference is that it's not a cinematic game.

http://t1.gstatic.co...YglCKFrOLisQk7v

The chracter there could have any expression, because you never see the character. No voice, tone is left to your imagination.

In contrast.

http://t3.gstatic.co...TMnI-xZVxg_buUw

The character is a part of the scene, making then blank and or emotionless is not an option.

Other cinematic games.

http://t0.gstatic.co...pe2AxrJGr9dk_UQ

http://t1.gstatic.co...umayjOu3wLFeAX2

http://t0.gstatic.co...GqDvMcOqm3as0rw

[Das Tentakel]

Tommyspa wrote...

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.

The worst example of ‘condensing’ settlements in games are places like Theramore and Menethil Harbour in WoW, or the towns of Oblivion and Skyrim.
Theramore (supposedly a major colony) had something like 5 houses. Whiterun in Skyrim, for instance, is the size of a village with just a bit over  twice that number.
In WoW this was perhaps a conscious decision to keep everything within easy reach (on the other hand, the proper cities like Stormwind were and ‘felt’ much larger). In the case of Oblivion and Skyrim it may have been due to the fact that the ‘main platform’ was the Xbox 360, rather than the PC, so there may have been hardware limitations they had to consider.

Good design can keep much larger settlements still ‘manageable’ in terms of travelling through them, just as bad design can make travelling across relatively small ones (Imperial City in Oblivion, I am looking at you) a chore.

Kirkwall in DA2 was pretty bad too, by the way. The areas were not particularly large, but because of the (in my view largely unsuccessful) attempt to make it ‘authentically labyrinthine’ through the use of plazas, courtyards, alleyways etc. (plus the ‘monotonous’ looks) it turned into what felt like an open-air ‘dungeon labyrinth’, rather than a city.

A happy mean might be something like Tarantia in Age of Conan, which has contiguous but clearly delineated zones (harbour, old city, the lower-class ‘common district’ around the Iron Tower where there are riots and gangs, an outside ‘rural’ area with mills and other buildings, the different parts of the upper city etc.) resulting in something that feels large enough for a city, yet can be visited and explored gradually and in stages.
Another example, and from a game that is structurally more similar to DA, would be Vizima, where only certain parts of the city (each with ‘sensible borders’) can be visited (a bit like Denerim, nut far superior in execution). The main difference is that vistas from outside and inside the city give a good feel for the place’s overall size, and the locations themselves are sufficiently large, varied and lively to give that urban ‘feel’. They are also, like Tarantia's urban zones, contiguous.

Finally, one example of a sufficiently large and lively ‘city’ that is totally open are the twin towns of Cheznaddar / Hatmandor in Two Worlds 2. However, while in terms of size I think it is about 'right' for a Ferelden harbour town like Amaranthine (which, while not bad, was way too small in Awakening, typical example of a 'condensed' settlement),  it is probably still too small for really large cities like Val Royeaux, Kirkwall or Minrathous.

[Wulfram]

I always liked Amn as a city. A good variety of different zones all with different characters, and also the sense that there's a whole bunch of city which you're not seeing.

The big problem with Kirkwall was simply that the engine couldn't handle lots of people. Which I'm sure Bioware were aware of as a significant problem - they wouldn't have resorted to the horrible low res people unless they were pretty desperate to make the place feel a bit more lived in.

[Das Tentakel]

Wulfram wrote...

I always liked Amn as a city. A good variety of different zones all with different characters, and also the sense that there's a whole bunch of city which you're not seeing.

The big problem with Kirkwall was simply that the engine couldn't handle lots of people. Which I'm sure Bioware were aware of as a significant problem - they wouldn't have resorted to the horrible low res people unless they were pretty desperate to make the place feel a bit more lived in.

Perhaps, but there is also such a thing as 'serious lack of dev time', and manpower perhaps as well.

I sometimes wonder what their engine IS good for - but I'm no expert, there probably are some advantages to it.
I hope .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

But the wording is important.  In DA2, I would select options based on the paraphrase that I would hot have chosen had I know the specific wording.

The player needs to know the specific wording.  How else can he know whether his character is going to reveal the information he wants revealed (or hidden)?

