778 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
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.

I don't believe you can be a character in a CRPG not in the way you can in PnP. You can only pick from the options on offer and that's a usually a case of "best fit" or simply seeing the line as a guidline rather than actual words.
In every case whether it's silent or voiced it all comes down to how your vision and the writers sync up. If you are in sync you will barely notice. If you are not, then everything will feel restricted.

The difference is that it's much easier to ignore things when they are not voiced. Voicing tends to put a big reality stamp on things.

[AkiKishi]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
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.

I don't believe you can be a character in a CRPG not in the way you can in PnP. You can only pick from the options on offer and that's a usually a case of "best fit" or simply seeing the line as a guidline rather than actual words.
In every case whether it's silent or voiced it all comes down to how your vision and the writers sync up. If you are in sync you will barely notice. If you are not, then everything will feel restricted.

The difference is that it's much easier to ignore things when they are not voiced. Voicing tends to put a big reality stamp on things.Cutscenes are the same.

[Jerrybnsn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...
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.

I don't believe you can be a character in a CRPG not in the way you can in PnP. You can only pick from the options on offer and that's a usually a case of "best fit" or simply seeing the line as a guidline rather than actual words.
In every case whether it's silent or voiced it all comes down to how your vision and the writers sync up. If you are in sync you will barely notice. If you are not, then everything will feel restricted.

The difference is that it's much easier to ignore things when they are not voiced. Voicing tends to put a big reality stamp on things.

Let me try again then.  When you played Origins or DA2 and switched to Morrigan/Wynne in the Fade, or played Varric in the assualt on his brother's mansion.  Did you feel the same immersion with those characters as when you played out your original Origin Warden?

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:33 .

[Wulfram]

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)

I think the issue is sacrificing control over the player character for the sake of "better" cinematics.

Like the opening of ME3, where it seems that it was held to be more important to do a West Wing style walk-and-talk than to allow the player to have any real control over what their character says.

And DA2's dominant tone auto-dialogue, though that wasn't so frequent and was at least somewhat reactive to the player's choices.

[jillabender]

BobSmith101 wrote…

I don't believe you can be a character in a CRPG not in the way you can in PnP. You can only pick from the options on offer and that's a usually a case of "best fit" or simply seeing the line as a guidline rather than actual words.
In every case whether it's silent or voiced it all comes down to how your vision and the writers sync up. If you are in sync you will barely notice. If you are not, then everything will feel restricted.

The difference is that it's much easier to ignore things when they are  not voiced. Voicing tends to put a big reality stamp on things. Cutscenes are the same.

Yes, playing a character in a cRPG is different from playing a character in a pen and paper RPG, but if you're suggesting that the only meaningful difference between playing a silent protagonist like the Warden and a voiced protagonist like Hawke is that it's "easier to ignore things when they're not voiced," I have to respectfully disagree. Both voiced and silent protagonists can be done well, but they're written very differently, and they each offer a different experience.

When I play a silent cRPG protagonist like the Warden, I approach the PC as though I'm an actor playing a character that I created to fit into the story. I'm able to do that in a game like DA:O because the main character is written in way that allows me to use my imagination to flesh out and build on the lines of text provided to my character. So far, I've found that trying to approach a voiced protagonist like Hawke that way simply doesn't work, because voiced protagonists tend to be written in a way that puts the player in more of an observing/directing role. And depending on how they're handled, cinematics can also tend to put the player in more of an observing/directing role.

So, to summarize, I disagree with the claim that the observing/directing relationship to the PC that's offered in a game like DA2 isn't meaningfully different from the relationship to a silent PC that's offered in a game like DA:O, because to me, the two experiences feel very different.

Modifié par jillabender, 04 juillet 2012 - 10:06 .

[AkiKishi]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
Let me try again then.  When you played Origins or DA2 and switched to Morrigan/Wynne in the Fade, or played Varric in the assualt on his brother's mansion.  Did you feel the same immersion with those characters as when you played out your original Origin Warden?

Aside from suddently being confronted with the unfamilar ? You could argue that is immersion breaking because Morrigan should probably be more familar with her abilities than I was. Actual character switching though, I'm pretty used to that it's common in JRPGs.
If I was given Morrigan as a player character I could play her, but I would not be her. Same way I can play Geralt. But I've said from the start that your can't play first person in a game with voice and paraphrase anyway. It's debatable whether you really can in any CRPG unless you overlook/ignore a lot of stuff.

