778 réponses à ce sujet

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...
While you can tell us how great this experience of how you are playing the games are. It's only applicable to you. The new RPG goal as I see it is to make the games the same for everyone regardless of experience.

Really?
And why  for chr***es? Why?  Why would that be a good idea or desirable?

It's not new and it's not RPG. It's just something that some japanese CG Movie makers do for their home market and a few similar minded people abroad. It has nothing to do with RPG other than the label they slapped on.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 20 juillet 2012 - 11:17 .

[bEVEsthda]

Il Divo wrote...
 I simply provided the reason. Interactive movie, in many cases, does sum up what people are after in their RPGs.

I sadly see your point.
But that is exactly what we're fighting here.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

NeoVassal wrote...

I've been playing DA:O again and I just need to say this: I miss the many conversation options. A lot of them are funny and well-written - you can give your Warden a more realistic personality then respond angry, respond funny/be lame, or be neutral/good, or those sometimes creepy flirting options. In DA:O you can be everything from cocky, sarcastic, to mindless blood rage.

I just miss stuff like this because I'm old and stuck in the video game past, I guess. I didn't want to make a new topic for my old geezer complaining so I posted it here. Sorry all, continue with the conversations.

I miss just being able to talk to my companions whenever I wish. Now, I have to wait for the game to tell me "it's okay, you can go talk to them now... for 30 seconds."

Such a monumental step backwards. Ugh.

[bEVEsthda]

...And please,.. Really! - Stop this nonsense talk of "new technology", when you talk about cinematics, and then in the next sentence claim that it can't leave the player character control. If it can't - then it's not "new" technology at all! It's very old technology - movies - with big budgets. Nothing else.
It's big budgets, not "new" technology. And it's a total destruction of money as far as game development goes.
.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Arcanum is on GOG for $5.99 and PST is $9.99 and neither is flying out the door.

I didn't say they could be released 10 years ago and would still be flying ot the door.

Even if they were released on the Internet 10 years ago (if Steam and/or GOG existed) there is no guarntee that they would sell well only an assumption. I do know that around that same time period Baldur's Gate 1,2 and Icewind Dale 1,2 did sell well without the need of a GOG and/or Steam, but Arcanum and PST did not.

So just because a products is good or great does not mean it will be finacially successful. There are more factors at work than just making a good or great game.

Low-priced digital distribution allows for whim purchases.  That's dramatically different from what we saw in retail environments 10 years ago.

You're pointing to somehting that bears no relation at all to what I'm saying and calling it evidence.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The most effective way as I see it is to go the Witcher/Deus Ex route,distil what a roleplaying session accomplishes from an outside looking in perspective and design around that.

Looking at a roleplaying session from the outside misses the essence of roleplaying: the decision-making.

BobSmith101 wrote...

Which really can't be done. A blank space has infinate possibilities or can just be a blank space. The most effective way as I see it is to go the Witcher/Deus Ex route,distil what a roleplaying session accomplishes from an outside looking in perspective and design around that.

Looking at a roleplaying session from the outside misses the essence of roleplaying: the decision-making.

BobSmith101 wrote...

The new RPG goal as I see it is to make the games the same for everyone regardless of experience.

Why would any gamer want to have the exact same experience as all other gamers?

[Maclimes]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

The new RPG goal as I see it is to make the games the same for everyone regardless of experience.

Why would any gamer want to have the exact same experience as all other gamers?

Yeah, I'm with StMad on this one. I don't get this at all. The point of an RPG is that by the end, we've all played the game our way, making different choices and characters throughout. We should only have the same experience if we made the exact same decisions. And even then, there's the whole headcanon element to consider.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It strikes me that Bob might be saying that the game should be accessible to any player, regardless of how much roleplaying or tabletop experience he has. And I don't object to that, but I also don't think that tabletop players have some sort of special roleplaying skill that can't be replicated.

Anyone can roleplay. Some players might not want to roleplay, and no one is making them do that, but roleplayers also don't want to be prevented from roleplaying.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Arcanum is on GOG for $5.99 and PST is $9.99 and neither is flying out the door.

I didn't say they could be released 10 years ago and would still be flying ot the door.

Even if they were released on the Internet 10 years ago (if Steam and/or GOG existed) there is no guarntee that they would sell well only an assumption. I do know that around that same time period Baldur's Gate 1,2 and Icewind Dale 1,2 did sell well without the need of a GOG and/or Steam, but Arcanum and PST did not.

So just because a products is good or great does not mean it will be finacially successful. There are more factors at work than just making a good or great game.

Low-priced digital distribution allows for whim purchases.  That's dramatically different from what we saw in retail environments 10 years ago.

