778 réponses à ce sujet

[Maclimes]

This looks like it's devolving into another "Define RPG" threads. I expect it to be closed soon.

[AkiKishi]

Maclimes wrote...

This looks like it's devolving into another "Define RPG" threads. I expect it to be closed soon.

I leave it to Amazon.

[Pygmali0n]

I don't see cutscenes as the game, but the noises coming from BW indicate that they are only going to become more and more dominant.

Cutscenes are generally defining moments - will focusing on them within a limited time frame, instead of the game and story, prevent creating such things as the diverse possibilities of Alistair's fate in DA:O?

Will this greater focus on cinematics continue to lead instead to monstrosities such as the Mass Effect 3 ending?

SPOILER (Mass Effect 3 ending)

Evidence so far is... yes.

Edit: Already saw the danger Maclimes, hopefully pulled up just in time.

Modifié par Pygmali0n, 19 juillet 2012 - 03:16 .

[AkiKishi]

Pygmali0n wrote...

I don't see cutscenes as the game, but the noises coming from BW indicate that they are only going to become more and more dominant.

Cutscenes are generally defining moments - will focusing on them within a limited time frame, instead of the game and story, prevent creating such things as the diverse possibilities of Alistair's fate in DA:O?

Will this greater focus on cinematics continue to lead instead to monstrosities such as the Mass Effect 3 ending?



Edit: Already saw the danger Maclimes, hopefully pulled up just in time.

Cutscenes are seen as defining moments because they were uncommon. Once they become common they are no longer defining.
In JRPGs you usually get the defining moments in CG high quality the rest done with the engine like so.

This is the Tidus Yuna scene  
Here is the normal FFX cutscene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNu2EnFpXZE 
Killing Seymour with his own mother priceless.

Since we are doing endings here are FFX-2's endings which vary depending on what you did during the game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bshPJCgY2tU

Modifié par BobSmith101, 19 juillet 2012 - 03:26 .

[Pasquale1234]

Pygmali0n wrote...

Cutscenes are generally defining moments - will focusing on them within a limited time frame, instead of the game and story, prevent creating such things as the diverse possibilities of Alistair's fate in DA:O?

Will this greater focus on cinematics continue to lead instead to monstrosities such as the Mass Effect 3 ending?

SPOILER (Mass Effect 3 ending)

Evidence so far is... yes.

That would also be my expectation.

We've also seen a number of other restrictions that go hand-in-hand with the greater focus on cinematic presentation - like racial choice, conversing with companions anywhere, no customization of companions, etc. - because those things make it more difficult / costly to setup cinematic sequences.

I'd suggest that this new focus on cinematics is not purely an enahncement, but an exchange - because of the other things that have been sacrificed for it.

ETA:

BobSmith101 wrote...

Cutscenes are seen as defining moments because they were uncommon. Once they become common they are no longer defining.

Agreed.  They have much more impact when they are confined to those defining moments, and served as player rewards.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 19 juillet 2012 - 03:35 .

[Il Divo]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
I'd argue that's all RPGs ever were. Or at least, the best aspects of them.

But you can't argue that.

It really is that simple. Despite all arguments and attacks by FF and DA2 fans, here in these forums over the past year, you can't argue about how others experience the games.

You can only tell us what the game is to you.

And this last statement, by you, is highly consistent with the opinions you have voiced earlier. So I can't say it comes as a surprise to me. Another thing that it doesn't do, is mean anything at all to me. It changes nothing for me.

You did ask why should anyone call that an RPG. I simply provided the reason. Interactive movie, in many cases, does sum up what people are after in their RPGs.

[Pygmali0n]

Ok Bob, but apart from having to bleach my eyes after the Tidus Yuna scene, what's your position on player choice and agency?

Firstly, do you accept that they will suffer with more cinematics as current technology, time and resources stand?

Secondly, do you prefer cutscenes over making choices and alternative outcomes?

[Cimeas]

I think that as Bioware become better at custom cinematics, at offering choice, and at improving their workflow from story-recording-animating-game, we will see more choice come back.

At some point the sacrifice had to be made, and RPGs lost a lot of complexity when voice acting came along. However I think that slowly that complexity will return, now that the underlying voice acting and it's integration into games is getting easier.

[AkiKishi]

Pygmali0n wrote...

