778 réponses à ce sujet

[Wozearly]

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.

You're spot on about narrative control, but the effect isn't that cinematics are a poor way to tell a story (far from it), but that using cinematics leads directly to a reduction of player agency in the story.

While a cinematic is in full flow, the player rarely has the opportunity to intervene and say "No, hang on, my character shouldn't be doing (x, y, z)", and because in a cinematic game a lot of the critical plot points invariably will be cinematically displayed - often leaving you with a fait accompli.

There's no reason that this *has* to happen, but because its more expensive and time consuming to construct multiple cinematic and/or voiced sequences to allow for player agency as opposed to creating multiple text dialogue paths, the reality is that there ends up being a trade-off between either an increase in costs or a reduction in choices / opportunities to input for the player, and reduction in choices has always won out so far.

That doesn't impact the storytelling one iota, but it does tend to change the way that the player is able to interact with the story - hence the accusations that VO / cinematic leads are "Bioware's character, not my character".

The idea for Hawke suited a voiced and cinematic approach - it was just (IMO) a very bad decision for the DA franchise as a game, rather than as a storytelling medium.

Skyrim, which avoided cinematics and player voice acting, was a stonking hit. Whilst being a different type of RPG, and not necessarily the right model for Bioware to copy, if nothing else its an indication that the established wisdom that VO and cinematics is a progressive step towards improving game quality and game sales is, quite possibly, a load of horse manure.

Modifié par Wozearly, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:58 .

[Pzykozis]

bEVEsthda wrote...

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?

Not so much of the original I bought it years after it came out purely for CS but it was really dated... HL2 I guess does it similarly and HL2 is a brilliant example of the showing the story aye, its not even that its not cinematic because it is it's just that the cinematic elements take part within the world rather than being segregated with taking away player control.

[bEVEsthda]

Pzykozis wrote...
...and HL2 is a brilliant example of the showing the story aye, its not even that its not cinematic because it is it's just that the cinematic elements take part within the world rather than being segregated with taking away player control.

Exactly.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm a bit confused then.

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

[jackofalltrades456]

I believe voice acting and cinematics should be a treat for the players to enjoy, not some mandatory feature that inflicts the game. And that's really what Bioware has turned them into. Dialogue cuts, forced outcomes, single protagonist, less control over your PC, and spending all this extra money just so the character can dance a little more?

A voiced PC and cinematics were basically crammed down our throats in Dragon Age 2. The devs just placed themselves in this impregnable fortress and stated "tough luck, this is better." I mean, they're already doing this again with Dragon Age 3. The second they announced that game, one of the first things said was how they were going to have a voiced protagonist no matter what. This gave me an image on what their going to focus on in the next game...

[Jerrybnsn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

A game should NOT be all cutscenes though.    There should be an actual game with it you know.

I don't think that has happened since that flirtation with interactive movies shortly after things went from floppy to CD (think that's right I was not technically there at the time).

I felt L.A. Noire fell in that cinematic overtaking the game aspect.  Well, it was that and just driving.  Awesome graphics and great story, but I couldn't wait to take it back for a trade in.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 03 juillet 2012 - 11:07 .

[Pzykozis]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm a bit confused then.

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

They're interelated because they speak of a specific ideal, cinematics aren't the same thing as a cinematic game.. if that even makes sense, HL2 is cinematic but it doesn't really have cinematics.. the emphasis is on you being the character and the world being a place that you inhabit rather than the way typical cinematics wrest control over your character away from you in order for the devs to show (though normally its telling) you a specific thing.

It's the difference between going somewhere new and having a local custom or tradition play out in front of you in which you can interact on a much more visceral level, wander around and soak it all in maybe even take part or on the other hand being in a car with the windows down as you drive past, you can hear and see it but you're removed from it.

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

cinematics as I said before have their place, but to focus on them works to overly segregate or create set pieces whilst the actual world that you play around in gets neglected.

Or maybe I'm just off my rocker getting too caught up in memories of travelling.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 03 juillet 2012 - 11:13 .

[sickpixie]

I don't have a preference either for or against cinematics in games, but I'd rather Bioware not drop cinematics now because this would result in their cinematic designers and animators getting laid off and I don't want anyone to lose their job.

[Allan Schumacher]

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

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

[Direwolf0294]

I love cinematics in games. They let the developers show you awesome stuff that they would never be able to show off in the game itself because of our current level of technology. The way I've always seen it is that cinematics show the game world as it's meant to be seen. Bring on more cinematics is what I say.