You're pointing to somehting that bears no relation at all to what I'm saying and calling it evidence.

What low cost digital purchase?  The digital downloads are not  significantly cheaper than the retail media. I assume most gamers do not call a $60.00 purchase a whim purchase. I could be wrong. I check out any purchase I make whether it be $5 or $500. I especially research anything I may spend considerable time on.  I not calling anything evidence I am simply stating my opinion. If you take that as evidence then that is your misconception.

[jillabender]

Sylvius the Mad wrote…

The components of the authored narrative behave as they are written to do, and that is their half of any interaction with the components of the emergent narrative.  And the components of the emergent narrative themselves arise from the player's reaction to the authored narrative.

This is why I do not think Roguelikes are the ultimate RPGs.  Roguelikes don't provide enough stimulus to which the player can react.  That's long been the strength of BioWare's RPGs - their rich authored narratives offer a multifacted playground from which the player can build emergent narratives.

Very well said – the combination of a rich authored narrative with the freedom to create an even richer emergent narrative is what I see as the strength of Bioware games like Baldur's Gate and DA:O.

It's also why I prefer Bioware games to what I've seen of the Elder Scrolls series – personally, I find that the Elder Scrolls games just don't quite give my character enough to react to. While I appreciate the effort that was put into the open world of Oblivion, I couldn't really get into it, because from my point of view, it didn't offer characters with strong personalities for my character to interact with – and without that, it's hard for me to really step into the role of my character (sorry bEVEsthda and other Elder Scrolls fans, that's just how I roll ).

Modifié par jillabender, 21 juillet 2012 - 01:38 .

[NKKKK]

Look at you guys discussing like big kids, even though your opinions will not at all sway the direction this company is going.

[Realmzmaster]

NKKKK wrote...

Look at you guys discussing like big kids, even though your opinions will not at all sway the direction this company is going.

The company will go in the way it chooses. Whether the fanbase goes that way is up to each individual. Once more details about DA3 or the Next Thing is revealed then that decision can be reached. I like both DA2 and DAO for different reasons. I like DA2 a little better. The commercial success of the game is a concern for Bioware/EA. It is not my concern. I simply want a game that meets or comes close to my preferences. Whether that meets other gamers preferences is not my concern because no one else is spending my money. 

If the information I get on DA3 does not meet my preferences then I will move on and look for one that does. I assume that is what other gamers will do. This is the criteria I used when I evaluated Skyrim and the Witcher 2. I purchased neither. I have friends who decide to purchase them. I tried them out and found them wanting becuase I did not have fun with them. Skyrim paled in comparison to Morrowind for me and the Witcher 2 simply did not grab me. I found it almost as boring as Witcher 1. YMMV.

[PinkDiamondstl]

People wake up ...

[Xilizhra]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

NeoVassal wrote...

I've been playing DA:O again and I just need to say this: I miss the many conversation options. A lot of them are funny and well-written - you can give your Warden a more realistic personality then respond angry, respond funny/be lame, or be neutral/good, or those sometimes creepy flirting options. In DA:O you can be everything from cocky, sarcastic, to mindless blood rage.

I just miss stuff like this because I'm old and stuck in the video game past, I guess. I didn't want to make a new topic for my old geezer complaining so I posted it here. Sorry all, continue with the conversations.

I miss just being able to talk to my companions whenever I wish. Now, I have to wait for the game to tell me "it's okay, you can go talk to them now... for 30 seconds."

Such a monumental step backwards. Ugh.

Really? I consider it a step forwards. The way it's done in DA2 feels, well, much more realistic and well-grounded; the conversations you have are ones that have to do with their life as it's happening, whereas in DAO, it feels more like you're randomly conducting interviews at camp/elsewhere.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

What low cost digital purchase?

You cited the prices yourself.

The digital downloads are not  significantly cheaper than the retail media.

There wouldn't be retail media.  Most of the games released on Steam are only released on Steam.

Arcanum now would be cheaper to make than Arcanum 11 year ago, even with minor cosmetic improvements.  Released as a brand new original game on Steam and sold for $20 or less (with Steam regularly discounting it), it would probably sell quite well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jillabender wrote...

Very well said – the combination of a rich authored narrative with the freedom to create an even richer emergent narrative is what I see as the strength of Bioware games like Baldur's Gate and DA:O.

It's also why I prefer Bioware games to what I've seen of the Elder Scrolls series – personally, I find that the Elder Scrolls games just don't quite give my character enough to react to. While I appreciate the effort that was put into the open world of Oblivion, I couldn't really get into it, because from my point of view, it didn't offer characters with strong personalities for my character to interact with – and without that, it's hard for me to really step into the role of my character (sorry bEVEsthda and other Elder Scrolls fans, that's just how I roll ).