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 don't want to respond with emotion at all.  I want to respond with words.  If I want to make a statement, I'll make a statement.  If I don't want to make a statement, I'll ask a question.  At the bare minimum, any dialogue system in future games needs to distinguish between these two things with perfect clarity.

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.

This happens in real life all of the time.  I fail to see how this is a problem.

I don't say things to produce responses.  I say things to have said them.  DA2 (and every paraphrase system I've seen so far) denies me that.

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.

I think the icons merely constrained choice.  There were times in DA2 where I wanted to choose the icon from one option and the words from another.  If I chose based only on the words, I'd tend to get a voiced line that bore no resemblance to what I wanted to say.  If I chose based only on the icon, I tended to get Hawke choosing the wrong quest resolution.

DA2's dialogue system was wholly unpredictable.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 juin 2012 - 03:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vormaerin wrote...

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.

The FedEx quests resolved automatically without any input from the player at all.  He didn't even need to know there was a quest at all.

And when quest resolution occured through a dialogue wheel event, choosing an option tended to result in Hawke making claims about what had happened with which I disagreed.  He's talk about why he'd done something, and he'd be wrong (or it would be information I wouldn't have wanted shared).  And sometimes I'd actually get a different quest resolution from what I'd wanted.

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

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?

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

http://t3.gstatic.co...TMnI-xZVxg_buUw

The character is a part of the scene, making then blank and or emotionless is not an option.

Then the behaviour or expression of the PC needs to be under the direct control of the player.

Otherwise, the cinematics do nothing but reduce player agency.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 08 juin 2012 - 05:25 .

[Ophir147]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't say things to produce responses.  I say things to have said them.  DA2 (and every paraphrase system I've seen so far) denies me that.

This gives me an awesome idea; replay through Dragon Age Origins, and play a character who is sarcastic with every single line that he says.

"What should we do with Jowan?"
"Fry him, I mean look at him, he's obviously a monster and a psychopathic killing machine"
"As you wish"
-Later-
*Warden walks in as Jowan is being murderknifed*
"Dude! I was just joking!"

...
Morrigan approves +15

[AkiKishi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

http://t3.gstatic.co...TMnI-xZVxg_buUw

The character is a part of the scene, making then blank and or emotionless is not an option.

Then the behaviour or expression of the PC needs to be under the direct control of the player.

Otherwise, the cinematics do nothing but reduce player agency.

It's simply a shift to a different method of storytelling. Cinematics can't be under the players control,because they are cinematics. That's why I think characters like Geralt and Adam work better than developers still trying to give people the illusion they are creating the character.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 08 juin 2012 - 06:00 .

[Wulfram]

BobSmith101 wrote...

It's simply a shift. Cinematics can't be under the players control,because they are cinematics.

Sure they can.

Pick and the PC acts happy
Pick and the PC acts sad

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

It's simply a shift to a different method of storytelling.

Storytelling is not the core purpose of the game.  Roleplaying is.

Cinematics can't be under the players control,because they are cinematics.

This is patently false.  ME2's interrupt system demonstrates that quite thoroughly.

[AkiKishi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

It's simply a shift to a different method of storytelling.

Storytelling is not the core purpose of the game.  Roleplaying is.

Cinematics can't be under the players control,because they are cinematics.

This is patently false.  ME2's interrupt system demonstrates that quite thoroughly.

That's your view it's not really a rule.

What does interupts have to do with the characters mood ? Sure you can have an action play out.because it's a pre-scripted action that you are just choosing to trigger or ignore. But that's a completely different prosept than having an interactive mood setting.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

That's your view it's not really a rule.

They're not storytelling games.  They're roleplaying games.

They can tell stories.  They can tell stories really well.  But they need to allow roleplaying.

What does interupts have to do with the characters mood ? Sure you can have an action play out.because it's a pre-scripted action that you are just choosing to trigger or ignore. But that's a completely different prosept than having an interactive mood setting.

ME2's interrupts show that we can have a direct impact on how a cinematic scene unfolds.  A game could just as easiy ask us for input at every possible mood change.

I think ME2's interrupts, as implemented, were badly broken, but they're a good idea.  Giving the player more control over the cinematics is a good thing.

[AkiKishi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

That's your view it's not really a rule.

They're not storytelling games.  They're roleplaying games.

