778 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

wsandista wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The evidence does seem to point in that direction, but I'd rather not be defeatist.

I don't really see how accepting the limitations of a voiced PC is exactly defeatist, especially when silent PC is the better option (in terms of player control, the most important aspect of an RPG IMO) and should be used. If anything pointing out the failings of the voiced PC(and the dialogue wheel in particular) supports the case for a silent PC, which I gladly lobby for.

But given BioWare's insistence on cinematic presentation and a voiced protagonist, at least in the short term, the only alternative to offering constructive suggestions to be pushed aside as someone who siomply won't like the game.

It's much easier for them to dismiss us if we don't even try to work within their constraints.

[wsandista]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But given BioWare's insistence on cinematic presentation and a voiced protagonist, at least in the short term, the only alternative to offering constructive suggestions to be pushed aside as someone who siomply won't like the game.

It's much easier for them to dismiss us if we don't even try to work within their constraints.

I personally have been throwoing out ideas on how to give the player more control of the voiced PC, and have seen quite a few good sugestions, CrustyBot's compass seems like an excellent idea. I think that we need to know the intent(or purpose) behind the line more than the tone. If my PC is trying to intimidate someone, that is something I need to know more than if (s)he uses a particular tone.

I just don't believe tht the player an ever truly have full control over a voiced PC, even if we know exactly what the PC will say. The limitations of the voiced PC need to be stressed to encourage re-instituting the silent PC.

[SirGladiator]

Its been too long to remember the exact numbers, but it was something like 5 million sold for DAO, and around 2.5m each for ME and ME2. Put them together, and you had about the same amount as DAO. The key point though is that they're two different types of games, but they tried to make DA2 like ME/ME2, that simply doesn't work, nor should it. DA3 should play to DAO's strengths, not try to be more like ME. It doesnt make any sense.

[Melca36]

Emzamination wrote...


Too many old school gamers, there just isn't a big enough market for your kind anymore

That's really rude. <_<

I think a reasonable compromise can be made that appeals to all gamers. Companies do NOT need to pander to one group.

Also...I think you should read this link.  Theres too many stats to list but here are a few.

http://www.theesa.co.../gameplayer.asp

[*]The average gamer is 30 years old and has been playing for
12 years. Sixty-eight percent of gamers are 18 years of age or
older.[/list][*]Forty-seven percent of all players are women, and women over
18 years of age are one of the industry's fastest growing
demographics.[/list][*]Today, adult women represent a greater portion of the
game-playing population (30 percent) than boys age 17 or younger
(18 percent).
[/list]

Modifié par Melca36, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:53 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

wsandista wrote...

The limitations of the voiced PC need to be stressed to encourage re-instituting the silent PC.

This is certainly true.

[Allan Schumacher]

@Melca36

Make sure to keep in mind that the ESA is pretty indiscriminate in determining gamers. I think it's fair, but it will include a lot of people that pick up games like Angry Birds for their phone, or actively play social games as well.


Though that link did make me sad as a PC gamer

[Melca36]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

@Melca36

Make sure to keep in mind that the ESA is pretty indiscriminate in determining gamers. I think it's fair, but it will include a lot of people that pick up games like Angry Birds for their phone, or actively play social games as well.


Though that link did make me sad as a PC gamer

I didn't know.

See I classify myself as 65% PC Gamer and 35% Xboxer.   I actually bought Origins and DA 2 Twice.

As for games like Angry Birds....I never played it. I played Dragon Age Legends to get the items for the game but stopped after that.

I have a HUGE issue with paying for additional content for Facebook games. To be blunt...Im thrifty.

I also don't like playing games that look they belong in the early 90s.  I hate how they look.

As for those stats....I think its GREAT that 47% of the gamers are now women.

There needs to be a way to really survey a person's gaming habits though.

It would be interesting to see what demographic replays their games the most and which group only does a single playthrough

Modifié par Melca36, 06 juillet 2012 - 06:32 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

@Melca36

Make sure to keep in mind that the ESA is pretty indiscriminate in determining gamers. I think it's fair, but it will include a lot of people that pick up games like Angry Birds for their phone, or actively play social games as well.

Though that link did make me sad as a PC gamer

Valve is not a member of the ESA. Also, a lot of other PC-specific devs and distributors are not there. Not sure if that means a lot. Also, ESA has been known to be more console centric.

[Cultist]

There's a plenty of examples of companies that target purely "their" audience, instead of acting like late BioWare with their "let's attract new arcade and action players".attitude.
Starcraft franchise, Total War franchise - the later is the most interesting as according to polls main playerbase is 25 and 30+ years old. They fare quite well and nice without radical changes.

