778 réponses à ce sujet

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...
The general problem is whether roleplaying as you define it requires previous experience or knowledge. Because if people don't know what an emergent narrative is then how are they supposed to identify with it ? 

Authoured narrative is the same whether you have 20 years of PnP experience or none. Games that rely on emergent narrative are not.

Worked fine for me when I started playing BG.

It seems to work for Skyrim.

[AkiKishi]

Cimeas wrote...

People basically want to be given a setting and just mess around in it. Well, that's exactly what TES games are for. Bioware's more 'cinematic' storytelling contains a more directed narrative, and I (though some would obviously disagree) think that is a good thing.

Pretty much. Emergent narrative works best when you are left to your own devices for hours at a time. If you have companions with you, then you start to wonder why you can't discuss these things with them.

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...
Worked fine for me when I started playing BG.

It seems to work for Skyrim.

Really not getting how being cinematic changes things are you?

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
Worked fine for me when I started playing BG.

It seems to work for Skyrim.

Really not getting how being cinematic changes things are you?

You claimed people who have no previous experience with emergent narrative will have problems. I don't se why they should have. It's as silly as saying that people who have no previous experience with shooters, makes it necessary to make a "FPS" as something else than a FPS, perhaps something with a lot of cutscene movies. And then round it off by claiming that there are different opinions on what constitutes a 'FPS'.

If cinematics need to change anything, in your opinion, it's just because of how you want the cinematics to be. You say it "works better". Well, it doesn't because I don't want it. I have always believed, and maintained, that DA2's failure was that it was an unwanted game. People didn't like it. And by my conviction, flaws or 'rushjob' had only little to do with it. It's just a type of game, that not many wanted.

It doesn't matter what label you slap on, we don't want the game you want. "RPG" will just be meaningless, and we need a new label.

(Just a quick hint, on the off chance that you might be one of those EA guys, possibly transfered to Bioware, who have some job description along "game design consultant" -something, - you do know that those guys have always been wrong, in an unbroken, straight succession, during at least a couple of decades, right? Always wrong. Every time.)

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...
You claimed people who have no previous experience with emergent narrative will have problems. I don't se why they should have. It's as silly as saying that people who have no previous experience with shooters, makes it necessary to make a "FPS" as something else than a FPS, perhaps something with a lot of cutscene movies. And then round it off by claiming that there are different opinions on what constitutes a 'FPS'.

If cinematics need to change anything, in your opinion, it's just because of how you want the cinematics to be. You say it "works better". Well, it doesn't because I don't want it. I have always believed, and maintained, that DA2's failure was that it was an unwanted game. People didn't like it. And by my conviction, flaws or 'rushjob' had only little to do with it. It's just a type of game, that not many wanted.

It doesn't matter what label you slap on, we don't want the game you want. "RPG" will just be meaningless, and we need a new label.

(Just a quick hint, on the off chance that you might be one of those EA guys, possibly transfered to Bioware, who have some job description along "game design consultant" -something, - you do know that those guys have always been wrong, in an unbroken, straight succession, during at least a couple of decades, right? Always wrong. Every time.)

And you saying you did not does not refute that in the slightest.

You don't want cinematic games I'm sure we all get that by now. But that is what Bioware have decided to make. What you consider to be an RPG is equally irrelevent for me , if it's listed under RPG on Amazon then it's an RPG. You have two choices, buy it or don't buy it.
If they are making those types of games anyway, then I want one that is similiar to the ones I liked and that worked,had good sales, and good reviews... Not DA2.

I doubt someone who worked for EA would be so anti DA2

Modifié par BobSmith101, 21 juillet 2012 - 08:57 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Cinematics and voice-acting are not the reasons that people had issues with the ME3 endings, it was what they viewed as the plot holes and the sudden introduction of the Catalyst, etc. I take some issue with the statement that cinematics and voice-acting don't add anything - they do.

While I am perfectly fine with playing an RPG without heavy voice-acting or cinematics, I find myself considerably less immersed and invested in the characters these days if those things are missing (well, if the voice-acting is missing at any rate). Like it or not, things have changed to the point where a lot of people probably expect a certain level of realism in their games.

As far as ME3 goes, I feel that the story arcs on Tuchanka and Rannoch (which are almost always praised) derived some of their strength specifically from the combination of storytelling, voice-acting and cinematics. I doubt that Mordin's death would have been quite so moving if not executed in the manner that it had been - including everything that led up to that moment.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 21 juillet 2012 - 09:24 .

