778 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasquale1234]

JennDragonAge wrote...

I agree. For me, the gameplay is nothing more than a way to continue to keep me Immersed in the story. For me, the story and interactivity are the most important features.

Gameplay should be the raison d'être for a game. There are other mediums better suited for storytelling.

Also:  gameplay == interactivity.

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
I like the cinematics, they're fun to
watch. I should probably add something about how they make me connect
with a character or some shizz to lend weight to my argument, but
really, I just enjoy watching them.

I don't dislike them in general, but I really hate their overuse.  For my part, less is more when it comes to cutscenes in games.  They have much more impact when used sparingly, and only for climatic moments.

In an RPG, I want to be involved in co-creating the story.  Every second I spend watching cutscenes is a second I'm not actively playing the game.

[JennDragonAge]

Pasquale1234 wrote...



Gameplay should be the raison d'être for a game. There are other mediums better suited for storytelling.

Also:  gameplay == interactivity.

Sorry, that was unclear. When I said gameplay, I was referring to the actual combat. You are correct in saying that gameplay encompasses much more. I'll edit.

Modifié par JennDragonAge, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:30 .

[Darth Death]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Times are changing bro. Worst for the old timers & better for the young folks.

The unconvincing way DA2, ME3 and SWtOR sells, and the way the console game market is slowly, but surely, collapsing, suggests it's not better for young folks. You're just soliticing, and listening to a small, misrepresentative clique.

They may become the end of Bioware. We'll see. My money is on Bethesda, and others who try to deliver a more involved and interesting experience.

You've misinterpreted my comment, but I'll will not correct you for my sake.  

[Pasquale1234]

JennDragonAge wrote...

Sorry, that was unclear. When I said gameplay, I was referring to the actual combat. You are correct in saying that gameplay encompasses much more. I'll edit.

Thanks for the clarification.

With DA2, I can understand that combat might be equated to gameplay, since so many other gameplay elements were stripped down.  Combat + dialog and a couple of puzzles were pretty much it - although I do recall one quest where you needed to cap some barrels spewing gas during combat.  One of my favorites in the entire game, probably because it was just different.

[bEVEsthda]

Darth Death wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Times are changing bro. Worst for the old timers & better for the young folks.

The unconvincing way DA2, ME3 and SWtOR sells, and the way the console game market is slowly, but surely, collapsing, suggests it's not better for young folks. You're just soliticing, and listening to a small, misrepresentative clique.

They may become the end of Bioware. We'll see. My money is on Bethesda, and others who try to deliver a more involved and interesting experience.

You've misinterpreted my comment, but I'll will not correct you for my sake.  

But now you made me curious. And also feeling like a daft bulldozer. Did you mean the changes, comparatively, aren't so worst for young folks?  Or that times are actually, generally, better, and young folks are better off?

[bEVEsthda]

simfamSP wrote...

Mass Effect was a pretty great RPG, cinematics? Check!
KOTRO was a pretty great RPG, cinematics? Check!
The Witcher 2 is a pretty great RPG, cinematics? Check!

Cinematics isn't the reasong BioWare dropped the ball on those occasions. It's the whip at their backs held by a company we all know and hate: EA.

But EA has quality standards. It's just that they wouldn't recognize cRPG quality, unless it has an awesome button. Which still brings us back to the mystery why ME3 shipped. -> The cinematics looked fine. While cinematics lack value to me, it's not cinematics, as such, I attack. It's the singleminded focus on them, "we have chosen to make cinematic games, bla, bla, thus, because,..", which overruns other, more important things.

[Sylvius the Mad]

bEVEsthda wrote...

CrustyBot wrote...

Are you a fan of KotOR, bEVEsthda?

Funny you should mention that.

I never saw KotOR as an ambitious RPG. For that reason I never paid attention before it was released on PC. At that time, I also thought by "cinematics" Bioware meant the bringing the camera down, shooting the gameplay like a movie. I didn't realize they had ambitions to start making movies.

But yeah, I liked KotOR. I thought it had a great Star Wars atmosphere.

"Fan"? Nope. Not if you mean like BG, DA (pre DA2) or TES.

