20 réponses à ce sujet

[bEVEsthda]

Bioware has been dropping the ball. Over and over again.

The ME3 ending is just horribly bad. In almost every manner an ending can be bad. The two worst manners, the deus ex, and rendering the entire story irrelevant, couldn't be fixed by the EC and weren't. But the rest was. The talent was suddenly back

But precisely this makes the ME3 ending a mystery. It simply cannot have been the ending ME was originally conceived to be going towards. That's quite impossible. So something happened. I'm almost dying with curiosity to find out what, but I suppose we'll never know (the rumours I've picked up don't make any sense at all, so I strongly doubt them, just internet lies). I suppose a reasonable guess, is that they ran out of planning/resources, possibly due to the multiplayer component, and the very heavy load of the burden, to fix it, was put on a person with underdeveloped 'story teller'-skills.

The good side of this, is that we'll never see anything like it again. It's still exasperating for me though, that Bioware recently, repeatedly have seemed so unaware of what's important. They spend so much effort and talent, and then they just waste it all on some important detail, because they couldn't be bothered, like. Or like no one making decisions understand it's important.

In a way, it walks hand in hand with EA ownership. But if we quickly ditch that conspiracy theory, which isn't very fruitful to explore here anyway, we see that it also walks hand in hand with this obsession with cinematics and voice acting.

Those things don't really add anything at all, to the most important part of a game, any game - which is gameplay. I, personally, would go farther - they don't add anything at all, period. And yet, suddenly, it's all that Bioware seem to be about. SWtOR is almost crazy. It's a good game and deserves better reception than it has got, but still - a MMORPG for watching endless, cinematic, voice acted dialogues? A MMORPG? - I mean...

I get this strong feeling, that a lot of involved persons think that the only thing they have to provide is a movie, broken up with combat stints. Combat is supposed to be the gameplay.
 
So what I'm saying, is that I suspect this cinematic-mantra, that Bioware nowadays lives with, is hurting all other aspects of their games. In particular I suspect that some bad, overriding decisions are made, just because they have to, because no 1 concern is always about cinematics.

Place roleplay, gameplay and story in the focus again.
 
By all means continue experimenting with cinematics, if you think it's so hot. But stop making it the focus. Don't ever 'explain' a lack of a feature, or a poor feature, or a flaw, with wordings that start with "for a cinematic game,.."
If cinematics solutions clash with gameplay features, it's the cinematic solutions which should be slashed.
 
Even for a maker of "cinematic" games, cinematics should be the fourth concern. Not the only. Not the first.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm a bit confused then.

Is the issue cinematics, or is the issue maintaining control over the player character while they're going on? (I consider both Half-Life's to be very cinematic games. Both are also games I highly regard)

[Allan Schumacher]

Or to the more extreme, it's being told that elves are proud of their culture and the like during dialogue and specific when called for scenes, but none of this is on display when you are actually walking around the world itself. It's the way the world segregates itself based on what this specific scene calls for at this specific moment rather than what this place in the world calls for, for it to be a place in a world.

This is a fair criticism. If we could incorporate both into the game world, I imagine it'd be less of an issue for you? It's more along the lines of, if you have to choose between the two, you'd definitely prefer it to be in game. Correct? It looks like that's what you're alluding to in the following sentence anyways.

[Allan Schumacher]

If we were just milking the franchise, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to save on programming dollars and just pump out as many games as possible with the Eclipse engine?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 04 juillet 2012 - 08:23 .

[Allan Schumacher]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If we were just milking the franchise, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to save on programming dollars and just pump out as many games as possible with the Eclipse engine?

It's all about the merchandising.

You're right!  I totally forgot!
(Love that movie)

[Allan Schumacher]

However, DA:O does also have a number of extremely well-sold DLC and an expansion to boot, which boosts its overall net sales to exceed ME3... but ME3 isn't done with its DLC, so we'll see how much those sell (or if an ExPack could happen) in the future for ME3.

ME3 does have the MTX packs for multiplayer too.

[Allan Schumacher]

@Melca36

Make sure to keep in mind that the ESA is pretty indiscriminate in determining gamers. I think it's fair, but it will include a lot of people that pick up games like Angry Birds for their phone, or actively play social games as well.


Though that link did make me sad as a PC gamer

[Allan Schumacher]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Valve is not a member of the ESA. Also, a lot of other PC-specific devs and distributors are not there. Not sure if that means a lot. Also, ESA has been known to be more console centric.

Well that is certainly good news for us PC Gamers hahaha.

I don't know how the ESA gets all of their data either, so if there's gaps I hope it's in the PC segments

As for those stats....I think its GREAT that 47% of the gamers are now women.

