778 réponses à ce sujet

[Cimeas]

bEVEsthda wrote...

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:...

Yeah, and you know what, I completely agree that there are two very different types of players in this discussion.   Those, perhaps those who would write fan-fiction, who want to create their 'own' character and story in the world, and those who want to play a kind of tactical interactive movie, where their choices still affect the world at large, but more elements of the player character are set in stone.    

Bioware has to decide which fanbase they cater for.   Also, I think you have to realise that many players might have played DA:O despite preffering VO'd main characters. I know I did, because I won't let one thing put me off a game.   At the same time, many players who like VO'd protagonists may NOT have played DA2 because it was a bad game in other elements.


Things I want back from the 'Old Bioware':
-More choices that affect gameplay
-Larger areas to explore
-Conversation skills (coercion, intimidate etc..)
-Ability to talk your way out of combat
-More ambiguity in dialogue (no icons next to conversation wheel)
-Tactical Camera for those difficult boss fights
-Companion gear slots

Things I don't want back from the 'Old Bioware':
-Slow combat (keep pausing, but I like fast-paced, less boring if you're dungeon crawling styled combat)
-Silent protagonist (Bioware writes excellent dialogue, lets give characters and great actors voices to express it)
-12 different armor slots per character (give every player and every companion a helm, an armor and maybe an 'accessory', I don't understand why we need gloves, boots,  necklace, two rings etc..)
-Boring main story.   (no more 'go to four places then save the world' kind of story)

[Fredward]

Cimeas wrote...
Yeah, and you know what, I completely agree that there are two very different types of players in this discussion.   Those, perhaps those who would write fan-fiction, who want to create their 'own' character and story in the world, and those who want to play a kind of tactical interactive movie, where their choices still affect the world at large, but more elements of the player character are set in stone.   

-nods- The more I see on these forums the more I think there is this fundemental way in which different gamers approach their RPG's that lead to most of the "discussion" on the forum. Although I really need someone to describe it eloquently so I can stickit in mah sig.

I've always said (and by almost, I mean starting 4 months ago when I joined)  that I play a Bioware game like I read a book. With a lamp on. Lulz, not really. What I mean is I become emotionally invested in the characters and intrigued in the story, I want to see the end but I don't feel like I should be the one who dictates exactly how it ends. The MC is the same, I tailor them to fit the game, I never try to imprint myself into the game and this is also why I don't have a problem with a voiced protagonist because I assume whatever the devs do it will fit the story, maybe not what I envisage but it will work in the overall story.

Both DA games gave me a nice storyline and so I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to their lesser flaws. With Origins the point that made the story for me was the Dark Ritual, I was playing a human noble who had been romancing Alistair up until that point and she was so pissed that after EVERYTHING she went through she was going to be robbed of her rightful happily ever after that she accepted (stupidly) Morrigan's proposal. She wanted to be a good Grey Warden but she just couldn't do it, she wanted to be queen and she wasn't going to lose Alistair either and she just had this bad "feeling" in her gut that the Frenchy the Warden was gonna wind up dead before the killing blow could be landed (I star in my games too, I'm the sixth sense with the metagame knowledge XD). In DA2 my mage Hawke had been romancing Anders and was so peeved at him when he exploded the Chantry that she wanted to kill him (my characters usually have betrayal issues) especially after she realized that he blackmailed her into helping him! Now she wasn't peeved that he blew up the chantry, she had been wanting to stab Templars in the face since forever, she hated the fact that he hadn't trusted her. She would do anything for him, really it's one of those unhealthy relationships. I worry about her sometimes. I also totally expect it to end in tragedy, which would be the final poignant pang.

What's my point? I'm not sure anymore. See this is what happens when my posts get longer than a paragraph. Maybe I should make notes... anyway this is what I want in a story. Moments that make me go 'Well crap what do I do now?" And both DA games have given it to me, but I never, even once, felt the stories were mine. They're taking place in a world I didn't create and the things happening to them isn't what I came up with so, to me, I'm temporarily taking control of someone else's character to see a part of a even bigger story.

Did any of this make sense? Like at all? I was built to be witty and endearing not to make sens- OHMIGAWT LOOK A SHINY!

[wsandista]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

You're confusing "freedom" with "control". I may not get to do anything I want, but with a silent PC, the PC does what I command.

Modifié par wsandista, 06 juillet 2012 - 02:42 .

[Ash Wind]

Cimeas wrote...

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.