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...
You don't want cinematic games I'm sure we all get that by now.

That's not true.  Cut-scene movies is one thing. Cinematics is not necessarily the same thing.
I'm not opposed to either. I don't think movies add anything to a game though. I think they're empty waste.

But it's beside the issue. I'm only opposed to cinematics, any kind, which removes traditional game content like 'emergent narrative' and player control.

The title says it. It's been elaborated several times in this thread. I do NOT say "drop cinematics", even if a lot of people read it like that. It's "focus", as in allowing cinematics override everything else.

It would be equally possible to make a game, using the old infinity engine, which would stomp all over the player, in order to tell a certain story in a certain way. Just reduce choices, fix the char, insert autodialogue, and have the char react, take decisions, and express himself, without player input. That would truly have been the "interactive book", which you mentioned previously. I don't want that, and I don't want the interactive movie.
(Of course, it depends on how much is put into "interactive", but I hope you understand what I mean.)


Edit: P.S. Rereading a previous post, I understand how I made myself misunderstood. When I said "I don't want that", it seems I'm refering to cinematics. Well, that was not my intention. "that"  refered to how you see cinematics should change gameplay ("because in a cinematic game it works better if it's this way",  etc).

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 22 juillet 2012 - 09:35 .

[bEVEsthda]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Cinematics and voice-acting are not the reasons that people had issues with the ME3 endings, it was what they viewed as the plot holes and the sudden introduction of the Catalyst, etc. I take some issue with the statement that cinematics and voice-acting don't add anything - they do.

While I am perfectly fine with playing an RPG without heavy voice-acting or cinematics, I find myself considerably less immersed and invested in the characters these days if those things are missing (well, if the voice-acting is missing at any rate). Like it or not, things have changed to the point where a lot of people probably expect a certain level of realism in their games.

As far as ME3 goes, I feel that the story arcs on Tuchanka and Rannoch (which are almost always praised) derived some of their strength specifically from the combination of storytelling, voice-acting and cinematics. I doubt that Mordin's death would have been quite so moving if not executed in the manner that it had been - including everything that led up to that moment.

If you're refering to my original post, the point was rather that Bioware somehow missed what was important, about ME3. One cause that suggests itself, is that they just figured that as long as the cinematics look good...

Would they have shipped the game, with some truly clunky and failed cinematics somewhere? No. But they shipped with a record-breaking crappy finish! Now that's a tale of 'focus'.

[Pasquale1234]

Cimeas wrote...

RPGs shouldn't be writing exercises, they should entertain. That's like watching half of a movie, then it just skips to the ending and you have to make up what happens in the middle. Or a movie just starts, some guy asks the main character about the backstory, and some text flashes up on the screen 'Please Imagine A Back-Story Now. Thank You'.

The first problem is that we have different ideas about what constitutes entertainment.

And BTW - DAO provided several different backgrounds, which I used to construct each Warden's unique personality and outlook on life.  The game provided everything needed to do exactly that.

If you want to make stuff up, how many times do I have to say, WRITE A BOOK. If you want to set your story in the DA world, write some fan-fiction, there's great stuff out there.

Sounds pretty similar to the opposite argument that says if you want a detailed story dictated to you, read a book - or watch a movie.

I don't know about you, but I play RPGs, as my 14 year old nephew so fantastically said, to "kill s*** and make choices", not create imaginary stories in my head.

Some of us play RPGs to role-play.

Plaintiff wrote...

There are plenty of games. Platformers, shooters, etc, where the players will experience identical content. In fact, assuming two individuals explored every single possible option in DA:O, their experience is also identical.
.
.
Nothing I said in any way implied that all Origins playthroughs are identical. Did you actually read my post, or are you just making up an argument that you're capable of refuting?

Yeah.... okay.

You cannot experience anything in a game that was not written. There is no emergent narrative in DA:O or any other RPG, anymore than there is an emergent narrative in a Choose Your Own Adventure. All the choices and combinations of coices that you could possibly make were planned, and their outcomes are predetermined.

I'm guessing the disconnect here is that you're arguing that there is some specific set of paths a player can take through a game, and the sum total of those different choices and paths are as much as a game can provide.

What I'm saying is that even if I play the exact same choices with, say a dwarf commoner warden and human noble warden, these two characters will be making those choices for different reasons. They have very different motives, personalities, and outlooks. Despite going through the same steps of the same journey, they have very different experiences. Their mannerisms, gestures, filters, and the way they deliver the lines are very different from each other.  DAO provided the tools to construct a wide variety of different protags to play.