Me too.  I never cared for a game like The Sims, but when I hear that more women played it than men, it piques my interest in terms of its contribution to gaming.  I like The Sims as a sort of "Gateway drug" into gaming.  Same with consoles like the Wii, which don't appeal to me in the slightest but do appeal to non-traditional gamers.  Suddenly some of them are picking up other consoles and trying other games and whatnot.  Good for the industry

Total War franchise - the later is the most interesting as according to
polls main playerbase is 25 and 30+ years old. They fare quite well and
nice without radical changes.

As a Total War fan I disagree.  IMO there's been pretty significant changes and in my mind the original Medieval: Total War is still their best product.  I liked Rome once modders got a hold of it, and I did think that Shogun 2 was well done.  But all these games play quite a bit differently than the original Medieval: Total War, which I found to be a much more versatile and interesting game.

[Allan Schumacher]

Quite a few people have stated that they felt that Hawke was not 'their' Hawke, but BioWare's.

There are still many people wanting to play their Warden again.

By the same token, there's an extremely large and loud group of people that feel that Commander Shepard was "their Shepard" which makes me wonder if whether or not someone feels that Hawke is "BioWare's" and not "theirs" is symptomatic of something else other than cinematic cutscenes, voiced protagonists, and dialogue wheels.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sure, but Shepard is Shepard. The Warden or Bhaalspawn could be any number of races or backgrounds. The Warden can be a Cousland, Aeducan, Amell and so forth. With Shepard or Hawke you're just creating a slightly different version of a fixed character.

As for people feeling BioWare owns a character like Hawke as opposed to the player, I think its not necessarily symptomatic of some other feature but more all of those features (voice acting, dialogue wheel, animations, cinematics) taken together and once combined give the feeling of a lack of control or agency when BioWare tries to force character on the PC without player input. Even ME3 was pretty bad at this with Shep's forced PTSD nightmares and autodialogue. There is no way "my" Shepard would have done some of that.

The point I was more making though is that in spite of Shepard having VO, using dialogue wheels, and cutscenes, there doesn't appear to be any shortage of people that feel that the Shepard they play is "their Shepard." They have ownership over the character in their minds, and you're right that many didn't like the dreams and whatnot because of it.

To me, it seems more like the issue is the dream sequences in ME3, because had they existed even if Mass Effect let you play a more blank slate, silent protagonist, people would have had the same issues. But even though Shepard used a dialogue wheel, had full voice acting, and it was a cinematic game, many people still felt that Shepard was "theirs."

Obviously for some it will be a deal breaker (it comes up a lot here), but it seems for also a large group many don't seem to feel that these things are a significant barrier to Shepard being their own character.

I think you're right that player agency is the key. Do those that feel Shepard can be "theirs" have a different degree of granularity for what they require for agency? Picking decisions and quest paths on a high level may be sufficient, whereas a gesture or a facial expression is less of an issue for them? By the opposite account, someone such as yourself has a much finer granularity and the smaller details are still just as important (maybe more important)?

[David Gaider]

Sorry, folks, but we're not dropping the focus on cinematics. This is just what we do, and while it may not be everyone's cup of tea (and may lead to dramatic pronouncements regarding our prospects) it's something we think works. So while many things are up for discussion, this isn't one of them.

[David Gaider]

Welsh Inferno wrote...
What kind of things are up for discussion?

Just wondering as it seems most discussions on what fans want in the DA boards get shot down by staff. Would be easier for people to know what they can actually have an impact on is all i'm saying.

That depends on what you mean by "discussion".

There are some things we know for certain, because they're fundamental design decisions. If you guys start throwing around these things as if they're up for discussion, we'll step in and say "no, that's not something we're going to change" as there's no point in having you run around in circles regarding things that simply are never going to happen. Not that this will stop you from running around in circles regardless (as there's evidently a certain attraction to doomsaying in these parts), but I don't see a problem in bringing it up in the few places where the knowledge is a given.

For most other things, you're free to discuss them however you like, as usual-- this isn't a committee. Occasionally we might bring up a particular topic and ask for feedback... and that'll become more likely as we proceed, especially after we have the chance to show what we're actually up to. Until that point, after all, all the fans have to do is discuss what they did or didn't like about DA2 and conjecture.

Modifié par David Gaider, 09 juillet 2012 - 04:02 .

[David Gaider]

Wulfram wrote...
Is the degree of focus set in stone yet?

I mean, I'd say that the DA and ME series are all cinemetic games, but It would appear to me that ME3 is more focused on it than DA2 and ME2, which were more cinematic than DA:O.

I don't think DA has ever been as cinematic-oriented as ME, and that's unlikely to change. Whether it's as cinematic as some here might like is a different question, but I'm afraid it's not an approach we're going to alter based on forum feedback.

[David Gaider]

Cimeas wrote...
Cinematics are great, but are you planning on making Cinematics more interactive.   So insted of being a 'choose your own custscene' they actually happen ingame.  Kind of like how in Alpha Protocol you could still move around the room when you were getting mission briefings.   The thing is that I find myself space-barring through some dialogue nowadays in Bioware games, because there's just so much of it.     That's why I love the background banter during missions, because I can enjoy the conversation while actually doing something, ie. running to a questgiver.   Locking everyone into set cutscenes is great when they involve movement (being knocked down) or a big exposition, or are being used to draw the player's attention [SPOILER](Anders blowing up the Chantry), but when I hand back a mission or chat to a companion, Im not sure if the player needs to be locked into a cinematic, as it were.