They can tell stories.  They can tell stories really well.  But they need to allow roleplaying.

What does interupts have to do with the characters mood ? Sure you can have an action play out.because it's a pre-scripted action that you are just choosing to trigger or ignore. But that's a completely different prosept than having an interactive mood setting.

ME2's interrupts show that we can have a direct impact on how a cinematic scene unfolds.  A game could just as easiy ask us for input at every possible mood change.

I think ME2's interrupts, as implemented, were badly broken, but they're a good idea.  Giving the player more control over the cinematics is a good thing.

Witcher allows roleplaying, Deus Ex allows roleplaying. What they don't allow is roleplaying of a character the player created. They also allow the cinematics to set a mood which makes for better cinematics.

Hawke sounds Bi polar when you flick through options. I don't even want to imagine what scripted cinematics would be like doing the same thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Witcher allows roleplaying, Deus Ex allows roleplaying. What they don't allow is roleplaying of a character the player created.

How do you roleplay a character without having exhaustive knowledge of that character's mind?  Explain that to me.  Please, someone, explain that to me.  How do you know which option is appropriate without knowledge everything about that character's beliefs, values, and goals?  How do you weight possibly conflicting objectives against each other?

They also allow the cinematics to set a mood which makes for better cinematics.

I dispute that cinematics are even capable of this.

Hawke sounds Bi polar when you flick through options. I don't even want to imagine what scripted cinematics would be like doing the same thing.

He only sounds bi-polar if you don't understand why he's saying each thing.  If each option yuo choose stems from a coherent character design, then the PC will be coherent.

DA2, unfortunately, doesn't let the player choose anything.

[Wulfram]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


How do you roleplay a character without having exhaustive knowledge of that character's mind?  Explain that to me.  Please, someone, explain that to me.  How do you know which option is appropriate without knowledge everything about that character's beliefs, values, and goals?  How do you weight possibly conflicting objectives against each other

I usually start out with my PC rather ill defined in mind and they develop a more defined character during the initial stages of play.

Particularly in video games, since otherwise it becomes tremendously frustrating to discover that most of the important aspects of your characters personality have no way of being expressed.

edit:  Regarding Hawke's "bipolar" nature, I think the various "tones" could easily be toned down to reduce this.  Or better, we could be given some indication of how extreme their reaction would be.

Modifié par Wulfram, 08 juin 2012 - 08:10 .

[brushyourteeth]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Witcher allows roleplaying, Deus Ex allows roleplaying. What they don't allow is roleplaying of a character the player created.

How do you roleplay a character without having exhaustive knowledge of that character's mind?  Explain that to me.  Please, someone, explain that to me.  How do you know which option is appropriate without knowledge everything about that character's beliefs, values, and goals?  How do you weight possibly conflicting objectives against each other?

You do the same thing you would if you'd "created" the character. You decide.

This is much more easily done in situations where the game doesn't railroad you into conflict without any choice, or with choices that have no meaningful consequence.

[Allan Schumacher]

brushyourteeth wrote...

You do the same thing you would if you'd "created" the character. You decide.

This is much more easily done in situations where the game doesn't railroad you into conflict without any choice, or with choices that have no meaningful consequence.

I found the original Deus Ex did probably the most fantastic job of illusion of choice where I remember thinking that the game would have legitimately let me side with UNATCO and get a different game experience.

Though Deus Ex is a different type of choice.  The narrative only has a few places of actual choice (especially with consequence), but the gameplay choice is probably still unparalleled.  So well done!

[brushyourteeth]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

You do the same thing you would if you'd "created" the character. You decide.

This is much more easily done in situations where the game doesn't railroad you into conflict without any choice, or with choices that have no meaningful consequence.

I found the original Deus Ex did probably the most fantastic job of illusion of choice where I remember thinking that the game would have legitimately let me side with UNATCO and get a different game experience.

Though Deus Ex is a different type of choice.  The narrative only has a few places of actual choice (especially with consequence), but the gameplay choice is probably still unparalleled.  So well done!

I agree.

