778 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

[quote]The Hierophant wrote...
I'm not as concerned with those inconsequential animations, but I dislike that every Warden is aghast at the death of Jory in exactly the same way, or that every Hawke grieves over the death of Leandra in exactly the same way.[/quote]
Agreed, the monotony of Jory's shanking could be remedied by a QTE of different reactions to the event.(E.g. one reaction has the warden step foward to Jory's defense but is held back by Alistair, while another one has the warden nonchalantly pick their nose, and flick the booger to the side.)
The grieving period for Leandra's death could've been an unspecified quest. The player could initiate the default grieving dialogue at your house, or special dialogue at The Hanged Man, Gamlen's house, or Leandra grave in which each one is unique, and not a carbon copy of the others.

[/quote]

Then you introduce extra work and substantially drive up the costs. FFXIII-2 has interactive cutscenes but the characters are still scripted. If you started making variable scenes you would end up with DA2's 3 ways to say the same thing in cutscene form. Rather than things that lead to a different outcome.

Cutscenes/voices/paraphrasing , none of these compliment character creation. But they do greatly benefit games like the Witcher2. What Bioware need to decide is whether they will keep trying to force a square peg onto a round hole, or just swap the square peg for a round one.

[Cimeas]

Exactly, Bioware can either go Witcher 2 route, allowing us the choice of perhaps character customization and gender choice that their budget allows for, or they can go back to how it was before, which they've already said they aren't.

So just finish the transition and give us set heroes, but ones with personality, and then allow us to define their lives and the flow of the game through our choices.

[TonberryFeye]

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?

If you're not milking the series, why do you insist on keeping all the bad parts of DA2 and bringing back none of the good parts of Origins?

Modifié par TonberryFeye, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:21 .

[BY-TOR STORMDRAGON]

Good heavens. Still griping all these months later- just different whiners. No one makes you buy a game. This discussion should be locked to keep the kids who don't know anything about RPG'S out.

[Fredward]

BY-TOR STORMDRAGON wrote...

Good heavens. Still griping all these months later- just different whiners. No one makes you buy a game. This discussion should be locked to keep the kids who don't know anything about RPG'S out.

Cranky aren't we? Just because the arguments go absolutely nowhere at all ever is no reason to insult the participants, to be fair there isn't much else to discuss on these forums atm.

[TonberryFeye]

BY-TOR STORMDRAGON wrote...

Good heavens. Still griping all these months later- just different whiners. No one makes you buy a game. This discussion should be locked to keep the kids who don't know anything about RPG'S out.

In my experience, most of the people who make statements like this are made to look like complete idiots when you learn where their gaming history started.

I have been told I know nothing about "what makes a good FPS" by someone who'd never played Wolfenstein 3D, Duke Nukem 3D, or Doom.

I've been told I know nothing about "what makes a good RTS" by people who've never even heard of Dune, let alone played the original Command and Conquer.

I've played the Final Fantasy series 1 to 10, plus 10-2, 12 and a couple of other spin-offs. I've played Legend of Dragoon (one of the best RPGs on the Playstation in my opinion). I've played the Baldur's Gate series, sampled the Elder Scrolls, rocked through Fallout titles and ground the hell out of Disgaea. I've clocked far too much time on online MMOs both well known and obscure. To top it all off, I've played several editions of D&D, BESM and GURPS.

So please, go ahead and tell me how playing Witcher makes you an expert on what makes a great RPG.

[jackofalltrades456]

BY-TOR STORMDRAGON wrote...

Good heavens. Still griping all these months later- just different whiners. No one makes you buy a game. This discussion should be locked to keep the kids who don't know anything about RPG'S out.

Yo Dawg, I heard you like to whine so I'm going to whine about you whining about people whining.

Modifié par jackofalltrades456, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:42 .

[Kail Ashton]

Ahh yes another "-snort- i think we should just go back to how things used to be -snort- no one really cares about graphics or visual storytelling -snort- why can't dragon age 3 just be a text adventure? -snort-"

Otherwise:

[element eater]

bioware do seem intent on focusing on cinematics to the detriment of other areas in which theyve previously excelled its true.

[Morty Smith]

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?

No, it would make far more sense to make it as similiar to Mass Effect as possible and try to sell it as fast as possible. Good thing that didn´t happen.