If I had to nail it down to something. I see myself as the characters thought process more than the character. Seems to work most of the time.

[AkiKishi]

jillabender wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote…

I don't believe you can be a character in a CRPG not in the way you can in PnP. You can only pick from the options on offer and that's a usually a case of "best fit" or simply seeing the line as a guidline rather than actual words.
In every case whether it's silent or voiced it all comes down to how your vision and the writers sync up. If you are in sync you will barely notice. If you are not, then everything will feel restricted.

Yes, playing a character in a cRPG is different from playing a character in a pen and paper RPG, but if you're suggesting that the only meaningful difference between playing a silent protagonist like the Warden and a voiced protagonist like Hawke is that it's "easier to ignore things when they're not voiced," I have to respectfully disagree. Both voiced and silent protagonists can be done well, but they're written very differently, and they each offer a different experience.

When I play a silent cRPG protagonist like the Warden, I approach the PC as though I'm an actor playing a character that I created to fit into the story. I'm able to do that in a game like DA:O because the main character is written in way that allows me to use my imagination to flesh out and build on the lines of text provided to my character. So far, I've found that trying to approach a voiced protagonist like Hawke that way simply doesn't work, because voiced protagonists tend to be written in a way that puts the player in more of an observing/directing role. And depending on how they're handled, cinematics can also tend to put the player in more of an observing/directing role.

So, to summarize, I disagree with the claim that the observing/directing relationship to the PC that's offered in a game like DA2 isn't meaningfully different from the relationship to a silent PC that's offered in a game like DA:O, because to me, the two experiences feel very different.

That's pretty much what I typed.

[Jerrybnsn]

jillabender wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote…

I don't believe you can be a character in a CRPG not in the way you can in PnP.

Yes, playing a character in a cRPG is different from playing a character in a pen and paper RPG, but if you're suggesting that the only meaningful difference between playing a silent protagonist like the Warden and a voiced protagonist like Hawke is that it's "easier to ignore things when they're not voiced," I have to respectfully disagree. Both voiced and silent protagonists can be done well, but they're written very differently, and they each offer a different experience.

Yes.  In no way am I saying that Bioware's next game should be issued with, instead of a disc, an empty stat sheet and a pair of 12 sided die.  I'm talking about how the "hero of the story" should be administered for playability for a MORE immersive interaction. In this the cinematics and monologuing of the protagonist take away that immersion.

When I play a silent cRPG protagonist like the Warden, I approach the PC as though I'm an actor playing a character that I created to fit into the story. I'm able to do that in a game like DA:O because the main character is written in way that allows me to use my imagination to flesh out and build on the lines of text provided to my character. So far, I've found that trying to approach a voiced protagonist like Hawke that way simply doesn't work, because voiced protagonists tend to be written in a way that puts the player in more of an observing/directing role. And depending on how they're handled, cinematics can also tend to put the player in more of an observing/directing role.

So, to summarize, I disagree with the claim that the observing/directing relationship to the PC that's offered in a game like DA2 isn't meaningfully different from the relationship to a silent PC that's offered in a game like DA:O, because to me, the two experiences feel very different.

I agree with this too.  While those types of protagonist to play can be fun, they don't have that immersion that I expect from an rpg.

[jillabender]

BobSmith101 wrote…

If I was given Morrigan as a player character I could play her, but I would not be her. Same way I can play Geralt. But I've said from the start that your can't play first person in a game with voice and paraphrase anyway. It's debatable whether you really can in any CRPG unless you overlook/ignore a lot of stuff.

With complete respect, I'm a bit puzzled by your saying that it's "debatable" whether it's possible to approach a protagonist in a cRPG in terms of stepping into a role (which I'm assuming is what you mean by "first person"), because there clearly are players who enjoy stepping into the role of a character rather than observing or directing him or her, and who feel that at least some cRPGs allow them to do that in a satisfying way.

Some players don't enjoy that approach, because, as you put it, for them to approach the game that way would require them to overlook or ignore certain things. But the question isn't whether it's possible to approach a cRPG that way – the question is whether one finds that approach rewarding.