[bEVEsthda]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

I love cinematics in games. They let the developers show you awesome stuff that they would never be able to show off in the game itself because of our current level of technology. The way I've always seen it is that cinematics show the game world as it's meant to be seen. Bring on more cinematics is what I say.

You mean you love cutscenes, movies?
Why do you think they're better to "show the game world as it's meant to be seen"?
I really don't get that.

[Pzykozis]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

For me definitely, set pieces and general cinematic goodness has its place as it can do things that are just awkward or otherwise bad outside of cinematics (wide-angle / Long / establishing shots are something I personally love but you don't see that much of outside of Chollywood (Chinese cinema that is)), at the same time if the world or the people that inhabit it can present information without needing to trigger a cinematic or even dialogue since theres still a pretty harsh stopping of the world when you talk to someone then 's'all good really.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm a bit confused then.

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

Control.  It's always control.  The problem with the cinematics is that they force the PC to behave differently from how the player would have chosen, that they present information in an unimpartial way, and that they reveal metagame information.

Nothing about cinematics, per se, requires any of those things to be true.  If you guys made cinematics that didn't use the camera or focus or depth-of-field effects to tell us what
to notice, and didn't show us things our character shouldn't know, and wherein the characters never did anything we hadn't explicitly directed, then I would have no complaints about cinematics.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 juillet 2012 - 06:37 .

[Cultist]

Oh come on, it's the common pattern. Someone got successful franchize and then tries to milk it for more money and less effort.
Final Destination - successful and original at first, and look at Final Destination 3, 4 and 5 - a joke and repetition with a lot of FX to attract movie analog of our "Call of Duty crowd"
The Saw - look where the series gone.
Catwoman - get Halle Berry, a lot of FX and wait for fanbois.
Dragon Age 2 is no different. Cutscenes instead of gameplay, simplified interface and mechanics, 3 meter long swords, Devil May Cry-like acrobatics and every woman with breasts that put Pamela Anderson to shame. Cinematics are flashy.
What else you need to attract Call of Duty Crowd?

Modifié par Cultist, 04 juillet 2012 - 06:42 .

[Sir JK]

But there is nothing inherent in cinematic techniques that limits narrative control on the player's part, now is there? There is challenges, sure.
For instance cutscenes do not need to make assumtions on the actions and personality of a player. They're an excellent way to show things that the player witness, catches the attention of, that the gameplay is otherwise incapable of depicting (like pushing someone of a cliff) or to zoom in on people's faces when they talk (and thus reveal their facial expressions, which can be very difficult to read zoomed out).

It is merely a set of storytelling tools. There's nothing wrong in using them. Yes, a voiced PC will mean that the dialogue is written differently than a silent one. But there's nothing that by definition should limit our options anymore than they originally were. No matter the technique there is still only one response for every choice. There are advantages and disadvantages to both procedures yes, and they are well worth debating. But in theory there is nothing in a voiced PC that means our choices must be more limited.

The same really applies to all cinematic techniques. They are merely tools to tell the story a certain way. Arguing to tone down cinematics in favour of story is essentially the same as arguing against gameplay to focus on combat. Seeing that combat is primarily expressed through gameplay, and most of the narrative characterisation (which is what many of us hail as what Bioware is really good at) is expressed through cinematics I feel this is counterproductive.

So rather than to argue to tone down the focus on cinematics (which is essentially arguing against storytelling) I think we're better served arguing on how to use them and which ones to use in order to achieve the best interactive story.

Looking at which values we wish the game to prioritize, suggest techniques with which to achieve them and then debate the merits and flaws of those techniques in relation to all other goals.

Modifié par Sir JK, 04 juillet 2012 - 08:18 .

[Allan Schumacher]

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

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

[Jormundgander]

If they are going to do cinematics for Dragon Age, I hope they are like the ones from Sacred Ashes Trailer. That's what I call a cinematic.

Otherwise, I preffer a silent main character and more RPG experience.

Modifié par Jormundgander, 04 juillet 2012 - 08:30 .

[AkiKishi]

Cinematics point the story in the right direction. It's been that way since the Gorian scene in BG. You don't get to die heroically there because it's game over if you do. Sure you could argue you should have that option, but really there is no point since the characters story ends there anyway if you do.

This is a key difference between a story based game and a sand box game. In a sand box game you can make your own story, follow the plot, or just go do whatever you feel like doing. In a story based game, the story IS the game.

Certain story elements must happen which is why which ever route you choose you always end up in the same place in some instances. Generally these are important to the plot.
The only thing that really bothers me is when a game pretends to offer you character creation but does not in reality. DA2 is infamous for this,ME3 ended up like it. It's also the reason why I can play JRPGs without feeling restricted(and why I ended up putting ME3 into action mode).