If you ask a dozen different people to describe the same concert or movie, you will get a dozen different descriptions, because each individual has their own unique perspectives and filters. For that matter, if a dozen different actors audition for a part, each of them will play and interpret the role differently. That's why they audition.

Seeing the world and some series of events through some fictional character's eyes is what I want to do when I play an RPG.

A quick google of "emergent narrative" brings up quite a few pages, some from academic institutions.  Here's a few of them.

Game Design as Narrative Architecture

You say narrative to the average gamer and what they are apt to imagine is something on the order of a choose-your-own adventure book, a form noted for its lifelessness and mechanical exposition rather than enthralling entertainment, thematic sophistication, or character complexity.

The application of film theory to games can seem heavy-handed and literal minded, often failing to recognize the profound differences between the two media.

Tell Your Own Damn Stories! Games, Overreading and Emergent Narrative

So how does all of this relate to videogames? Simple. One of the most disastrous things to ever happen to videogames was the emergence of the belief that being a game designer is a bit like being a film director and that it is the job of a game’s designers to create a story.

A Framework for Emergent Narrative

The Orchestrated Story and the Emergent Narrative

[Pasquale1234]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Authoured narrative is the same whether you have 20 years of PnP experience or none. Games that rely on emergent narrative are not.

But games that simply allow (rather than rely on) emergent narrative - like DAO - can work for both playstyles.

[wsandista]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Authoured narrative is the same whether you have 20 years of PnP experience or none. Games that rely on emergent narrative are not.

But games that simply allow (rather than rely on) emergent narrative - like DAO - can work for both playstyles.

This X 100000000

[Cimeas]

I just can't, you know? I can't have the same amount of fun when I make up the story than when I don't. It just feels less interesting. Kind of like if I write a story, I already know what will happen, so I will hardly be on the edge of my seat when I'm reading it. I have played NWN and Baldur's Gate, and quite frankly I prefer it [ ME style].

You know what I consider emergent 'narrative'? A game like Just Cause (sort of like GTA but more over the top). I attached an ATV to a helicopter, flew the helicopter to a town, and used the ATV as a battering ram to topple the statue of good old El Presidente. That was fun, I joked about it with some friends, and I essentially, in the sandbox, created my own 'story'.

But when I play a Bioware game, I expect to be told a story, and have to make choices along the way. I absolutely disagree that a 'choose your adventure' book has to be terrible. That is a ridiculous statement. It's just that the boring, churned out titles of the 80s were badly written. I enjoyed The Witcher 2 more than any movie, because it blended a long, satisfying story with equipment and skill customization and interesting choices so I could 'decide' how my playthrough went.

A lot of people like the 'cinematic RPG story', proven by the fact that Deus Ex: Human Revolution (a prequel to a ten year old game) and The Witcher 2 (sequel to a relatively unknown Eastern European RPG) sold around 2 million copies each, not to mention the tremendous success of Mass Effect.

Dragon Age: Origins sold 4.2 million copies because it was a fantastic game, not because millions of people were begging for RPGs to go back to the 'old ways'. In fact MANY review sites called the lack of protagonist voice acting 'jarring', especially when compared to Mass Effect.

So it's time to accept that the 'cinematic style' was NOT what caused the game to fail, not after the success of equally (if not more) cinematic games like ME, TW2 and DE:HR.

Modifié par Cimeas, 21 juillet 2012 - 11:18 .

[wsandista]

Cimeas wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins sold 4.2 million copies because it was a fantastic game, not because millions of people were begging for RPGs to go back to the 'old ways'. In fact MANY review sites called the lack of protagonist voice acting 'jarring', especially when compared to Mass Effect.

We can't know why everyone of those 4.2 million people bought DAO though. It was marketed as a return to Old-School RPGs, and was even heralded as the "spiritual successor" to one of the most beloved of those(BG).

As for reviewers, I don't really think we need to get into a discussion about the disconnect between them and gamers.

So it's time to accept that the 'cinematic style' was NOT what caused the game to fail, not after the success of equally (if not more) cinematic games like ME, TW2 and DE:HR.

We don't know exactly what caused DA2 to fail. It could have been cinematic style, the changes in combat, Batman, the changes in artstyle, shamefully recycled areas, The Witcher 2, The name Hawke for the PC, Chocolate Milkshakes, the lack of Morrigan, or whatever.