The DA:O sales numbers you quote are inaccurate and only represent XBOX sales. Below are sales across 3 major platforms. Its VGChartz, so take it for what its worth:

DA:O:  4.18 Million sales (2.31M Xbox sales)
http://www.vgchartz....on Age: Origins
DAO: Awakening:  650,000
http://www.vgchartz....gins: Awakening
DA II:  1.96M
http://www.vgchartz....e=Dragon Age II
Mass Effect 2:  4.24M
http://www.vgchartz....e=Mass Effect 2
Mass Effect 3:  3.67M
http://www.vgchartz....e=Mass Effect 3



 

[TonberryFeye]

Where does VGChartz get its information?

[bEVEsthda]

Ash Wind wrote...
The DA:O sales numbers you quote are inaccurate and only represent XBOX sales. Below are sales across 3 major platforms. Its VGChartz, so take it for what its worth:

DA:O:  4.18 Million sales (2.31M Xbox sales)
http://www.vgchartz....on Age: Origins
DAO: Awakening:  650,000
http://www.vgchartz....gins: Awakening
DA II:  1.96M
http://www.vgchartz....e=Dragon Age II
Mass Effect 2:  4.24M
http://www.vgchartz....e=Mass Effect 2
Mass Effect 3:  3.67M
http://www.vgchartz....e=Mass Effect 3

 

So basically Bioware has managed to shrink their franchises.

I think one may do very good to also consider the circumstances around some of these sales.
DA2 sold in 2 millions. This was based on the big interest from retailers and customers, due to DA:O. Roughly a million of the sales it actually achieved, was on preorder. At least another half million or more, sold early, entirely on expectations of what DA2 was supposed to be. Finally, many, maybe hundreds of thousands, were sold in desperate stock clearance deals. I personally saw DA2 for like $10 - $15 very early on, not to forget the + ME2 for free deal.. Add to this the complete disinterest and rejection, from retailers, to take on any kind of DA2 follow up, like "ultimate" including dlc. It all adds up to the picture that DA2 didn't achieve any relevant sales at all, on it's own merits.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 06 juillet 2012 - 03:54 .

[Pasquale1234]

Cimeas wrote...

Bioware has to decide which fanbase they cater for.   Also, I think you have to realise that many players might have played DA:O despite preffering VO'd main characters. I know I did, because I won't let one thing put me off a game.   At the same time, many players who like VO'd protagonists may NOT have played DA2 because it was a bad game in other elements.

A lot of people made their purchase decisions without seeing any reviews.  If you want to blame the lackluster sales on bad reviews, then we need to recognize that we are attributing a lot of sales to word-of-mouth instead of the company's marketing efforts.

Some people cancelled their pre-orders after they played the demo, because they didn't like the gameplay changes.

It's also pretty clear that a lot of people who purchased DA2 prefer unvoiced protags.

It's probably not a representative sample, but most of the polls around here run ~ 50/50 in voiced vs non-voiced.

[Pasquale1234]

bEVEsthda wrote...

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:...

Quite a few people have stated that they felt that Hawke was not 'their' Hawke, but BioWare's.

There are still many people wanting to play their Warden again.

[Allan Schumacher]

Quite a few people have stated that they felt that Hawke was not 'their' Hawke, but BioWare's.

There are still many people wanting to play their Warden again.

By the same token, there's an extremely large and loud group of people that feel that Commander Shepard was "their Shepard" which makes me wonder if whether or not someone feels that Hawke is "BioWare's" and not "theirs" is symptomatic of something else other than cinematic cutscenes, voiced protagonists, and dialogue wheels.

[Cimeas]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

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:...

Quite a few people have stated that they felt that Hawke was not 'their' Hawke, but BioWare's.

There are still many people wanting to play their Warden again.

Sure, but firstly Bioware already said that the Warden's story 'is over', and secondly many people here are the more hardcore fanbase (not the only one, not even the main one) and have been playing these games since Planescape and BG1, so the simplification (and I won't deny, it *IS* simplification) of games frustrates them more since they take the time to craft characters in their imagination and learn complex systems, which many gamers today do not. 

I'm not arguing that Bioware should make it's games simpler, just that there are market forces at work.   For example, ME2 sold more than ME1 and it was vastly simplified, wasn't it?   The only thing I actually care about is having no silent protagonists.

And anyway, Bioware isn't doing those anymore, they've confirmed it, so why complain?   They may already be recording for DA3.