DA:O didn't really allow the character to be "mine" either - it gave me 14 templates to choose from and I filled in the blanks from there - but no matter how many different ways I played it she always *felt* like mine. It's hard to describe why. Maybe because I set the pace and the destination of our travel? DAII did the same thing though (although "let's go to the market" doesn't seem as epic as "let's go to the heart of the Brecilian Forest and recruit some wild elves").

I know you guys are tired of hearing it, but I really think a lot of the control feeling taken away from me was done by the paraphrased dialogue. In DA:O I was often given five or six different responses and it wasn't unusual for all of them to feel like organic or legitimate choices for my character. Choosing what to say went from a joy in DA:O (I learned more about the world from what my character could say to others than from just about anything else) to a chore and a headache in DAII.

I'd offer some suggestions on how to fix that, but Mr. Gaider has alluded to the fact that that isn't helpful. So I'll highlight the problems and let you guys come up with the solutions.

[Dean_the_Young]

Wulfram wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


How do you roleplay a character without having exhaustive knowledge of that character's mind?  Explain that to me.  Please, someone, explain that to me.  How do you know which option is appropriate without knowledge everything about that character's beliefs, values, and goals?  How do you weight possibly conflicting objectives against each other

I usually start out with my PC rather ill defined in mind and they develop a more defined character during the initial stages of play.

Particularly in video games, since otherwise it becomes tremendously frustrating to discover that most of the important aspects of your characters personality have no way of being expressed.

edit:  Regarding Hawke's "bipolar" nature, I think the various "tones" could easily be toned down to reduce this.  Or better, we could be given some indication of how extreme their reaction would be.

Alternatively, sometimes an archetype is all you need. General principals you know the character would follow, without pre-planning them.

For example, in Mass Effect I rolled a Paragade Shepard who was a deep-cover agent for Cerberus... even more interesting because she was a Sole Survivor background. I took a general concept (someone who was a paragon in reaction to their past hubris/failure), added a few principles to guide her (willing to sacrifice herself for her ideals, but not human survival), and I had a character who suprised me.

I didn't need to pscho-analyze her: I just did what I thought she might, even when it countered my own inclinations. She deliberatly failed Thane's loyalty mission, even.

[Dean_the_Young]

Allan, a question.

About how much hub/village space can Bioware games generally allocate themselves? I know that's a vague question with a vague answer, but is there any good guiding rule of thumb on how many distinct locals of various size you can have in a game?

Different game genres use different standards, I know, but the question comes in the context of representing multiple factions, particularly from a 'center of power' and 'outskirts' perspective.

In Dragon Age Origins, for example, the main lore/residential areas were centered around a single geographic location. Dwarves were in the two and a half/three levels of Orzamar. Elves had a single camp. Denerim was the marketplace, mainly, plus a few questing locations. The 'factions', as they were, were centered on a single dominant place that might have a few sub-areas.

One thing I loved about Jade Empire, however, was the village you were at before you went to the Imperial Capital. It was a satellite that already represented the Capital, and was a hub of its own. It had its own identity/quests, but most importantly it served as a gateway to the Capital. Sort of a 'get your feet wet' place. Even though the town was only a bit bigger than the sub-districts of the capital, it helped give a sense of scale and perspective to the Empire.


Could those two models really be combined in a Bioware-style game? A smaller satellite town, leading to a major center with multiple sub-levels? Not just for a single faction, like in Jade Empire, but in a more Dragon Age-like setting?

Or would that be too much space-padding, and seen as a waste of resources?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

I usually start out with my PC rather ill defined in mind and they develop a more defined character during the initial stages of play.

So you're picking options based on what?  Whim?

I don't see how that would be fun.  You might be able to construct a coherent character by the end, but I think it would be harder to do, and you'd miss out on all the internal struggles as the character tries to reconcile two competing beliefs.

Particularly in video games, since otherwise it becomes tremendously frustrating to discover that most of the important aspects of your characters personality have no way of being expressed.

I find that's quite uncommon.  I find core principles are often applicable to a wide variety of circumstances. 

But even so, being unable to express my character's personality is a minor problem.  Having that personality contradicted by the game is a major problem.

edit:  Regarding Hawke's "bipolar" nature, I think the various "tones" could easily be toned down to reduce this.  Or better, we could be given some indication of how extreme their reaction would be.

The tone icons need precise definitions.  They had nothing of the sort in DA2.