We just know that it did fail, and that many of the audience that liked DAO, disliked DA2 and not enough new consumers were attracted to compensate for the loss of the old consumers.

[Cimeas]

Absolutely. But I think the main reasons for DA2's failure can be surmised by looking at the most common complaints across the internet, not just on the BSN. Those complaints are generally lack of companion gear, boring story and few locations.

Also, individually, yes, there is no exact way of knowing for which reasons people like DA:O and didn't like DA2. However, when you look at the overall figures, which show that ME2 also sold very well, and was generally (I think) well received by Bioware fans despite being a cinematic game only a few months after DA:O, we can rule out cinematics being the problem.


Simply put, it seems that the audience doesn't have a problem with cinematics, they just need to be part of a coherent, interesting and large-scale game.

[jillabender]

Pasquale1234 wrote…

Plaintiff wrote…

You cannot experience anything in a game that was not written. There is no emergent narrative in DA:O or any other RPG, anymore than there is an emergent narrative in a Choose Your Own Adventure. All the choices and combinations of coices that you could possibly make were planned, and their outcomes are predetermined.

I'm guessing the disconnect here is that you're arguing that there is some specific set of paths a player can take through a game, and the sum total of those different choices and paths are as much as a game can provide.

What I'm saying is that even if I play the exact same choices with, say a dwarf commoner warden and human noble warden, these two characters will be making those choices for different reasons. They have very different motives, personalities, and outlooks. Despite going through the same steps of the same journey, they have very different experiences. Their mannerisms, gestures, filters, and the way they deliver the lines are very different from each other. DAO provided the tools to construct a wide variety of different protags to play.

Thank you, that's what I was trying to convey as well. 

Modifié par jillabender, 22 juillet 2012 - 12:29 .

[Pasquale1234]

Cimeas wrote...

I just can't, you know? I can't have the same amount of fun when I make up the story than when I don't.

I can relate - sort of.  I can't roleplay pregen characters - at all.  I've tried, and it just doesn't work for me.  That's why I don't play ME or TW or any of these other games that other people praise so much... it's also why finding DA was such a huge coup for me.  I got really excited to think there was going to be a new series that I could thoroughly enjoy, but I guess it's game over.

But I'm curious... do you feel that you had to make up the story in DAO?

You know what I consider emergent 'narrative'? A game like Just Cause (sort of like GTA but more over the top). I attached an ATV to a helicopter, flew the helicopter to a town, and used the ATV as a battering ram to topple the statue of good old El Presidente. That was fun, I joked about it with some friends, and I essentially, in the sandbox, created my own 'story'.

Sure, that's one example.  Some developers seem to be actively looking for ways to intentionally create more opportunities for emergent gameplay / narrative.  That is what makes games different from other storytelling media, and I'd like devs to be using new technologies to create more opportunities for player creativity, not less.

But when I play a Bioware game, I expect to be told a story, and have to make choices along the way.

Me, too.  The thing is, I also expect to be able to role-play, and am not able to do that with the restrictions they've put in place.

Dragon Age: Origins sold 4.2 million copies because it was a fantastic game

Yes, it was.  An instant classic.

In fact MANY review sites called the lack of protagonist voice acting 'jarring', especially when compared to Mass Effect.

I don't see much point in making arguments like this.  I could easily and quickly list a lot of things that were very jarring in DA2, and every single one of them is due to VA and / or a cutscene.  It boils down to individual tastes, preferences, expectations.

So it's time to accept that the 'cinematic style' was NOT what caused the game to fail, not after the success of equally (if not more) cinematic games like ME, TW2 and DE:HR.

Oh, there are a lot of reasons why DA2 hasn't sold more copies than it has.

I can say, though, that the combination of the VA, paraphrase / dialog wheel system, and focus on cinematic sequences over gameplay features is what made it fail as an RPG for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

-snip-

I'm saying that the game does react to the content you create within those blank spaces.  It reacts indirectly, as it is eracting to your explicit inputs, and your inputs are informed by your creations within the blank spaces.

The only difference between what you're asking for and what I'm describing is some means for you to know on a metagame level that the game is actually responding to an emotional input, rather than an action choice input that might have been implicitly caused by emotion the game didn't explicitly recognise.

The game you're describing would be vastly harder to design, and wouldn't grant the player any more freedom or control.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

What if you don't want to create an emergent narrative ? Or you don't even have any idea what that is?