[Cultist]

[quote]BY-TOR STORMDRAGON wrote...

Good heavens. Still griping all these months later- just different whiners. No one makes you buy a game. This discussion should be locked to keep the kids who don't know anything about RPG'S out.[/quote][/quote]

[Sylvius the Mad]

PurebredCorn wrote...

I can use my imagination with cinematics then too, just turn away from the screen and imagine my character's expression.

Yes, you can, but the writers are far less likely to assume that emotional state is true for the character if it was never on the screen.

I can pretend I didn't see what I saw, but the writers won't.  They'll give me a set of future dialogue options that doesn't offer a way to deny or act contrary to that animated expression, because they're not going to accommodate players who ignore their content.

The only way around this is to eliminate the content.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I can say, in the case of Jory's death, that I personally was not expecting Jory's and Duncan's confrontation. I didn't know that if they refuse they would be killed. Top that off on the first recruit actually dying from drinking that taint, my mouth was set wide open, as was shown in the cinematic scene with my "hero", as Jory laid dying on the ground. In just a couple of minutes worth of cutscenes, I had a lot to take in.  So, in the fraction of a second that they showed my Warden's mouth wide open, it was not a full blown breaking of immersion or control of my character in the way that DA2 could by allowing Hawke to go into an automatic monologue of his own.

Whereas I don't typically emote that outwardly unless I do it on purpose.

People are different.  Characters should be able to be different, too.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Then you introduce extra work and substantially drive up the costs. FFXIII-2 has interactive cutscenes but the characters are still scripted. If you started making variable scenes you would end up with DA2's 3 ways to say the same thing in cutscene form. Rather than things that lead to a different outcome.

Three ways to say the same thing is exactly what I want to see designed into the game.  The outcomes don't matter.  What matters is how the character behaves.

[Pasquale1234]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Three ways to say the same thing is exactly what I want to see designed into the game.  The outcomes don't matter.  What matters is how the character behaves.

This.

How the game world / NPCs react is up to the writers, but the more control I have over my character's behavior, the more effectively I can role-play them.... which is my primary reason for playing RPGs.

[Ash Wind]

Cinematic ceratinly have their place, but something like DA2 just over did it to the enth degree. Cinematics should be for scenes of importance, not for saying hello to someone.

Cinematics negatively affected DA2 and there is no reason to believe that its going to change any time soon, just like their apparent obsession with the hiddeous dialogue wheel.

Case in point, Huron's wife. She's afraid of him and Hawke can offer to protect her. You think this is a good moment, I can 'choose' to affect the world and protect this terrified woman.

Does Hawke 'get' to protect her...? No. Because instead of protecting her, we are forced to endure a weak cinematic, that someone thought was artsy and cool, that shows him drawing strength from bloodmagic, and then killing her.

Yes, the very same thing could have happened without the cinematic, but one gets the impression that the idea of the cinematic drove the way things played out... not the STORY. When cinematics (or what the animators think look cool) drives the narrative, your get a Micheal Bay movie.

Seems to me some of the devs are just living out their frustrated 'I really wanted to make movies' fantasies. I think the resources spent making pointless cinematic after pointless cinematic could be better spent... you know, maybe less animators and more level designers, then maybe there would have been a world that felt like... a world.

Modifié par Ash Wind, 05 juillet 2012 - 05:59 .

[Furtled]

Personally I like cinematics as long as they don't take away player agency, Ash Wind's example is a good one, Thrask's death is another and from what I hear ME3 suffered from a lot of cinematics with absolutely no player interaction (or minimal dialogue interaction) and one stonking defeat by cut-scene somewhere towards the end that hacked a lot of players off.

Games need cut-scenes to help tell the story but they shouldn't be the sort of thing that makes the player feel frustrated or unnecessary.

[bEVEsthda]

Kail Ashton wrote...

Ahh yes another "-snort- i think we should just go back to how things used to be -snort- no one really cares about graphics or visual storytelling -snort- why can't dragon age 3 just be a text adventure? -snort-"

Otherwise:

<Image deleted>

1: You sure have a lot of,.. eh,..  'bad luck' with your posting.
No one has said anything to the effect that you pretend to paraphrase.

2: I think I'm inclined to regard your post as a flame?

3: I think a picture like that might be regarded as spam?

4: Did you really have anything to say?