I blamed KotOR's more cinematic presentation on the technical limitations of the original XBox.  KotOR was an XBox exclusive title, and only ported to PC later.  To that point, BioWare had never made a PC game that incorporated cinematics into gameplay at all.  BG, BG2, and NWN did nothing of the sort.

Thie first BioWare PC game to do that was DAO, and even then the cinematic presentation was limited to traditional conversations (silent PC, full text) and exposition (Ostagar, Zevran, etc).  So no, I saw no trend toward cinematics in their games.  I certanly saw no trend away from tactical gameplay and player control.  That came out of nowhere in DA2.

[deuce985]

bEVEsthda wrote...

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.

Firstly, I'd like to point out Mass Effect 3 is not a Deus Ex Machina ending. If you read sci-fi, then you know the definition behind this. If you paid attention to the writing, you saw this coming since ME1. They showed it all through the three games and the themes with how powerful the Reapers were.. At the beginning of ME3, they established a super weapon is being made. Therefore, ME3 can't be a Deus Ex Machina ending because you expect it. The same thing with the trilogy, you can't say it's a Deus Ex Machina ending for the trilogy because they stayed consistent with the writing all throughout the franchise. They showed you no other way. It was never a surprise.

Secondly, I don't agree that cinematics are hurting their games. I think it goes back to fundamental problems. Personally, I want them to keep expanding off the cinematic approach because it creates more immersion for me as a player. I'd even argue, from a RP aspect, it's even better. At least for me.

Lastly, you make an assumption that cinematics are hurting their games. The problem with this is we don't know what goes on in development. I do think Bioware focuses too many resources in certain areas. Is cinematics one of these areas? I can't say for sure. I don't know what budget or resources Bioware has at their disposal either.

I'm just curious, what do you think is being hurt from the gameplay standpoint because of cinematics?

Modifié par deuce985, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:33 .

[bEVEsthda]

Filament wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
While cinematics lack value to me, it's not cinematics, as such, I attack. It's the singleminded focus on them, "we have chosen to make cinematic games, bla, bla, thus, because,..", which overruns other, more important things.

I'm sure they'll continue to focus on what's important to them.

Sure.

That's selfevident and certain.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:03 .

[deuce985]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Filament wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
While cinematics lack value to me, it's not cinematics, as such, I attack. It's the singleminded focus on them, "we have chosen to make cinematic games, bla, bla, thus, because,..", which overruns other, more important things.

I'm sure they'll continue to focus on what's important to them.

Sure.

That's as selfevident and certain, as, for example, - that EA-stealth posters, either they are viral marketing or EA-marketing dudes on their own time, is of no help whatsoever, in discerning what should be important to them.

No offense but you make a lot of assertions in this thread...

I'm not trying to flame, it's just an observation.

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

As long as we're comparing DA to Mass Effect, I think it should be mentioned that Mordin's character arc was an engaging and emotional gaming experience and that it wouldn't have been nearly as effective without the cinematics.

Also, that ending, divisive scene from DA2 (not going to explicitly say it because this is non-spoilers)? My jaw was on the floor. I know that other people had issues with it, but regardless, it definitely stirred people's emotions.

I think what people really want is more player agency, which is probably doable without sacrificing cinematic progress. jmo

Modifié par JustifiablyDefenestrated, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:44 .

[Sir JK]

This thread got me thinking. The argument that Bioware should tone down the focus on cinematics and focus on the important bits sounds all well and good. Story and roleplaying should always come first, right? That's what most of us are here for I dare say.

But doesn't the typical bioware game tell most of it's story through cinematics? The first plot point ever, Gorion's murder, is essentially a cinematic. Yes, the gui is still visible. Yes, we can see the to hit rolls. But for the sake of the story your character is controlled by the game to flee and you have no input over that whatsoever. It makes use of visuals, sound and background to establish an emotion. A cinematic, of sorts. It happens a few other times as well.
Baldur's gate 2 does this in an even greater extent. Several times per chapter even.

Nwn does this less, I think. There's a few of them, but they are there. And from KotOR and on virtually all dialogue is run through a semi-cinematic system.