Ok Bob, but apart from having to bleach my eyes after the Tidus Yuna scene, what's your position on player choice and agency?

Firstly, do you accept that they will suffer with more cinematics as current technology, time and resources stand?

Secondly, do you prefer cutscenes over making choices and alternative outcomes?

I'm only a supporter of player choice when it has meaning.

Choosing whether to give Iorveth his sword. That's a choice . Choosing whether to be a doormat a smartass or a dick but ending up at the same place is not.

If the question is do I see choosing between being a doormat a smartass or a dick as better than watching a crafted scene where that choice is pre-made ? I do not since it's not really a choice anyway. If you were to change the Iorveth scene in the same way, then that would be a huge loss.

Atelier has 18 different endings yet you never choose from a menu or a dialogue wheel. Would I prefer 18 different endings without menu/dialogue wheel or one ending like DA2. I'd pick the endings since that gives what i've done meaning. Ending up at the same spot is fake player agency.

[Pygmali0n]

Unfortunately I don't see how that can happen in DA3 Cimeas, with more cinematics and paraphrasing, choice must suffer.

(on a sidenote am impressed by David Gaider's blog post on character looks - that I see as a good example of improving and integrating DA2 changes).

[NKKKK]

Bioware in 10 years, the leading innovators of the western Visual Novel genre.

[Pygmali0n]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Pygmali0n wrote...

Ok Bob, but apart from having to bleach my eyes after the Tidus Yuna scene, what's your position on player choice and agency?

Firstly, do you accept that they will suffer with more cinematics as current technology, time and resources stand?

Secondly, do you prefer cutscenes over making choices and alternative outcomes?

I'm only a supporter of player choice when it has meaning.

Choosing whether to give Iorveth his sword. That's a choice . Choosing whether to be a doormat a smartass or a dick but ending up at the same place is not.

If the question is do I see choosing between being a doormat a smartass or a dick as better than watching a crafted scene where that choice is pre-made ? I do not since it's not really a choice anyway. If you were to change the Iorveth scene in the same way, then that would be a huge loss.

Atelier has 18 different endings yet you never choose from a menu or a dialogue wheel. Would I prefer 18 different endings without menu/dialogue wheel or one ending like DA2. I'd pick the endings since that gives what i've done meaning. Ending up at the same spot is fake player agency.

Can't argue with you there Bob - but we need to ignore DA2 in this instance - choosing by the colours of the wheel in DA2 made more sense than the actual words.

The question is not against DA2 fake choice - the question is because of the limited development time EA allow, do you want real choice or cutscenes? I think you'd want the choices - whether made explicitly in conversation or implicitly in game.

[AkiKishi]

Pygmali0n wrote...
Can't argue with you there Bob - but we need to ignore DA2 in this instance - choosing by the colours of the wheel in DA2 made more sense than the actual words.

The question is not against DA2 fake choice - the question is because of the limited development time EA allow, do you want real choice or cutscenes? I think you'd want the choices - whether made explicitly in conversation or implicitly in game.

What I want as far as cinematic RPGs go is the Witcher2/Deus Ex:HR.

Now while you can't roleplay those first person. That ship has sailed with Bioware anyway. You still get more player agency than in DA2 at the price of character creation.

[Cimeas]

Exactly, might as well go full cinematic RPG. After all Deus Ex and The Witcher 2 were fantastic, and I certainly wouldn't mind having more games of that quality around.

[Realmzmaster]

I think BobSmith101 and Maclimes (both very decent individuals) have hit one of the defining points on the head in that there is a difference in expectations and preferences between generations.
The present generation has grown up with cinematic and faster paced games. I remember Maclimes stating that it was his relative who found DAO to be dull, boring and difficult to get into whereas the relative enjoyed playing DA2 because it was easier to pick up, had a voiced protagonist and the pace was faster.

Now this is a generalization and does not apply to everyone. Gamers today as I stated before have not grown up with pnp systems like D & D. So all that imagination and headcanoning stuff does not enter into the equation.

Gamers of this generation expect games to take advantage of the technology. If they see games using VO for the main protagonist that is expected in every game. They see games like the TES games using photo realistic imagery that is expected in AAA title games. They see games using cinematics to tell the story it becomes expected.