I do think Skyrim is very good, though I completely agree with you on Oblivion (and I think Morrowind failed similarly, though Morriwind was less mechanically broken than Oblivion).  And Arena gave the player so much to do that I think it succeeded in a way that TES games haven't since.

I didn't play Daggerfall.

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

...And please,.. Really! - Stop this nonsense talk of "new technology", when you talk about cinematics, and then in the next sentence claim that it can't leave the player character control. If it can't - then it's not "new" technology at all! It's very old technology - movies - with big budgets. Nothing else.
It's big budgets, not "new" technology. And it's a total destruction of money as far as game development goes.
.

http://t3.gstatic.co...3jZTuzJx5Pq1omQ

This is Baldurs gate. As you can see the character are tiny, the only indication to what they look like comes from the character portrait.

http://t3.gstatic.co...oEkntSYMmcSP4wZ

This is DA2. Not only are the charcters not tiny. The cinematic presentation focuses on the character to the extent that emotion can be displayed.
Now putting aside the ridiculous idea that this is old technology as you call it. It represents a significant shift in how things are presented and how much blank space there is to fill in.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 21 juillet 2012 - 08:37 .

[Plaintiff]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Why would any gamer want to have the exact same experience as all other gamers?

Obviously plenty of gamers do want that, or at least don't care, because you'll notice that not every game in the world is an RPG, and they all sell pretty well. Assuming they all complete the game to its fullest extent, they will have seen identical content and had identical experiences.

As for why? Well, why not? Another person having the same fun as you does not detract from your fun in any way, unless you're a miser on par with Ebeneezer Scrooge or the Grinch, in which case you don't believe in 'fun' to begin with. And the mere existence of this forum is incontravertible proof that a good portion of gamers like to discuss and compare their experiences with others, which they would not be able to do if they didn't have relatively similar experiences to share.

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

...And please,.. Really! - Stop this nonsense talk of "new technology", when you talk about cinematics, and then in the next sentence claim that it can't leave the player character control. If it can't - then it's not "new" technology at all! It's very old technology - movies - with big budgets. Nothing else.
It's big budgets, not "new" technology. And it's a total destruction of money as far as game development goes.
.

<lovely image deleted  (yes, rosy glasses on) >

This is Baldurs gate. As you can see the character are tiny, the only indication to what they look like comes from the character portrait.

<repulsive image deleted>

This is DA2. Not only are the charcters not tiny. The cinematic presentation focuses on the character to the extent that emotion can be displayed.
Now putting aside the ridiculous idea that this is old technology as you call it. It represents a significant shift in how things are presented and how much blank space there is to fill in.

You conveniently suppress the very important fact that, in that BG picture, the characters are completely controlled by me (or you're not even aware of such details?).

That DA2 snapshot, otoh, is from a movie I'm just passively watching.

And showing movies in a game is definitely something very old. I can't imagine why you think it's so "new technology", when your tastes and opinions appear to reflect someone that seem to have grown up on FF. They've done that for ages. And long before that there was Dragon's Lair.

Through a succession of posts, you are unwilling to understand that the point is not about the presentation, but about control and player influence. Cinematic presentation is fine. Deleting big chunks of gameplay just to be able to easier fit a number of cutscene movies is foul.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 21 juillet 2012 - 09:41 .

[Plaintiff]

bEVEsthda wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

...And please,.. Really! - Stop this nonsense talk of "new technology", when you talk about cinematics, and then in the next sentence claim that it can't leave the player character control. If it can't - then it's not "new" technology at all! It's very old technology - movies - with big budgets. Nothing else.
It's big budgets, not "new" technology. And it's a total destruction of money as far as game development goes.
.

<lovely image deleted  (yes, rosy glasses on) >

This is Baldurs gate. As you can see the character are tiny, the only indication to what they look like comes from the character portrait.

<repulsive image deleted>

This is DA2. Not only are the charcters not tiny. The cinematic presentation focuses on the character to the extent that emotion can be displayed.
Now putting aside the ridiculous idea that this is old technology as you call it. It represents a significant shift in how things are presented and how much blank space there is to fill in.

You conveniently repress the very important fact that, in that BG picture, the characters are completely controlled by me.

That DA2 snapshot, otoh, is from a movie I'm just passively watching.

And showing movies in a game is definitely something very old. I can't imagine why you think it's so "new technology" when your tastes and opinions appear to reflect someone that seem to have grown up on FF. They've done that for ages. And long before that there was Dragon's Lair.

Through a succession of posts, you are unwilling to understand that the point is not about the presentation, but about control and player influence. Cinematic presentation is fine. Deleting big chunks of gameplay just to be able to easier fit a number of cutscene movies is foul.