Looking back at that, I wonder if it isn't those cinematics that have brought with it much of what we love of the current bioware games. Most of the plot is narrated through cinematics of various kinds and with it all the characterisation that we praise so much. Very little of that is provided to us through other means.

So if they are to tone down the focus on cinematics, how do you propose they're to present the plot to us? How are they to flesh out characters? Express emotion? Establish the mood of a scene (not to be confused with the mood of a character)?
Cinematics are by no means the only tool which can convey that, but it is a useful one. Ambient narration and gameplay narration exist as well and have their uses, certainly. But can they really pick up the slack? Textboxes are another tool yes, but NWN isn't exactly known for it's fantastic characterisation. Is the loss of animation, facial expression worth it?

Basically, how can bioware tone down the cinematics without toning down story?

Or is perhaps the problem the implementation of cinematics, rather than the cinematics themselves?

And please, most of this is a continous argument. Splitting this post up will only take my words out of their context.

[bEVEsthda]

deuce985 wrote...
I'm just curious, what do you think is being hurt from the gameplay standpoint because of cinematics?

I have no intentions to discuss your opinion on the ME3 ending with you. Sorry, wrong forum.

I think I've explained my other views enough times in this thread, so you just have to read again, for all your other points.
I never made the specific case that cinematics hurt their games from a gameplay standpoint.
 
I do think so. But if that was the kind of details I wanted to discuss now, I'd make a thread about that, and not about the *focus*. There has been a number of such threads before, and the various dialogue wheel, voiced protagonist, iconic look threads are certainly very related. My point is rather that judgement and choices seem to be made from the "we make cinematic games", rather than considering the whole picture.

[bEVEsthda]

deuce985 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Filament wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
While cinematics lack value to me, it's not cinematics, as such, I attack. It's the singleminded focus on them, "we have chosen to make cinematic games, bla, bla, thus, because,..", which overruns other, more important things.

I'm sure they'll continue to focus on what's important to them.

Sure.

That's selfevident and certain.

No offense but you make a lot of assertions in this thread...

I'm not trying to flame, it's just an observation.

Is it *fixed* now?
Does that editing make any difference?

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:06 .

[Fredward]

Sir JK wrote...

This thread got me thinking. The argument that Bioware should tone down the focus on cinematics and focus on the important bits sounds all well and good. Story and roleplaying should always come first, right? That's what most of us are here for I dare say.

But doesn't the typical bioware game tell most of it's story through cinematics? The first plot point ever, Gorion's murder, is essentially a cinematic. Yes, the gui is still visible. Yes, we can see the to hit rolls. But for the sake of the story your character is controlled by the game to flee and you have no input over that whatsoever. It makes use of visuals, sound and background to establish an emotion. A cinematic, of sorts. It happens a few other times as well.
Baldur's gate 2 does this in an even greater extent. Several times per chapter even.

Nwn does this less, I think. There's a few of them, but they are there. And from KotOR and on virtually all dialogue is run through a semi-cinematic system.

Looking back at that, I wonder if it isn't those cinematics that have brought with it much of what we love of the current bioware games. Most of the plot is narrated through cinematics of various kinds and with it all the characterisation that we praise so much. Very little of that is provided to us through other means.

So if they are to tone down the focus on cinematics, how do you propose they're to present the plot to us? How are they to flesh out characters? Express emotion? Establish the mood of a scene (not to be confused with the mood of a character)?
Cinematics are by no means the only tool which can convey that, but it is a useful one. Ambient narration and gameplay narration exist as well and have their uses, certainly. But can they really pick up the slack? Textboxes are another tool yes, but NWN isn't exactly known for it's fantastic characterisation. Is the loss of animation, facial expression worth it?

Basically, how can bioware tone down the cinematics without toning down story?

Or is perhaps the problem the implementation of cinematics, rather than the cinematics themselves?

And please, most of this is a continous argument. Splitting this post up will only take my words out of their context.

Awwww. I just love it when people manage to say what I want to but without the rambly and off topic bits.

Basically what he said. Of course now the question is, which is more important? The story or the gameplay? Personally I choose story all teh time, so if cinematics continue to contribute to the story they can make a frickin movie with occasional fight scenes for all I care. I do want to keep mah choices though. xp

[bEVEsthda]

Sir JK wrote...
Basically, how can bioware tone down the cinematics without toning down story?