I enjoyed some of the older crpgs, but they have not aged well and may not appeal to this generation. I have seen the changes in crpgs since there inception. (yes I am that old.) Change comes with each new generation. Technology moves at a fast pace and gamers today expect that technology to be implemented in their games.

Some of us of the older generations see that technology as a detriment rather than a plus, because there is a difference in expectation and preference.

Remember this is a generalization it does not apply to everyone. There are some in the present generation who like the older crpgs and vice versa.

Yes Bioware could go back to the mechanics of DAO, but the question is does that mean that Bioware risks it future by trying to please the past fanbase. Bioware has to find that way to please the past and embrace the future. Just tell a good story or putting in old rpg mechanics is not enough anymore. It may please the past buyers of the product, but it does not grab the future.

I not saying that DA2 was the best attempt at that. It was an attempt that needed more time in the oven. Yes some of the intentional design is going to put some games off and maybe attract others. I do know that a company that does not attract new blood is a company that will not grow. Bioware's task is to walk that fine line between holding on to as much of the present fanbase as possible while attracting the new blood.

Everything here is my opinion .YMMV.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

I think of RPGs like a sort of combination of two great things that I love.   The first thing is video games, with all their tactics and different paths and lore and backstory and satisfying gameplay, whatever it may be.   The second thing is movies, full of relationships and drama and choices( for the characters of course)

This might be an important difference.

I don't like video games generally.  Video gaming, as a thing, isn't something I enjoy.  This is why I don't play shooters or adventure games or sports games.  I don't like playing video games.  They feel like a waste of time.

I like roleplaying, though.  I find it very satisfying.

Realmzmaster wrote...

Many players today do not want a pnp experience because they do not engage in that form of role playing.
D & D and other role playing systems are no longer the hotbed of activity they use to be. There are more ways to socially engage in a group. No longer do you have to try to organize a play session. The Internet has made it possible through online multiplayer to do what DN sessions use to do.

They are free to play MMOs that provide the experience. You no longer have to physical be in the same location. You can even have a pnp session online if you wish.

The difficulty of finding other players is not what stops me from playing with other players.  That there are other people involved is what stops me from playing with other players.

I don't like interacting with people in real time.  I find it very stressful.  That's why I play single-player games.

Most gamers today are not products of a pnp experience and probably do not care about it. That fortunately or unfortunately is the wave of the future. So unless pnp systems make a roaring comeback this trend will continue.

I don't want CRPGs to emulate tabletop gamesd because I love tabletop games.  I want CRPGs to emulate tabletop games because that's the sort of roleplaying I want to do.

I am in no way interested in a social experience.

BobSmith101 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

But why should anyone call what you describe a "RPG" ? 

It's just an interactive movie. That's all it is.

And older RPGs were interactive books.

Now putting things on screen may remove the need to imagine (like with a book vs a movie) but it's still the same formula.

Wait, you think that's the difference?

That's not the difference at all.  Books are to movies as text adventures games are to cinematic adventure games.  All of those things have only a pre-written narrative.  The reader/player's imagination doesn't have to do anything in those.  If you think the difference here is that we like to imagine what things look like rather than seeing it directly, then you've completely missed the point.

Roleplaying games are different in kind from both movies and books, in that roleplaying games allow the player to craft the narrative himself, and not just from pre-written constituent parts.  Roleplaying games allow the creation of original content for each and every character.  That's how RPGs differ from books and movies, and that's where BioWare's newest games are failing to be RPGs.

Roleplaying is primarily a creative exercise.  If there's no creation being done on the part of the player, then he's not roleplaying.  DA2 doesn't allow that sort of creativity, so it fails as as RPG.

Reading a book isn't creative.  Watching a movie isn't creative.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Is there a difference in watching a CoD cutscene and watching a FF cutscene ?

No.

But I've never accepted that FF was a roleplaying game.  The only one I played - FF7 - certainly wasn''t.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I don't want them to remove the cinematics. They're actually pretty good.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I'm only a supporter of player choice when it has meaning.

Choosing whether to give Iorveth his sword. That's a choice . Choosing whether to be a doormat a smartass or a dick but ending up at the same place is not.

Player choice always has meaning.  You think the doormat/smartass choice doesn't because you think it has no consequences.  But it does.  Whether your character is a smartass or a doormat affects everything about how he perceives the world.