Edit: @BobSmith101 – I'm sorry if I seemed to be misinterpreting you before. I responded the way I did because you seemed to me to be saying: "Personally, I don't experience a huge difference between a voiced protagonist and a silent protagonist, because my control over the character is limited in both cases, and in neither case do I feel that I am the character." That's what I was responding to, and that's why I was trying to explain why I do feel a more personal relationship with a silent PC. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

Modifié par jillabender, 04 juillet 2012 - 10:52 .

[Jerrybnsn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...
Let me try again then.  When you played Origins or DA2 and switched to Morrigan/Wynne in the Fade, or played Varric in the assualt on his brother's mansion.  Did you feel the same immersion with those characters as when you played out your original Origin Warden?

...............If I was given Morrigan as a player character I could play her, but I would not be her. Same way I can play Geralt. But I've said from the start that your can't play first person in a game with voice and paraphrase anyway. It's debatable whether you really can in any CRPG unless you overlook/ignore a lot of stuff.

If I had to nail it down to something. I see myself as the characters thought process more than the character. Seems to work most of the time.

This is really all I'm saying about the differet styles between Origins and DA2. 

[AkiKishi]

jillabender wrote...

BoobSmith101 wrote…

If I was given Morrigan as a player character I could play her, but I would not be her. Same way I can play Geralt. But I've said from the start that your can't play first person in a game with voice and paraphrase anyway. It's debatable whether you really can in any CRPG unless you overlook/ignore a lot of stuff.

With complete respect, I'm a bit puzzled by your saying that it's "debatable" whether it's possible to approach a protagonist in a cRPG in terms of stepping into a role, because there clearly are players who enjoy stepping into the role of a character rather than observing or directing him or her. Some players don't enjoy it, because, as you put it, for them to approach the game that way would require them to overlook or ignore certain things. But the question isn't whether it's possible to approach a cRPG that way – the question is whether one finds that approach rewarding.

You can only as long as you are willing to accept/rationalise the limitations. Take DA:O what if you just though "Sod it I'm going to Orlais" ? It's not an option. If you really really wanted to go to Orlais you would feel restricted. If on the other hand you like the story of DA:O (I did) you won't feel like that at all because it's in sync with what you want to do anyway.

Anything that requires imagination is down to the individual. This is where the likes of Geralt have the advantage. You don't need to know anything about creating a character to get the same experience as someone who does.That's a big consideration in a market where you can no longer take PnP experience as a given.

[Cutlasskiwi]

For me old BioWare never left. I play all their games the same way I always have (3rd person narrative) and they all play pretty much the same way. Since I'm not the one creating the character from scratch and given my preference for 3rd person perspective the VO and cinematics works great. It enhances my experience in the game greatly.

[Jerrybnsn]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...

......... Since I'm not the one creating the character from scratch and given my preference for 3rd person perspective the VO and cinematics works great. .............

Not creating your own character or not creating your own story and circumstance in which your "hero" will interact with his/her enviroment?

[AkiKishi]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Isn't part of the problem with immersion in the character the few choices you have in terms of reacting on companions or NPC's? And that in DA2 a lot of interaction with characters was fixed in certain stages of the game?

Also think that a good point is being made about being a bystander in stead of being the character. There are several games that I played which work from that perspective. I totally enjoyed a lot of them. But I started playing them with the knowledge that that's the way it was.

Maybe the problem lies in the fact that the idea is given that there is influence to be had which in fact isn't so.

This is exactly what happens during the Landsmeet for example. It's as much an issue with silent protagonists as with voiced although the reason is different.

This is really important. Games need to be clear on what they offer. This is why Witcher2 gets a lot of praise and DA2 does not.

[jillabender]

BobSmith101 wrote…

… Take DA:O what if you just thought "Sod it I'm going to Orlais" ? It's not an option. If you really really wanted to go to Orlais you would feel restricted. If on the other hand you like the story of DA:O (I did) you won't feel like that at all because it's in sync with what you want to do anyway.

Anything that requires imagination is down to the individual. This is where the likes of Geralt have the advantage. You don't need to know anything about creating a character to get the same experience as someone who does. That's a big consideration in a market where you can no longer take PnP experience as a given.