You don't need to know what it is in order to create one.

And if you specifically want to avoid any emergent narrative, I have to wonder why you're playing a game rather than reading a book.

Cimeas wrote...

I just can't, you know? I can't have the same amount of fun when I make up the story than when I don't. It just feels less interesting. Kind of like if I write a story, I already know what will happen, so I will hardly be on the edge of my seat when I'm reading it. I have played NWN and Baldur's Gate, and quite frankly I prefer it [ ME style].

Do you replay the games?  If the only narrative you get out a game is the authored narrative, and you want to be on the edge of your seat, then you can only ever get that once.

But I can get that again and again.  I don't know when I start the game how it's going to turn out for this character.  I don't know what personal challenges he'll face.  I don't know exactly what decisions he will make.  And I don't
know whether he will succeed.  One Warden might view Morrigan as an
antagonist, while another might view her as an ally.  The same could be
true for Alistair, or the Wardens generally, or for Arl Howe, or Cailan, or Loghain, or the elves.  When I create an emergent narrative, every trip through the game is a different story, and they all keep me on the edge of my seat.

Dragon Age: Origins sold 4.2 million copies because it was a fantastic game, not because millions of people were begging for RPGs to go back to the 'old ways'.

I think we can all agree that BioWare should go back to making fantastic games.  I'd be interested to see them do that with a voiced PC to see how it works.

And to be honest, ME wasn't bad.  The paraphrasing was a problem, but it wasn't a huge problem, and the voice for MaleShep was completely incompatible with my playstyle, but FemShep's voice was pretty good.  And ME's RPG mechanics were decent.  There was stat-driven aiming - open exploration...  I liked Mass Effect.  The growing pains with the voice made it my least favourite BioWare RPG to that point, but I hoped they'd iron those out.

They didn't.  Everything ME did badly has gotten worse, and they discarded all of the good parts of ME1 in the subsequent ME games.  Similarly, the voice in DA2 was done less well, I think, that it was in either of ME or ME2 (I have not played ME3).

In fact MANY review sites called the lack of protagonist voice acting 'jarring', especially when compared to Mass Effect.

I don't really understand why DAO was ever compared to Mass Effect.  They're very different games.

So it's time to accept that the 'cinematic style' was NOT what caused the game to fail, not after the success of equally (if not more) cinematic games like ME, TW2 and DE:HR.

The implementation of the cinematic style in D2 is what caused it to fail for me.  I didn't much care about the reused areas.  I didn't care about the directionless plot (in fact, I think that was a good feature).  It was simply that hawke wasn't mine to control - that's what broke DA2.

If BioWare can somehow make a PC who does what I tell him, then I'll be happy, regardless of how that is done.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 juillet 2012 - 01:34 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

Yes.  That was a good design.  Improving the graphics of the game didn't require any change to that.  DA2 could just as well have been designed with a top-down camera that was quite distant.  Or, if you like the detailed close-ups of the characters, the camera could be moveable, but still allow this distant perspective so as not to force upon the player any conflicts between the 3D models and the 2D portraits.

There is nothing about the new technology that forces any fundamental change in BG's design.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTfv2XDGC8EcoUjbK5ASka7yMtUYrDAlQqbloEkntSYMmcSP4wZ

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.

Yes it does, but it's the shift in presentation that is the problem, not the technology.

BioWare wilfully removed the BG-style of play, rather than being forced to do so by advancing technology.

Advancing technology should give us more options, not fewer.  Never fewer.  If the new technology gives us fewer options, then it is not an advance, it is a regression.

[jillabender]

Sylvius the Mad wrote…

I think we can all agree that BioWare should go back to making fantastic games. I'd be interested to see them do that with a voiced PC to see how it works.

I agree – while I found DA2 disappointing in some ways, it hasn't completely put me off the idea of a voiced PC for Dragon Age games. I think that Bioware is fully capable of creating fantastic games with a voiced PC, and I'm looking forward to seeing what they'll come up with. I've actually come to think it might even be possible for a voiced protagonist to offer a certain kind of freedom for the player to define the PC, even if it's not exactly the same kind of freedom offered by Baldur's Gate or DA:O.

Modifié par jillabender, 22 juillet 2012 - 05:31 .

[AkiKishi]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Authoured narrative is the same whether you have 20 years of PnP experience or none. Games that rely on emergent narrative are not.

But games that simply allow (rather than rely on) emergent narrative - like DAO - can work for both playstyles.