No gameplay has been deleted from DA2. The cinematics are an aspect of gameplay, they are influenced by the player's input.

You can't reasonably or honestly claim that DA2 is a 'passive' experience. Player interaction is almost constantly required at any given moment.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 21 juillet 2012 - 09:48 .

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...
You conveniently repress the very important fact that, in that BG picture, the characters are completely controlled by me.

That DA2 snapshot, otoh, is from a movie I'm just passively watching.

And showing movies in a game is definitely something very old. I can't imagine why you think it's so "new technology" when your tastes and opinions appear to reflect someone that seem to have grown up on FF. They've done that for ages. And long before that there was Dragon's Lair.

Through a succession of posts, you are unwilling to understand that the point is not about the presentation, but about control and player influence. Cinematic presentation is fine. Deleting big chunks of gameplay just to be able to easier fit a number of cutscene movies is foul.

My First Final Fantasy was X I'm a dyed in the wool PnP CRPG player. But I'm also a realist.

I understand it fine. It's just not happening with a cinematic game period.

Voice- A character will say a line a certain way.
Emotion- The scenes will be emoted a certain way.

Your idea of control came from nothing being explicitly shown like in the BG example I posted. Choices are cutscene movies in DA2. You make a choice a cutscene plays. The detail of those cutscenes and how you get to them by paraphrasing is what is removing your idea of control. You don't like it I get that. But that is what cinematic games are and why the work better with fixed protagonists.


Edit: I purposefully picked a DA2 scene with the dialogue wheel shown.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 21 juillet 2012 - 09:56 .

[bEVEsthda]

NKKKK wrote...

Look at you guys discussing like big kids, even though your opinions will not at all sway the direction this company is going.

That's true. But when distressed, kids will wail, either it does any good or not.

There's also a different aspect though: Going through life, one cannot always just turn one's back on things which appear unlikely to succeed or hard. Now and then one has to make a stand. And posting on a forum is not a big effort, and is often somewhat entertaining in itself.

[PhillyB]

NKKKK wrote...

Look at you guys discussing like big kids, even though your opinions will not at all sway the direction this company is going.

What direction would that be, Hmm? In close proximity to the garbage can I assume.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius, I'm not sure if we disagree or misunderstand one another. I'm getting a distinct impression we're meaning different things when saying the same words. When I mean a "blank space" I refer to something that specifically is either untouched in the authored narrative or irelevant. Whatever a blank space is filled with exist solely in the emergent narrative. There is no input to the authored that affects which of the prewritten pathways it takes.

Imagine a rpg where the protagonist is at all times covered by a EVA or NBC suit. The PC does have an appearance underneath to be certain, but as far as the authored narrative is concerned it is unknowable and untouchable. Thys hypothetical game will never be touched upon or brought up. There is no inputs to allow the haircolour to get any recognition from the authored narrative. It is a "blank space". What you fill it with will matter for the emergent narrative, but the authored narrative will not reciprocate any attempt to fill this space. It cannot therefore interact with this blank space.

That is what I meant with interaction from the authored narrative. It will indeed behave as it is written to do, but it's output is generally at least partially defined by the players input. The interaction between player character and the authored narrative. Interaction is, by definition, a two way action.
To clarify, I am not speaking of emergent narratives as such. I am speaking of the mechanics of the authored narrative to deliver to the emergent (which it also have other systes in place for). So that is not unclear.

I agree with you regarding the purpose of the authored narrative, and also the lack of stimuli from the roguelikes. I also agree with Jillalbender and you regarding Oblivion. The world looked amazing, but it wasn't really filled with any interesting characters. Just backdrop.

So, what I desire is the ability for my player character to emote as an input to the authored narrative. I want to be able have my character express anger, grief, joy, fear, etc. on the screen itself. To be able to use it as part of the interaction that exist between player character and authored narrative. Yes, these things will always be there for the emergent narrative but I find value in the expression of it regardless.
The resulting reactions of the npc is merely an aspect of that. The acting is the integral component of my desire. But do note that I want there to be a choice, the emote that the character expresses is to be my choice and the reason for it as well (I am perfectly fine with that being left "blank"). My character should not be sad because it fits the scene but because I chose so.
I see the cinematics as the tools to allow this (especially since a lot of emoting is non-verbal) and hope for their improvement along the lines of player agency. Not their dismantling or reversal in development. I see cinematics robbing players of control as a concern that needs to be addressed and think that design ought to be altered to prevent that. But I don't think this loss of control neccessarily is a result of the cinematics themselves, merely their implementation.

I hope that clarifies my position.