[Pasquale1234]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Quite a few people have stated that they felt that Hawke was not 'their' Hawke, but BioWare's.

There are still many people wanting to play their Warden again.

By the same token, there's an extremely large and loud group of people that feel that Commander Shepard was "their Shepard" which makes me wonder if whether or not someone feels that Hawke is "BioWare's" and not "theirs" is symptomatic of something else other than cinematic cutscenes, voiced protagonists, and dialogue wheels.

I'd say it is, but just exactly what isn't clear.

It may be due in part to expectations, and the fact that these two franchises started out as different genres (sci-fi shooter with rpg elements versus classic fantasy rpg) with different expectations.  People have played Shepard through 3 games plus DLCs, which forms a much more intense attachment to the character.  Hawke's storyline probably doesn't have as broad an appeal as Shepard's.  People attracted to shooters may be more likely to expect and appreciate action combat.  ME started out with VO and cinematics, which was a huge change for DA.

In short, I think there are (or were) more differences than similarities, though it seems that DA has become much more like ME.

[Pasquale1234]

Cimeas wrote...

Sure, but firstly Bioware already said that the Warden's story 'is over', and secondly many people here are the more hardcore fanbase (not the only one, not even the main one) and have been playing these games since Planescape and BG1, so the simplification (and I won't deny, it *IS* simplification) of games frustrates them more since they take the time to craft characters in their imagination and learn complex systems, which many gamers today do not.

Doesn't change the fact that people are still very attached to their Warden, which is what I was addressing.

I'm not arguing that Bioware should make it's games simpler, just that there are market forces at work.   For example, ME2 sold more than ME1 and it was vastly simplified, wasn't it?   The only thing I actually care about is having no silent protagonists.

I've no experience with any changes between ME games, as I don't play them.

One of the things that has happened since DA has become more like ME is that their portfolio of games and potential audience is less diverse, which is riskier.  They seem to be targeting both of the franchises toward the same audience, instead of continuing to try to appeal to gamers with different tastes.

[Brockololly]

Ash Wind wrote...
The DA:O sales numbers you quote are inaccurate and only represent XBOX sales. Below are sales across 3 major platforms. Its VGChartz, so take it for what its worth:

 

Of note, beyond being a bit sketchy, VGChartz didn't take into account any North American sales of Origins on PC. And of course, they have no way of knowing digital download numbers either.

Cimeas wrote...
Also, I think you have to  realise that many players might have played DA:O despite preffering VO'd main characters. I know I did, because I won't let one thing put me off a game.   At the same time, many players who like VO'd protagonists may NOT have played DA2 because it was a bad game in other elements.

And many people who might like silent PCs and greater character customization might have skipped DA2 because its a fixed, voiced PC. Yes, at the end of the day it comes down to whether its just a good game or not.

The question is what value is being derived from having a voiced PC with the dialogue wheel as opposed to BioWare trying something else, maybe even something completely different and new? I do question the entire cinematic approach BioWare seems to rigidly adhere to now, as I am not quite sure how much of a draw it is compared to trying something else. Look at something like TOR- the voice acting was supposed to be the huge defining feature of the game. And its only doing ho-hum.

I think voice acting isn't necessarily that big of a deal for many people provided you provide some other benefit to an unvoiced PC. Just look at something like Skyrim- people love being able to have a freedom in making different races of player character. Same with Origins where even if you only played through it once, there was intrinsic value added to the game in having those extra Origin stories present and having those extra races available.

And I think you have to identify your core audience really- with something like TOR, maybe when they focus tested it with a broad audience they saw that people loved the voiced PC, but that kind of a mainstream audience had no interest in the game for a variety of other reasons.So something like the player VO might be kind of cool, but its not necessarily going to be a feature thats going to sell copies of a game.


I'd just really prefer BioWare try something totally new with how they present teh characters/story/dialogue in their games, instead of slightly tweaking the ME formula.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
By the same token, there's an extremely large and loud group of people  that feel that Commander Shepard was "their Shepard" which makes me  wonder if whether or not someone feels that Hawke is "BioWare's" and not "theirs" is symptomatic of something else other than cinematic  cutscenes, voiced protagonists, and dialogue wheels.

Sure, but Shepard is Shepard. The Warden or Bhaalspawn could be any number of races or backgrounds. The Warden can be a Cousland, Aeducan, Amell and so forth. With Shepard or Hawke you're just creating a slightly different version of a fixed character.