Or is perhaps the problem the implementation of cinematics, rather than the cinematics themselves?

If cinematics is only an artistic choice in how to present the game, like bringing down the camera, like some auto control of camera, like animating faces of npcs, I see no problem in cinematics for a 3'rd person or party game.

If it means interjecting cutscenes, where the player has no control, or just limited dialogue control, there is a very real potential for problems. There doesn't need to be. But there could be. One obvious and old example, is: - how is the party positioned when we exit the cutscene?

If it means changing gameplay features, like how we equip our party, like how dialogue is handled, like how much control we have over actions and dialogue, like how the protagonist must be, - then we are deep into trouble country.
If this deep trouble country is then only justified with a: "but we make cinematic games", I'm kinda dubious that this will end well.

Before DA2, I wouldn't bother to question cinematics.

Since after DA:O, we have seen "we make cinematic games"  been frequently used on these forums, by Bioware, to explain or justify various planned details which were questioned by the forum. What eventually emerged didn't convince.

I think DA2, SWtOR and ME3 may all be examples (individually different) where somebody was not prepared to see the weaknesses. And my theory is sort of that an obsession with "we shall make cinematic games" (does it translate into: "if we just make it more cinematic, all will be well". ?) has helped obscure the vitals. The bigger corporative organisation may also be a catalyst, in losing important details.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:00 .

[ItsTheTruth]

I don't know about you but if there is not one explosion every 5 minutes my attention level drops dramatically. My favorite movie is Transformers 3, and my favorite game Mass Effect 3 (I just loved the turret sequence in the middle of the farewell scene at the London base!).

[Fast Jimmy]

ItsTheTruth wrote...

I don't know about you but if there is not one explosion every 5 minutes my attention level drops dramatically. My favorite movie is Transformers 3, and my favorite game Mass Effect 3 (I just loved the turret sequence in the middle of the farewell scene at the London base!).

[Sir JK]

The concern is thus about losing narrative control, rather than cinematics themselves, if I understand you correctly? The fear that you'll have less input over what and how to roleplay your character because of the specific techniques employed.
I can symapthize, but I do not think you should blame the cinematic approach. After all, how a story is told is shaped by what story it is. That fundament goes back to the very beginning of storytelling itself. You don't tell a joke the same way you tell a ghost story.

It is the story, not the medium, that should limit your choices.

Yes, you do not write a book the same way you write a tv show and a game is like neither of the two. One reason is that in a book you can only experience the story through one sense whereas in a televised medium you can experience it with two. Music and voice can be used to accentuate or even replace certain wording. Thus, by similar reasoning, a silent protagonist needs to be written in a different fashion than a voiced one. The tone of their voice can allow them to use a more ambigous wording for instance. However, this need not limit the player in the expression of their character. Partly because even in the most liberally interpreted lines, the npc will still respond and react according to predetermined patterns.

Similarily, other features of the cinematic approach comes with it's own challenges. A cutscene does impose itself on the gameplay yes, but it can also allow the game to move your character in fashions that the gameplay cannot (like say, climbing a ladder) or more smoothly emulate conversations (as you may note, very few people sit completely still when talking). They have their limitations, their consequences and they have their advantages.
But again, they don't neccessarily impose much on the narrative control you have on your character. The issue is once more implementation.

Therefore I think the more important discussion(s) isn't whether it is a mistake to aim at a cinematic experience as a whole. But rather, how to design them in order to maximise narrative control (both in terms of creation and manipulation) for the player. For instance what a cutscene may or may not do with the player character. Or perhaps whether individual elements or techniques (such as a voiced PC) are the best methods to attain a certain goal. Or even if there's alternative ways of delivering the same amount and quality of the narrative that we desire.

Many cinematic techniques have been developed the past century and I suspect many more will come. More than a few ought to be suitable for the games we all desire and the stories we want bioware to help us tell.

Modifié par Sir JK, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:56 .

[bEVEsthda]

Sir JK wrote...