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 05 juillet 2012 - 11:01 .

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Kail Ashton wrote...

3: I think a picture like that might be regarded as spam?

Trying... not... to... say... it...

You seem to be in tuna with your puns today. No need to flounder for jokes--eel be a right splash!
...
I'm sorry.

As for the topic at hand--yes, customization! But cinematics are important too! And the dev team seems to be talented and thoughtful, so they've probably had many discussions about this. Whatever ends up happening will happen for a reason.

Modifié par JustifiablyDefenestrated, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:23 .

[Cimeas]

Question One: So you want Bioware to forget about attracting new players and only focus on the classic audience of old BG2 players?

Question Two: So you agree that a game of DA:O's length will have to have significant periods of level recycling (like DA:O) and hardly have state of the art graphics?

Question Three: You understand that if Bioware cannot keep up with other successful RPG devs like CDPR, they will get hurt in reviews and customer perception, few want to play a game worse (in a few core ways) than the alternatives, as shown by DA2's reasonably lackluster sales?

Question Four: Do you understand that Bioware has a very large team and is a big company (or sub-company)? As a company that wishes to make bigger games, employ more people, and get more fans (i.e. become more SUCCESSFUL) they want to expand their audience, and that means marketing to those outside the classic RPG fanbase.

Question Five: Do you understand that most people's only complaints, as evidenced on dozens of gaming sites were that (1) there was too much level-recycling, which was absolutely the case, and (2) there was no companion gear/skill/weapon customization? Seriously, that was the extent of most complaints. The voiced main character is a huge improvement, no longer are we playing a glorified choose-your-adventure hero, but someone who has that fundamental human quality- speech!


Other games had VO'd leads in 2002, and here we are in 2012 and you want things to go back to lifeless, personality-less characters who are merely avatars of yourself, rather than people of their own.

[TonberryFeye]

Cimeas wrote...
Other games had VO'd leads in 2002, and here we are in 2012 and you want things to go back to lifeless, personality-less characters who are merely avatars of yourself, rather than people of their own.

I think I missed a memo here... when did being able to cast myself as the saviour of the universe stop being fun?

Hell, that's probably why a lot of modern games don't seem to be as good as older games. What sounds more appealing to you? A game where you save the world, or a game where you watch Joe Permascowl perform angry grunts of victory when he gets all the credit for your hard work?

[deuce985]

Well, this thread isn't going like I hoped anymore...

[hussey 92]

renjility wrote...

I don't agree cinematics are no good at all. Without a good story and an engaging portrayal of the story (= cutscenes) I care little for all the combat in a game.

I feel the opposite.  If the gameplays not enjoyable it doesn't matter how good the story is.  Games are meant to be played not watched.

[Realmzmaster]

TonberryFeye wrote...

Cimeas wrote...
Other games had VO'd leads in 2002, and here we are in 2012 and you want things to go back to lifeless, personality-less characters who are merely avatars of yourself, rather than people of their own.

I think I missed a memo here... when did being able to cast myself as the saviour of the universe stop being fun?

Hell, that's probably why a lot of modern games don't seem to be as good as older games. What sounds more appealing to you? A game where you save the world, or a game where you watch Joe Permascowl perform angry grunts of victory when he gets all the credit for your hard work?

Since I slip into both roles with no problem either is a win-win for me. Either way I am the "savior of the world" because I make the decisions and choices. Other people's mileage may vary.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

Other games had VO'd leads in 2002, and here we are in 2012 and you want things to go back to lifeless, personality-less characters who are merely avatars of yourself, rather than people of their own.

The silent PCs were only ever avatars of the player if the player decided it so.

My PCs have always been people of their own, but they're people I constructed.  That way I can play the same game again and again with vastly different characters each time.  Voicing the PC forces to have just the one PC ever, eliinating replayability, and eliminating the whole reason I play these games, which is to construct and implement a character's personality to see what happens.

DA2 doesn't let me do that.  DA2 gives me almost no control over Hawke's behaviour.  I cannot choose what he says.  I cannot choose what quests he accepts or completes.  I cannot control Hawke's personality at all.  Hawke's personaltity changes, sometimes, based on which dialogue options I select, but since I don't know what those dialogue options are, I cannot be reasonably described as having controlled Hawke.  I'm just guessing at what each option will do; I never know what it is I'm actually selecting.