As for people feeling BioWare owns a character like Hawke as opposed to the player, I think its not necessarily symptomatic of some other feature but more all of those features (voice acting, dialogue wheel, animations, cinematics) taken together and once combined give the feeling of a lack of control or agency when BioWare tries to force character on the PC without player input. Even ME3 was pretty bad at this with Shep's forced PTSD nightmares and autodialogue. There is no way "my" Shepard would have done some of that.

Modifié par Brockololly, 06 juillet 2012 - 07:47 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Sure, but Shepard is Shepard. The Warden or Bhaalspawn could be any number of races or backgrounds. The Warden can be a Cousland, Aeducan, Amell and so forth. With Shepard or Hawke you're just creating a slightly different version of a fixed character.

As for people feeling BioWare owns a character like Hawke as opposed to the player, I think its not necessarily symptomatic of some other feature but more all of those features (voice acting, dialogue wheel, animations, cinematics) taken together and once combined give the feeling of a lack of control or agency when BioWare tries to force character on the PC without player input. Even ME3 was pretty bad at this with Shep's forced PTSD nightmares and autodialogue. There is no way "my" Shepard would have done some of that.

The point I was more making though is that in spite of Shepard having VO, using dialogue wheels, and cutscenes, there doesn't appear to be any shortage of people that feel that the Shepard they play is "their Shepard." They have ownership over the character in their minds, and you're right that many didn't like the dreams and whatnot because of it.

To me, it seems more like the issue is the dream sequences in ME3, because had they existed even if Mass Effect let you play a more blank slate, silent protagonist, people would have had the same issues. But even though Shepard used a dialogue wheel, had full voice acting, and it was a cinematic game, many people still felt that Shepard was "theirs."

Obviously for some it will be a deal breaker (it comes up a lot here), but it seems for also a large group many don't seem to feel that these things are a significant barrier to Shepard being their own character.

I think you're right that player agency is the key. Do those that feel Shepard can be "theirs" have a different degree of granularity for what they require for agency? Picking decisions and quest paths on a high level may be sufficient, whereas a gesture or a facial expression is less of an issue for them? By the opposite account, someone such as yourself has a much finer granularity and the smaller details are still just as important (maybe more important)?

[DahliaLynn]

I honestly doubt anyone would not buy an RPG game because it "has a silent protagonist". More likely the opposite seems true -at least from the crowd opposing the voiced PC.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Cimeas wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

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:...

Yeah, and you know what, I completely agree that there are two very different types of players in this discussion.   Those, perhaps those who would write fan-fiction, who want to create their 'own' character and story in the world, and those who want to play a kind of tactical interactive movie, where their choices still affect the world at large, but more elements of the player character are set in stone.    

...And then there's those that never try to create their own character because they could never come close to the freedom a tabletop game offer, that have always viewed the protagonist as BioWares. 3rd person narrative.

[Fallstar]

I wouldn't say they should completely drop the focus on cinematics, the majority of Bioware's recent games have been incredibly cinematic orientated. The problem is when those cinematics go from cool little things that add to atmosphere and mood (like the DAO Denerim speech) to something that necessitates significant compromises elsewhere. I probably sound like a broken record right now, but the primary example of this is when cinematic auto dialogue is deemed important enough that the paraphrase system is a 'requirement'.

I also think they might bring the interrupt system over from ME. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, so long as we are given concise descriptions of what the interrupt does, and if we have the option to pause the cutscene once the interrupt option appears to think about whether or not we want to take it. (This could perhaps be an auto option like the pause on entering combat in the options screen)

[upsettingshorts]

This mythical BioWare that doesn't care about cinematics never existed.  Unless you want to count like, Shattered Steel.

They've been expanding that part of their approach as much as the technology has allowed them since forever.

Anticipating a likely counter-argument, my prepared response is that your concept of what constitutes a cinematic is needlessly specific and has more to do with your own subjective preferences than any approach on BioWare's part.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 juillet 2012 - 09:09 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

You don't have full control over a silent PC either.

Yes I do.  I tell him to do something, and he does exactly that thing.  That's the very definition of control.  I select the exact line, and he delivers the exact line.  That's total control

You can still only pick from the choices on offer, even if you know what those choices will be in advance.

As wsandista pointed out above, you're confusing control with freedom.  Obviously a CRPG can't ever offer us the same level of freedom that tabletop games can, but they can offer us the same level of control.  I'm asking for the thing I can have, not the thing I can't.