The concern is thus about losing narrative control, rather than cinematics themselves, if I understand you correctly? The fear that you'll have less input over what and how to roleplay your character because of the specific techniques employed.
I can symapthize, but I do not think you should blame the cinematic approach. After all, how a story is told is shaped by what story it is. That fundament goes back to the very beginning of storytelling itself. You don't tell a joke the same way you tell a ghost story.

It is the story, not the medium, that should limit your choices.

Yes, you do not write a book the same way you write a tv show and a game is like neither of the two. One reason is that in a book you can only experience the story through one sense whereas in a televised medium you can experience it with two. Music and voice can be used to accentuate or even replace certain wording. Thus, by similar reasoning, a silent protagonist needs to be written in a different fashion than a voiced one. The tone of their voice can allow them to use a more ambigous wording for instance. However, this need not limit the player in the expression of their character. Partly because even in the most liberally interpreted lines, the npc will still respond and react according to predetermined patterns.

Similarily, other features of the cinematic approach comes with it's own challenges. A cutscene does impose itself on the gameplay yes, but it can also allow the game to move your character in fashions that the gameplay cannot (like say, climbing a ladder) or more smoothly emulate conversations (as you may note, very few people sit completely still when talking). They have their limitations, their consequences and they have their advantages.
But again, they don't neccessarily impose much on the narrative control you have on your character. The issue is once more implementation.

Therefore I think the more important discussion(s) isn't whether it is a mistake to aim at a cinematic experience as a whole. But rather, how to design them in order to maximise narrative control (both in terms of creation and manipulation) for the player. For instance what a cutscene may or may not do with the player character. Or perhaps whether individual elements or techniques (such as a voiced PC) are the best methods to attain a certain goal. Or even if there's alternative ways of delivering the same amount and quality of the narrative that we desire.

Many cinematic techniques have been developed the past century and I suspect many more will come. More than a few ought to be suitable for the games we all desire and the stories we want bioware to help us tell.

(I don't really understand why so many insist on reading "drop focus on cinematics" as "drop cinematics". )

The main concern was actually that Bioware seem to have lost the overview of what's important. And they seem to have lost that with the help of overemphasis on cinematics. Otherwise:

Correct. And one of the challenges Bioware have now built for themselves, is to make voiced protagonist + dialogue wheel work. And to just make it a bit more difficult, to spice things up, they also intend to keep 'iconic looks' for npcs, albeit tweaked.  For what? Better cinematics? What is that worth? What will it cost?

I wish them all good luck. For my sake, because I want DA to survive. As far as DA:O got, it's the closest to my dream RPG franchise. For Bioware, because I suspect they're banking a significant part of their remaining credibility on the outcome.

A gamble. What drives them to that gamble?

And why didn't they see anything wrong with DA2, SWtOR and ME3?
(To be fair: I do think SWtOR is somewhat unfairly received).

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:32 .

[Pzykozis]

I would like a change from cinematic storytelling to in game storytelling (show don't tell), that is telling or rather showing the story through clever usage of the environment and having npcs actually interact with the world I can't help but feel the world is abit seperate from the people that inhabit it like they're ghosts or something... cinematics do have their place and to a certain extent you can do more interesting animation work and the like to bring characters to life due to the nature of cinematics but mm though Skyrim suffers from a lack of focus on strong storytelling I still loved the bit with the blades at skyhaven temple, and similarly the masters of the thu'um. DA games so far have felt very limited and stiff when it comes to the presentation of the world via characters and the world itself.

[bEVEsthda]

Pzykozis wrote...

I would like a change from cinematic storytelling to in game storytelling (show don't tell), that is telling or rather showing the story through clever usage of the environment and having npcs actually interact with the world I can't help but feel the world is abit seperate from the people that inhabit it like they're ghosts or something... cinematics do have their place and to a certain extent you can do more interesting animation work and the like to bring characters to life due to the nature of cinematics but mm though Skyrim suffers from a lack of focus on strong storytelling I still loved the bit with the blades at skyhaven temple, and similarly the masters of the thu'um. DA games so far have felt very limited and stiff when it comes to the presentation of the world via characters and the world itself.

Did you play the original Halflife? Back in the days?