Because Bioware is not making that type of game anymore ? 

If a VA delivers a line it's delivered in only one way.
When you see the characters close up they have expressions.

Where you can focus is on the divergent paths of authoured narrative like Witcher2/Deus Ex. Because the need to imagine the character has been removed. Whether this is good or bad, well obviously we can debate that till the sun goes super nova. But the nature of cinematic presentation is such that paraphrasing and detailed characters have changed how things play. It does not remove the emergent narrative, that still exists in games like Witcher2 and Deus Ex. But it does remove the wiggle room that existed when things were less defined.

It's not really a case of liking it or not. I'd be quite happy if DA went back to Origins. But that ship has sailed and it's not going to happen.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 22 juillet 2012 - 10:19 .

[AkiKishi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes it does, but it's the shift in presentation that is the problem, not the technology.

BioWare wilfully removed the BG-style of play, rather than being forced to do so by advancing technology.

Advancing technology should give us more options, not fewer.  Never fewer.  If the new technology gives us fewer options, then it is not an advance, it is a regression.

If Bioware existed in a bubble that would be the case. They don't. They have to compete in a market where technology is an ongoing process.

Those options only ever existed in our heads. For people who never played the head game, they never existed at all. In that respect cinematic presentation is an advance.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 22 juillet 2012 - 09:42 .

[bEVEsthda]

jillabender wrote...
I agree – while I found DA2 disappointing in some ways, it hasn't completely put me off the idea of a voiced PC for Dragon Age games.

It's possible to think that given an opportunity to control what protagonist says, and maybe a few filter-sliders to allow us to modulate the voice to something acceptable, we'd be in business.

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes it does, but it's the shift in presentation that is the problem, not the technology.

BioWare wilfully removed the BG-style of play, rather than being forced to do so by advancing technology.

Advancing technology should give us more options, not fewer.  Never fewer.  If the new technology gives us fewer options, then it is not an advance, it is a regression.

If Bioware existed in a bubble that would be the case. They don't. They have to compete in a market where technology is an ongoing process.

Those options only ever existed in our heads. For people who never played the head game, they never existed at all. In that respect cinematic presentation is an advance.

If the cinematic presentation is during ambient gameplay, like games like halflife and KotOR hinted, then it's "advance of technology". If it's cutscene movies in between forking choices, then it's not. It's an old concept that has already been tried and has failed miserably. Gamers have already long ago resoundly rejected gameplay like that.

To rely on that 'new gamers' would accept and take to the water a concept like that, just because they don't have any previous experience of real games (yes, I'm rephrasing it slightly, I do that to make you see, because there really isn't any difference), sounds like the most crazy marketing plan I've ever heard.

Further, the various popularity, receptions and in particular sales, of recently published games do absolutely NOT support the notion that games should or need be presented more like movies.

On the contrary, I'd argue that the direction the industry has moved into, in later years, removing 'interesting things to do' to be replaced by flashy representation, has made the entire industry sick. To an awful lot of people, mainstream console video games is not even an option. It's seen not as entertainment, but as a waste of time and money. It's seen as unhealthy content catering to teen and preteen boys with excessive orgies in violence and gore, cynically marked with +18. The video games industry have themselves shrunken their potential market, made themselves irrelevant to most people. Instead, they're all competing for the same small 12-14y boys market, with increasingly loud and hysterically over-the-top action and presentation. And to make matters worse, that small market doesn't have much money to go around either.

The WcRPG was one of the genre's which retained a potential to be interesting to wider circles of people. I'd argue that even the ME audience demonstrated this, to a degree. But if it is to develop into just a shooter, with only more and longer movies inbetween, then it's certainly going to fail, drop down. And I think ME demonstrated this failure as well. If you compare the following-buildup of CoD, TES and ME, then you can see a collapse in the ME-franchise. ME2 didn't become as popular as it should have, and ME3 didn't carry through. Rather, ME3 dropped. (And the frustrating thoughts are: What would the DA:O franchise have been able to build up to? If it had been allowed to? But right, right, then the game design geniuses and market geniuses of EA struck again, ...as so many times before.)

I also think there is a profound lesson to be learned from - that in the middle of this video-game crisis, a small indie developer's game, exclusively for PC, with the worst graphic presentation seen since 1987, becomes one of the (if not the) bestselling PC titles of all time, outselling all formats ME, just on the PC alone. Minecraft.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 22 juillet 2012 - 11:11 .