[Allan Schumacher]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Valve is not a member of the ESA. Also, a lot of other PC-specific devs and distributors are not there. Not sure if that means a lot. Also, ESA has been known to be more console centric.

Well that is certainly good news for us PC Gamers hahaha.

I don't know how the ESA gets all of their data either, so if there's gaps I hope it's in the PC segments

As for those stats....I think its GREAT that 47% of the gamers are now women.

Me too.  I never cared for a game like The Sims, but when I hear that more women played it than men, it piques my interest in terms of its contribution to gaming.  I like The Sims as a sort of "Gateway drug" into gaming.  Same with consoles like the Wii, which don't appeal to me in the slightest but do appeal to non-traditional gamers.  Suddenly some of them are picking up other consoles and trying other games and whatnot.  Good for the industry

Total War franchise - the later is the most interesting as according to
polls main playerbase is 25 and 30+ years old. They fare quite well and
nice without radical changes.

As a Total War fan I disagree.  IMO there's been pretty significant changes and in my mind the original Medieval: Total War is still their best product.  I liked Rome once modders got a hold of it, and I did think that Shogun 2 was well done.  But all these games play quite a bit differently than the original Medieval: Total War, which I found to be a much more versatile and interesting game.

[AkiKishi]

wsandista wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But given BioWare's insistence on cinematic presentation and a voiced protagonist, at least in the short term, the only alternative to offering constructive suggestions to be pushed aside as someone who siomply won't like the game.

It's much easier for them to dismiss us if we don't even try to work within their constraints.

I personally have been throwoing out ideas on how to give the player more control of the voiced PC, and have seen quite a few good sugestions, CrustyBot's compass seems like an excellent idea. I think that we need to know the intent(or purpose) behind the line more than the tone. If my PC is trying to intimidate someone, that is something I need to know more than if (s)he uses a particular tone.

I just don't believe tht the player an ever truly have full control over a voiced PC, even if we know exactly what the PC will say. The limitations of the voiced PC need to be stressed to encourage re-instituting the silent PC.

You don't have full control over a silent PC either. You can still only pick from the choices on offer, even if you know what those choices will be in advance.

Even a 3 year old will eventually realise that trying to bang a square peg into a round hole is futile.

[batlin]

BobSmith101 wrote...

You don't have full control over a silent PC either. You can still only pick from the choices on offer, even if you know what those choices will be in advance.

Even a 3 year old will eventually realise that trying to bang a square peg into a round hole is futile.

This is a repost from BlackFulcrum in the VO topic, pretty much sums up exactly why silent protagonists give you more freedom than voiced protagonists do:

As mentioned by others, and this is probably the most important pro,
unvoiced makes the character more yours, you are forced to use your
imagination more, you can add your own voice for that chararcter, your
own inflections, your own mood in a conversation, it goes back to
tabletop RPG playing, your character, your voice, your idea of their
disposition and mood, your character, you.

[AkiKishi]

batlin wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

You don't have full control over a silent PC either. You can still only pick from the choices on offer, even if you know what those choices will be in advance.

Even a 3 year old will eventually realise that trying to bang a square peg into a round hole is futile.

This is a repost from BlackFulcrum in the VO topic, pretty much sums up exactly why silent protagonists give you more freedom than voiced protagonists do:

As mentioned by others, and this is probably the most important pro,
unvoiced makes the character more yours, you are forced to use your
imagination more, you can add your own voice for that chararcter, your
own inflections, your own mood in a conversation, it goes back to
tabletop RPG playing, your character, your voice, your idea of their
disposition and mood, your character, you.

A couple of things.

1. Why should you be forced to use your imagination after shelling out $60 ? 
2. If the option is not on the list then you can't take it. It's false freedom.

While a silent PC might give you more freedom in your head.That is as far as it extends.

[TonberryFeye]

BobSmith101 wrote...
1. Why should you be forced to use your imagination after shelling out $60 ? 

You know how your grandparents always said TV would rot your brain? This is exactly what they meant; their idea of entertainment is something that stimulates the mind. Your idea of entertainment is something that lobotomises it.

[YohkoOhno]

TonberryFeye wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
1. Why should you be forced to use your imagination after shelling out $60 ? 

You know how your grandparents always said TV would rot your brain? This is exactly what they meant; their idea of entertainment is something that stimulates the mind. Your idea of entertainment is something that lobotomises it.

Funny, that's what a lot of table-top gamers said about Computer RPGs when they first appeared.