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

I doubt you've ever found a 3 year old who could cogently explain his motives for doing anything.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

A couple of things.

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

Similarly, why should one be forced to endure a pre-gen PC after shelling out $60?

Your point lacks prescriptive force.

But since you asked, because all roleplaying happens in your imagination.  That's what roleplaying is.  If you buy a $60 roleplaying game, you should expect it to favour a playstyle that includes roleplaying.

Acting isn't roleplaying.  Acting is acting.  Roleplaying is you perceiving the world from your character's perspective.  That is impossible in the voiced PC games we've seen so far.

[Pasquale1234]

DahliaLynn wrote...

I honestly doubt anyone would not buy an RPG game because it "has a silent protagonist". More likely the opposite seems true -at least from the crowd opposing the voiced PC.

I'd say that's true for me.  I buy rpgs to role-play, which is something I've not figured out how to do when a VA / animated avatar is doing it for me.

[DahliaLynn]

Any 3D first person/third person game will be cinematic, including Skyrim, whether it's use of cutscenes, or player controlled cameras, they are all cinematic.

I think one of the OP's main issues veer towards the "Cutscene use in games" debate on how much control should be taken from the player and what are the benefits/consequences of those design decisions. Cutscenes were successfully implemented in DA:O imo, even with a silent protagonist, only there was very little visual focus on the player, but rather what the player sees, from a third person POV. They didn't take too much time away from the player, and the player almost always knew when one would trigger. Either by completing a major quest, entering a new area, or by clicking on an NPC triggering a conversation. No surprises, or sudden loss of control. (And personally, I didn't feel much of a need to see my own character very often in a conversation. My reaction was my own, behind the screen)

When BioWare devs talk of future implementation, they likely are talking about taking the same approach, only adding the dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist as in DA2, allowing us to see our character react emotively as well as verbally. This would likely improve *Cutscene* flow, though takes away more of the player's personal point of view and perspective of the events around him/her, which can change the psychology of how one sees "their" character. Silent makes it more personal, leaves much room for imagination and voiced makes it more third person and defined.

It's probably tougher to figure out how an NPC should react to you if there are a million ways you can voice a line, though again I still say DA:O pulled it off very well. It could very well be that this took a tremendous amount of resources to figure out how an NPC would react to each line, I don't know. And, it's possible they would prefer to concentrate those resources elsewhere.

Since any 3D first / third person game will be cinematic, there is no way BioWare can focus *less" on cinematics. What they can do is decide *how* they are going to use those tools, where to concentrate those resources in order to make it the best cinematic game they can make, (Cutscenes or not) and it seems their decision has been made as far as the basics of conversations are concerned. If anything, it will probably be *easier* for them to use the voiced protagonist, leaving room to devote resources to other things, such as story, customization, etc.
But I'm just theorizing

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 06 juillet 2012 - 09:42 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

DahliaLynn wrote...

I honestly doubt anyone would not buy an RPG game because it "has a silent protagonist". More likely the opposite seems true -at least from the crowd opposing the voiced PC.

I'd say that's true for me.  I buy rpgs to role-play, which is something I've not figured out how to do when a VA / animated avatar is doing it for me.

When DA3 is released, you should ask BioWare for help.  We all should.

If there's a way to use the voice+paraphrase that allows us to construct a coherent personality for our characters, presumably BioWare knows what it is.  Given their commitment to this dialogue mechanic, I think they should offer us some guidance.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

This mythical BioWare that doesn't care about cinematics never existed.  Unless you want to count like, Shattered Steel.

They've been expanding that part of their approach as much as the technology has allowed them since forever.

I do not dispute that.

But I would like to see BioWare not abandon previously supported playstyles, paticularly those so fundamental to the very concept of roleplaying.  They're reminding me of Google's steadfast refusal to allow us to disable tabbed browsing in Chrome because they don't like supporting "legacy behaviours", even when those behaviours are demonstrably more efficient.

[AmstradHero]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Even ME3 was pretty bad at this with Shep's forced PTSD nightmares and autodialogue. There is no way "my" Shepard would have done some of that.

The point I was more making though is that in spite of Shepard having VO, using dialogue wheels, and cutscenes, there doesn't appear to be any shortage of people that feel that the Shepard they play is "their Shepard." They have ownership over the character in their minds, and you're right that many didn't like the dreams and whatnot because of it.