That's a fair point – whether a player enjoys creating a character in a game like DA:O does depend a great deal on how much that player likes a particular kind of story, and whether they're willing to accept the limitations of that kind of story, and you may be right in suggesting that's more true of a game like DA:O than a game like The Witcher. And as I said in my previous post, I'm sorry if I seemed to be misinterpreting you before.

I'd also add that not all fans of pen and paper games are necessarily interested in cRPGs that try to recreate aspects of the pen and paper experience. For example, Vormaerin has stated that while he loves pen and paper RPGs, he doesn't necessarily want that kind of experience in a computer game. So, I suppose that's another audience to consider.

Modifié par jillabender, 04 juillet 2012 - 10:48 .

[Jerrybnsn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Also think that a good point is being made about being a bystander in stead of being the character. [/b][/i]Maybe the problem lies in the fact that the idea is given that there is influence to be had which in fact isn't so.

This is really important. Games need to be clear on what they offer. This is why Witcher2 gets a lot of praise and DA2 does not.

The Witcher2 didn't have a different type of game that a fan base grew around originally.  DA2 was a 180 of a game that had to contend with Origins.  As says Epic Games director of production Rod Fergusson in regards to making a sequel like Gears of War, "Tinkering with beloved franchises has proven to be dangerous territory for game developers."  You need to shake up the formula to keep from getting stagnant, "But if you betray them (fan base) too much then you lose them." Keep the games fresh but don't drop the  main concepts of the original game that got you there in the first place.

[Wulfram]

BobSmith101 wrote...

This is why Witcher2 gets a lot of praise and DA2 does not.

No, that's because DA2 wasn't a very high quality product.

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...
This is really important. Games need to be clear on what they offer. This is why Witcher2 gets a lot of praise and DA2 does not.

No it's not. TW2 is praised because it contains a lot of qualities, which are completely absent in DA2.

TW2 is very obviously targeting players who are older than 14 y, for a first thing. The designs, world & item designs are very, very conscious and considered. Unlike DA2, where it's just about being "kewl", in a non-functional, unbelievable, crazy mix from whatever inspirations, many non-medieval and non-fantasy. And it tells a non-irrelevant story in a relevant way. The atmosphere is thick as you can cut it with a knife. The atmosphere in DA2 is like a bad comic book or anime.

From a role-play perspective, though, TW2 is actually not that hot.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 04 juillet 2012 - 11:47 .

[ScotGaymer]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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

Bob. You forget yourself.

We all DO play Pokemon.  Seriously, Team Plasma's theme is more epic than pretty much everything DA2 offers. Lol.


Also, why DA2 failed:
www.youtube.com/watch
.
Lol.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think we have gotten a bit off topic. bEVEthesda was pointing out that cinematic focus seems to trump all other concerns recently in Bioware's development. Should they do away with them? No. They have become a part of them as a developer and that is fine.

However, would the game have shipped if the cutscenes didn't work? Would the game have gone 'gold' if the interactive dialogue like interrupts didn't function? Would the game have been sent out on the shelves if pieces of dialogue were mute by mistake?

No, as can be seen by the fact that this has never been the case with a Bioware game in the past three years. But can you say the same about some of the gameplay elements? Patches to fix things like exploding blood bags the first day says otherwise. Do mechanics get the same love? Given the fact that the same above patch fixed the 'mash A button issue', I'd say no. Does story get the same kind of careful review? Obviously not, seeing the obvious story issues and lore retcons apparent in DA2 and ME3.

So all we're asking for is if Bioware puts a fine tooth comb in their cinematics, maybe they should put a similar fine tooth comb through everything else. Because if your cinematic is successful at telling a garbage story, what do you think people will remember? The beautiful venue through which that story was told... or the fact that the story was a total flop?

[Allan Schumacher]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

You're right!  I totally forgot!
(Love that movie)

[Sylvius the Mad]

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 preferred the Eclipse engine, so I would have been pretty happy with that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

PurebredCorn wrote...

I've enjoyed Bioware's evolution in game making. I loved the Baldur's Gate games, I played the hell out of them, and I'm super excited to see that someone is making and enhanced edition of the games. I also really enjoyed NWN and the expansions, especially HotU (I thought it was better than the main campaign). The addition of the cinematics in the DA games and ME series feels like a natural progression to me. I think it only enhances my enjoyment of the story and development of the interesting characters that they create.

But what of the characters you create?  Do the cinematics help with that, as well?