[Fast Jimmy]

YohkoOhno wrote...

TonberryFeye wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
1. Why should you be forced to use your imagination after shelling out $60 ? 

You know how your grandparents always said TV would rot your brain? This is exactly what they meant; their idea of entertainment is something that stimulates the mind. Your idea of entertainment is something that lobotomises it.

Funny, that's what a lot of table-top gamers said about Computer RPGs when they first appeared.

Do you know how much drivel cRPGs were out there until some quality ones were made that, coincidentally enough, MIMICKED the table top experienced? Crappy cRPGs DID rot your brain.

Yet now, they threaten to push out the last cRPGs that are trying to mimic a table top experience in favor of a cinematic button mash format, of which DA2 seems to be the mold rather than DA:O.

Something that I could at least blame on greed if DA:O wasn't insanely popular and successful. Something I can only attribute to misguided stupidity and arrogance in that DA2 was a flop.

[Il Divo]

TonberryFeye wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
1. Why should you be forced to use your imagination after shelling out $60 ? 

You know how your grandparents always said TV would rot your brain? This is exactly what they meant; their idea of entertainment is something that stimulates the mind. Your idea of entertainment is something that lobotomises it.

I can stimulate my own mind without wasting the cost of the game, then. Tabletop offers infinitely more freedom than any cRPG. I'm not paying developers for my own imagination. I'm paying them to make my imagination a reality in the game world.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 juillet 2012 - 11:48 .

[TonberryFeye]

The beauty of a good cRPG is that it can use a computer's natural talent to improve the game; the ability to do math really, really quickly.

If you've ever tried playing a mechanics-heavy game you'll know what I mean. Some systems just turn into a chore to play (and doubly so to run) because you spend so much time looking up tables, working out modifiers and then fishing the dice out from under the sofa.

A computer can easily calculate and execute a thousand rounds of combat in the time it takes players to do one. A computer could run enough campaigns to get a level 1 party to level 20 in the time it takes most of us to roll up the character. This means that you can deliver an RPG experience faster, from a mechanics perspective, which in turn allows more focus on other areas.

Neither way is better than the other; as odd as it may sound, one of my favourite things about ttRPGs is spending ten minutes arguing about who goes through the door first (You're the sodding Rogue, you go first! I don't care if you've only got seven hit points left; if there's a trap, you're going to find it one way or the other!). However, both systems share an important similarity; they exercise the mind. They are games about imagination, innovative problem solving, and coming up with a pop-culture reference or insider joke you can pass off as a legitimate name for a Fantasy hero ("Thaco" is one of my favourtes. ).

An RPG that does all the imagining for you is not an RPG; it's a hack'n'slash with ideas above its station.

[Il Divo]

batlin wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

You don't have full control over a silent PC either. You can still only pick from the choices on offer, even if you know what those choices will be in advance.

Even a 3 year old will eventually realise that trying to bang a square peg into a round hole is futile.

This is a repost from BlackFulcrum in the VO topic, pretty much sums up exactly why silent protagonists give you more freedom than voiced protagonists do:

As mentioned by others, and this is probably the most important pro,
unvoiced makes the character more yours, you are forced to use your
imagination more, you can add your own voice for that chararcter, your
own inflections, your own mood in a conversation, it goes back to
tabletop RPG playing, your character, your voice, your idea of their
disposition and mood, your character, you.

Bob pretty much hit the problem with this philosophy. What the game doesn't plan for it doesn't make any effort to account. Why does it matter that I can use my own inflections if the game pretends it never happened? In tabletop, inflection actually is relevant, since how the world responds can be decided according to the other players.

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...
You don't have full control over a silent PC either. You can still only pick from the choices on offer, even if you know what those choices will be in advance.

I don't think that is much of a problem. Sure, there were moments, when I was new to this, back in BG, when it happened that I reacted over the available dialogue choices, not happy with any. But it really hasn't been much of a problem. And, certainly, other forumites who play in the same style as I - defining the protagonist, rather than exploring - I've never seen them complain either.

Seeing the full dialogue lines (which we won't either) gives us time to consider. That time and consideration helps making one of the lines ours, our protagonist's. Before speaking it. I think that might be very important. You spend time with the line, before committing to it.

Right now, we're working on the assumption that a voiced protagonist don't need to be a problem either, basically because Bioware have already made that choice.
I believe Bioware may have made themselves a big disfavor, when they intentionally used the dialogue wheel and VP to surprise the player, in DA2. We'll see how it works out in DA3, when their design imperative will be different.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 06 juillet 2012 - 12:03 .