I think there is some effort to have more of what we call "ambient cinematics", which means cinematic elements (and dialogue) that don't remove player control while they are underway, but exactly how we're doing this is in flux. So until it's set it's not something we'll discuss very much.

[David Gaider]

jillabender wrote...
I think it depends on what kind of control you're looking for. I can't help but think that anyone looking for the same kind of control over a voiced protagonist that they had over a silent one like the Warden will probably be disappointed.

I'd say this is correct. If someone expects that we will spend out time trying to "fix" the dialogue system to satisfy those whose problems with it are fundamental, especially by weakening the strengths of that approach, that's simply not going to happen.

[David Gaider]

jillabender wrote...
My impression is that Bioware recognizes that the dialogue wheel system needs work. Although I can't speak for Bioware, it sounds like they're willing to work on refining the system – they just feel that recreating certain aspects of the silent-PC style with a voiced protagonist simply isn't possible, and that trying to do so would take away from the advantages offered by a voiced PC.

This is completely correct.

[Allan Schumacher]

In regard to the Shepherd comments being made, there are two obstacles to the logic that Shepherd is voiced, people have 'their Shepherds', ergo people can connect with a VO character.

The first fallacy is that while there are people (like myself) who liked and played ME and DA, not every DA player likes ME and vice versa. So what works in one group may not work in another.

If I'm guilty of making a fallacy by equating DA players and ME players (which I didn't think I did), then you're also guilty of summarily dismissing that there may be an overlap.

This is not a recommendation to have set characters going forward. But it is an indictment that a VO only works with a more set protagonist.

After reading the rest of your post, your conclusions ends up becoming a straw man. The issue brought forth is whether or not people can feel as though the a PC can still feel like their own character despite cinematics and VO (and even the dialogue wheel). That VO works better with a character that has a more established back story doesn't appear to preclude someone from feeling ownership over that character.

What you did was demonstrate that people can take a set protagonist with an established history, and still take full ownership of the character to the point where people believe it is "their Shepard." Perhaps character ownership is better reflected in a wide scale with in game player agency rather than backstory?

Is it better to have a blank slate with a story that is quite linear with absolutely no player agency, or a "pregen" character that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 10 juillet 2012 - 05:21 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Is it better to have a blank slate with a story that is quite linear with absolutely no player agency, or a "pregen" character that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

False dichotomy.  As BioWare demonstrated several times with their pre-voice games, we can have a blank slate PC while also being allowed to make a wide variety of choices.

KotOR is probably the best example.  It offered a branching plot, genuine consequences, and a blank slate character.

It's not a false dichotomy.  I'm asking a direct question.  At no point did I indicate that the two were mutually exclusive.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think the problem is that your question sounded more like a statement. It helps if the question marks get typed instead of periods.

Fair point, it should have been a question mark not a period (I'm not a writer nor an editor hahaha). That paragraph through was led into with the following question as a transition in the previous paragraph: "Perhaps character ownership is better reflected in a wide scale with in game player agency rather than backstory?"

I think the point comes down to how a gamer wishes to roleplay. Some
feel it would be better to have a blank slate character with a linear
story if the gamer feels it gives the gamer better ownership of the PC.
Others can roleplay either way because they slip into the role. The best
possible is to have a blank slate character with a multitude of
choices.

No doubt different people are going to have different preferences.  This board is reflective of that IMO.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 10 juillet 2012 - 06:04 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Its better to have a blank slate with a story that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

No disagreement here!

When discussing what makes a player feel like they have ownership of the character, this thread did remind me that many feel like Shepard is "their Shepard" in Mass Effect, in spite of voiced characters, cinematics, and even the dialogue wheel.

Obviously there's a divide somewhere. I find that interesting. Where is it? What allows some player that takes a character like Shepard and still feel as though it's the player's story, whereas another feels its too much of a pregen and a hurdle they must overcome in order to enjoy the game?

[Allan Schumacher]

I think theres a difference between "my story" and feeling as if it were myself as the character. All stories I play, Shephard or the Warden were my own stories. Whether or not I play actor or director shouldn't really change that since it is I who is making the decisions. The question is, is it me? or is it the character I control? The more I feel I am the character, (as in the first person focus of DA:O) the more personal it is and I think the line between "my story" and "I'm actually the hero" is a bit gray in most discussions.

Now I'm wondering if we're discussing the same thing.

I can project myself onto Shepard, but I do agree that at no point do I consider myself to actually be the hero.

Is the failing for you that you cannot sufficiently place yourself as the protagonist? (just trying to reconcile all the different perspectives).