To me, it seems more like the issue is the dream sequences in ME3, because had they existed even if Mass Effect let you play a more blank slate, silent protagonist, people would have had the same issues. But even though Shepard used a dialogue wheel, had full voice acting, and it was a cinematic game, many people still felt that Shepard was "theirs."

Obviously for some it will be a deal breaker (it comes up a lot here), but it seems for also a large group many don't seem to feel that these things are a significant barrier to Shepard being their own character.

I think you're right that player agency is the key. Do those that feel Shepard can be "theirs" have a different degree of granularity for what they require for agency? Picking decisions and quest paths on a high level may be sufficient, whereas a gesture or a facial expression is less of an issue for them? By the opposite account, someone such as yourself has a much finer granularity and the smaller details are still just as important (maybe more important)?

This is a very interesting line of discussion.

In ME1 and ME2 I mostly felt like Shepard was "mine". It did drop slightly in ME2 though. In ME3 that pretty much went out the window and Shepard became BioWare's. The notable increase in auto dialogue was a significant factor here, but the PTSD nightmares were a huge disconnect for me. I'm sorry if this makes me heartless, but I really did not care about the child at all - I'd lost people I cared about far more in the previous two games and I didn't have nightmares about them in those games. It was an enforced emotional reaction for something that didn't really have a lasting emotional impact. In terms of gameplay they were also extremely tedious - I couldn't find the kid once and I had to systematically scour the area to find him. Not enjoyable.

However, I'd also contend that the slow development of renegade choices towards "Shepard is a jerk" rather than "Shepard is ruthless so that (s)he can do what needs to be done" also played a big part in this. Far too many of ME3's renegade options did not feel like a "renegade" choice but just a "I'm being sadistic or violent for the sake of it" rather than in pursuit of a particular goal. My Shepard who was paragon but acted renegade everyone now and then in ME1 & ME2, but basically took no renegade options in ME3 because they didn't fit.

I played through DA2 once, with a primarily snarky female Hawke. For me, Hawke was still probably about 2/3rds my Hawke, 1/3rd BioWare's. I didn't mind that. With the character role I chose, I was able to select a variety of choices throughout the game that gave me control on how to react to the situations I was placed in. That said, if I'd picked a different character personality to roleplay, I can easily see that the split would have shifted to make Hawke more BioWare's.

Of course, this is where I bring up the point that the concept of the character being "the player's" seems to be irrelevant to the discussion for some people, given the outpouring of love for The Witcher and The Witcher 2. These games definitely don't allow Geralt to be the player's, because he's a very distinctly pre-defined character that even provides his own rationale for the actions the player picks, yet there are people who insist that those games are better for roleplaying.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 07 juillet 2012 - 12:37 .

[DreGregoire]

I don't believe cutscenes and Cinematics are the real issue.

To me the lack of customization and the restriction of Voice Acting for the developers player character is the problem. In the past the ability to pick a combat voice set allowed us to imagine a voice for our character that was only limited during combat or selection. This voice did not speak for us in dialog so I was able to hear or imagine my PC saying any chosen line in a manner fitting the character I was roleplaying as. It didn't matter how an NPC responded because it was easy to see that despite how I said it the npc was going to take it based on his/her own perception of the world.

That aside, the only way I would even consider a game, that has VA for the PC, successfully a roleplayble game is if we had more than just two choices for voice actors. Even so, it would still have the potential of not being as roleplayable as games prior to Dragon Age II.

To me Dragon Age II and the Mass Effect Series fall in a category somewhere between games such as; Assassins Creed and Devil May Cry, and games like NwN and Baldurs Gate. Perhaps, this creates a category of there own, *shrugs* but it isn't the cinematics alone that put them in this new category.

Edit:

Also, as a side note. I generally play as a male first in any given roleplay game despite being female in reallife, but only in Dragon Age II and Mass Effect was I unable to truly connect with the male character. It was easier in Dragon Age II because I had already written my Hawke in my mind before playing, but in Mass Effect it wasn't as easy. To be honest I didn't even notice the problem until I just finished playing the Mass Effect Series as a female PC and felt a much more intense emotional rolecoaster at the end. So I would say that VA limits my ability to connect to the PC based on gender, not to mention that the VA for the female PC in Dragon Age II was jarring for me. (I Never did finish DAII as a female)  Limiting the VA's to one male and one female is a recipe for failure if the voice is bothersome to the player. Just saying. heh!

Modifié par DreGregoire, 07 juillet 2012 - 12:31 .