[Cimeas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

The fact is that Mass Effect sold more than Dragon Age.

Not true.  ME3 sold more than DAO did, but neither ME nor ME2 sold as many.

Since the decision to move to voice was made for DA2 before even ME2 was released, it cannot have been because the voiced games were outselling the silent games, becuase they weren't.

I suggest that the voiced games were easier for BioWare to sell to EA's marketing department, and EA's marketing department has significant control over how many resources BioWare gets to develop their games.

OK, so according to the statistics, ME2 sold 4.24 million and as someone said DA:O sold 2.31.
Also, last year before ME3 came out, Bioware said ME1+ME2 had sold something like 7 million combined.

[Cimeas]

Also, on many 'mainstream' games sites, you hear people talking about 'their' Shepard and his/her adventures. Do you think that attachment would work if Shepard was silent? I don't think so. I like my Warden, but at the end of the day I have to imagine his personality. I could imagine the world, the story, etc.. but instead I choose to partake in a world and plot that Bioware give me. I might as well enjoy a character that Bioware's professional and experienced writers can give me, rather than a personality I, an amateur, can create.

I'm sorry I don't have as fantastic an imagination as you, but I play games to *play* the gameplay, *make* the choices, and *enjoy* a story. To be honest, if they made DA3 have a silent main (which they won't) I would still buy and probably enjoy the game.


TL;DR it's funny that in Mass Effect, many people's favorite character is their own Shepard. But in Dragon Age: Origins, it's a VOICE-ACTED companion, like Morrigan or Leliana, because they had personality, whereas the Warden didn't.

[bEVEsthda]

For the sake of this thread, I think we should distinguish more between just cutscene movies, and cinematics as a whole.

Also, while the misreading has been made a lot, this thread is not about abolishing cutscene movies (I'd be happy to see them go altogether, I freely confess to that). It's about questioning the assumption that just because a game is supposed to be "cinematic", that also means gameplay elements can be diluted or discarded, in order to fit cinematics better, and that at the end of the day everything will still be fine, because glorious cinematics will compensate for whatever is lost.

When you make this argument a lot, "Because it's a cinematic game, this is better this way, because it fits the cinematic purpose better", you're in the end basically arguing for that the entire game should be just a movie. If you allow for that argument, that's where you'll end up.

That's why it shouldn't be done that way. Wanting to do a cinematic game should be about shooting the gameplay, doing the presentation of the game, in a way that is cinematic. It shouldn't replace gameplay, and it shouldn't end up with you having a development team that is all fired up for making their movie, telling a story their way. Cinematics must always come second to gameplay elements. So you end up with flawed cinematics. - That's right!

I really don't understand why ME3 was shipped with the end in the original state? It emphasizes the disaster of the DA2 juvenile remake. At that point, important details have disappeared from the overview.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 06 juillet 2012 - 12:59 .

[AkiKishi]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

YohkoOhno wrote...

TonberryFeye wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
1. Why should you be forced to use your imagination after shelling out $60 ? 

You know how your grandparents always said TV would rot your brain? This is exactly what they meant; their idea of entertainment is something that stimulates the mind. Your idea of entertainment is something that lobotomises it.

Funny, that's what a lot of table-top gamers said about Computer RPGs when they first appeared.

Do you know how much drivel cRPGs were out there until some quality ones were made that, coincidentally enough, MIMICKED the table top experienced? Crappy cRPGs DID rot your brain.

Yet now, they threaten to push out the last cRPGs that are trying to mimic a table top experience in favor of a cinematic button mash format, of which DA2 seems to be the mold rather than DA:O.

Something that I could at least blame on greed if DA:O wasn't insanely popular and successful. Something I can only attribute to misguided stupidity and arrogance in that DA2 was a flop.

I don't see how DA:O mimics the table top game. I don't take control of my companions characters in battle because I can play them better than they can.

[bEVEsthda]

Cimeas wrote...
TL;DR it's funny that in Mass Effect, many people's favorite character is their own Shepard. But in Dragon Age: Origins, it's a VOICE-ACTED companion, like Morrigan or Leliana, because they had personality, whereas the Warden didn't.

I don't interpret it that way at all. And I think there are a few alternate interpretations.

1: The Warden is so custom, that it's pointless to make comparisons to other characters. It doesn't even enter peoples' minds to do so. Shepard, otoh, is more just another Bioware character, just like the others. If anything, I'd say that puts us in FF land.

2:...

3:...

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 06 juillet 2012 - 12:54 .