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

It's all about the merchandising.

[Kaosbuddy]

deuce985 wrote...
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.

Hologram Star-Child shows up at the very ending and prevents the final battle playing out, because circular logic told him to. Seems the very definition of "Spirit in the Machine".

[Jerrybnsn]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Direwolf0294 wrote...

I love cinematics in games. They let the developers show you awesome stuff that they would never be able to show off in the game itself because of our current level of technology. The way I've always seen it is that cinematics show the game world as it's meant to be seen. Bring on more cinematics is what I say.

You mean you love cutscenes, movies?
Why do you think they're better to "show the game world as it's meant to be seen"?
I really don't get that.

This is what I was trying to say up above.  I just don't feel like games with overuse of cutscenes feel like actual games to me.  As in the case of L.A. Noir, it was basically driving from one cutscene to the next.  I think Final Fantasy X was the first game that ever turned me off on the overuse of cutscenes.  I don't want to watch a game and become detatched from experiencing it on a personal level.

[AkiKishi]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Direwolf0294 wrote...

I love cinematics in games. They let the developers show you awesome stuff that they would never be able to show off in the game itself because of our current level of technology. The way I've always seen it is that cinematics show the game world as it's meant to be seen. Bring on more cinematics is what I say.

You mean you love cutscenes, movies?
Why do you think they're better to "show the game world as it's meant to be seen"?
I really don't get that.

This is what I was trying to say up above.  I just don't feel like games with overuse of cutscenes feel like actual games to me.  As in the case of L.A. Noir, it was basically driving from one cutscene to the next.  I think Final Fantasy X was the first game that ever turned me off on the overuse of cutscenes.  I don't want to watch a game and become detatched from experiencing it on a personal level.

Never played LA Noire. FFX is cutscene heavy because there is a lot of story to tell at first, characters to introduce etc. As a total % of the game time (200+ hours to complete 80 ish to finish) the ratio of scenes to gameplay is not very high.
Final Fantasy X is still one of my all time favourites because the story and characters were so engaging. Only Kefka and Seymour have ever made me feel like punching someone through the TV screen.

Different strokes for different folks and all that. If we were going purely by numbers we would all be playing Pokemon

[Jerrybnsn]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm a bit confused then.

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

Control.  It's always control.  The problem with the cinematics is that they force the PC to behave differently from how the player would have chosen, that they present information in an unimpartial way, and that they reveal metagame information.

..............

I agree with Sylvius the Mad.  I want to immerse myself as the hero in an rpg adventure.  But it doesn't work because I must overcome the fact that my hero has a set voice and set actions played out in cutscenes that I have no control over.  Plus the fact that I'm living in the same time period interacting with the same world and conditions that my other character who was a silent protagonist, and which I had no problem playing as myself as the hero, is living in.  Cutscenes are great such as when you first stumbled upon the Broodmother or when you selected the option of kicking down a door and then you see the cutscene right away as you kick it.  But watching them go into an outright monologue kills the immersion that I usually get from rpgs.

Giving me Hawke to play was much the same as saying, "Okay, you are now going to play Morrigan or Alistair, or Wynne" but it all comes down to I can only direct them along, not actually be them.

[ianvillan]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

I personally see DA2 as Biowares first attempt, with how they had 2 years development time, stripping out most of the RPG features and reusing enviroments etc.

DA3 will be the true answer about the Dragon Age franchise and how Bioware sees the franchise going forward.
If the game is just a copy of DA2 and has multiplayer forced in then I will know that the Dragon Age games are just Biowares quick cash grabs.

[Jerrybnsn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Direwolf0294 wrote...

The way I've always seen it is that cinematics show the game world as it's meant to be seen. Bring on more cinematics is what I say.

You mean you love cutscenes, movies?

 I think Final Fantasy X was the first game that ever turned me off on the overuse of cutscenes.  I don't want to watch a game and become detatched from experiencing it on a personal level.

Never played LA Noire. FFX is cutscene heavy because there is a lot of story to tell at first, characters to introduce etc. As a total % of the game time (200+ hours to complete 80 ish to finish) the ratio of scenes to gameplay is not very high.
Final Fantasy X is still one of my all time favourites because the story and characters were so engaging. Only Kefka and Seymour have ever made me feel like punching someone through the TV screen.

Different strokes for different folks and all that. If we were going purely by numbers we would all be playing Pokemon

I guess this is why they say first impressions can be the last impression.  After playing FFX for six hours I shelved it and never gave it another chance.  I think I picked up The Bard and started playing that instead.