Killing the archdemon and feeling like a hero is a markedly different outcome from killign the archddemon and feeling resentful that you were used in this way.  How my character feels is half of the story, and only I can ever create that half of the story.

BobSmith101 wrote...

What I want as far as cinematic RPGs go is the Witcher2/Deus Ex:HR.

I would like to see someone make one of those without the action combat so I can try it out.

Maybe I'll like it.

[Pasquale1234]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Some of us of the older generations see that technology as a detriment
rather than a plus, because there is a difference in expectation and
preference.

I think that's .... a little oversimplified.

My biggest issue is that the technology is not yet mature enough to provide all of the features I expect from an RPG (in general, or DA in particular) without having to sacrifice some things that are much more important to me than visual presentation.  I very much look forward to the time when we'll be playing all of these games in virtual reality.

Meanwhile, in order to usher in this technology in its current state, many other sacrifices have to be made.  Since the things that are being sacrificed are things that I value much, much more than the video presentation replacing them, I view the current trend as a huge loss, not an evolution, revolution, or improvement.  IOW, I'd rather wait until the technology catches up.

[AkiKishi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Roleplaying games are different in kind from both movies and books, in that roleplaying games allow the player to craft the narrative himself, and not just from pre-written constituent parts.  Roleplaying games allow the creation of original content for each and every character.  That's how RPGs differ from books and movies, and that's where BioWare's newest games are failing to be RPGs.

Roleplaying is primarily a creative exercise.  If there's no creation being done on the part of the player, then he's not roleplaying.  DA2 doesn't allow that sort of creativity, so it fails as as RPG.

Reading a book isn't creative.  Watching a movie isn't creative.

In PnP maybe so. But still within limits set by the DM and the other people you play with. In CRPGs that's never been the case unless you simply ignore what is really going on in the game and make up your own.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Roleplaying games are different in kind from both movies and books, in that roleplaying games allow the player to craft the narrative himself, and not just from pre-written constituent parts.  Roleplaying games allow the creation of original content for each and every character.  That's how RPGs differ from books and movies, and that's where BioWare's newest games are failing to be RPGs.

Roleplaying is primarily a creative exercise.  If there's no creation being done on the part of the player, then he's not roleplaying.  DA2 doesn't allow that sort of creativity, so it fails as as RPG.

Reading a book isn't creative.  Watching a movie isn't creative.

In PnP maybe so. But still within limits set by the DM and the other people you play with.

That there are limits doesn't prevent creativitiy within those limits.

In CRPGs that's never been the case unless you simply ignore what is really going on in the game and make up your own.

Patently false.  Why your character does things is a creative input.

[AkiKishi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Patently false.  Why your character does things is a creative input.

Is it ? 

I could play PST by rolling a dice and it would still work. Not something you can do in PnP that is a creative input.
 
We are talking about two different things here. I'm talking about what the game presents and you are talking about what you can do in your head. In PnP it's all your in your head. In a game it's on screen and is becoming more of an onscreen experience over a in your head experience as technology moves on.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 19 juillet 2012 - 07:17 .

[Maclimes]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Patently false.  Why your character does things is a creative input.

"Input" may be the wrong word there, but I get what you're saying. "Why your character does things" changes your view of the game (and how or why you enjoy the character), not the game itself. The game does not recieve your input on that.

[Realmzmaster]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Some of us of the older generations see that technology as a detriment
rather than a plus, because there is a difference in expectation and
preference.

I think that's .... a little oversimplified.

My biggest issue is that the technology is not yet mature enough to provide all of the features I expect from an RPG (in general, or DA in particular) without having to sacrifice some things that are much more important to me than visual presentation.  I very much look forward to the time when we'll be playing all of these games in virtual reality.

Meanwhile, in order to usher in this technology in its current state, many other sacrifices have to be made.  Since the things that are being sacrificed are things that I value much, much more than the video presentation replacing them, I view the current trend as a huge loss, not an evolution, revolution, or improvement.  IOW, I'd rather wait until the technology catches up.

But if you do not try to implement the technology how do you know when it has caught up? It takes a company or someone willing to push the envelope of the technology in different ways. Also what you see as a detriment others see as a plus  that technolgy is pushing further. Like I said it is a matter of expectation and preference.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 19 juillet 2012 - 07:33 .