58 réponses à ce sujet

[jbrand2002uk]

additional choices are all good and well however if all they contribute is minor re-wording of existing dialogue then their utterly pointless and thats all that race and gender differences did in DAO as I said window dressing

[eroeru]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Cinematography exists to help tell a story. It can make a mediocre story better, or a good story great. It's a tool used to help craft the player's experience and build immersion, but it remains just that - a tool that can be used to great or ill effect.

I'll point you at Bioshock (the first one) for a perfect example of using a cinematic used to reinforce immersion and further a story. If you've played it all the way through, you'll know the scene I'm talking about.

Bad/overused cinematics can and will ruin the story. They don't help one bit.

Cinematics are for action scenes, dialogue is for depth.

[Corto81]

I couldn't care less for the cinematics.

It has nothing to do with how immersive or good an RPG is.

But if the RPG experience at the cost of cinematics, I'm all against it.

BG, BG2, PS:T, Fallout, etc.. were a million years ago, had no cinematics and no VO protagonist, they're 100000x a better games than DA2, in every single aspect.

[hoorayforicecream]

eroeru wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Cinematography exists to help tell a story. It can make a mediocre story better, or a good story great. It's a tool used to help craft the player's experience and build immersion, but it remains just that - a tool that can be used to great or ill effect.

I'll point you at Bioshock (the first one) for a perfect example of using a cinematic used to reinforce immersion and further a story. If you've played it all the way through, you'll know the scene I'm talking about.

Bad/overused cinematics can and will ruin the story. They don't help one bit.

Cinematics are for action scenes, dialogue is for depth.

Can you give an example where bad or overused cinematics ruin the story? Specifically where the story was ruined via the use of bad or overused cinematics, and not bad to begin with.

[eroeru]

^^ DA2

Ok, you may have a point there. They're from two different categories, in themselves at least.

Yet that's also a point I was trying to make. I cannot imagine cinematics helping the depth of story, characters or gameplay. Yet dialogue will help, lots.

If game-makers concentrate on cinematics instead of good ol written language and semantics, it's usually worse, as they don't get to put more meaningful stuff in.

[LeBurns]

What cinematics? Like the Battle of Ostagar, Lelianna singing, Slaying of the Archdemon, etc.  I loved those scenes in DAO, but I thought DA2 didn't have anything like that.

Modifié par LeBurns, 28 août 2012 - 03:22 .

[hoorayforicecream]

eroeru wrote...

^^ DA2

Ok, you may have a point there. They're from two different categories, in themselves at least.

Yet that's also a point I was trying to make. I cannot imagine cinematics helping the depth of story, characters or gameplay. Yet dialogue will help, lots.

If game-makers concentrate on cinematics instead of good ol written language and semantics, it's usually worse, as they don't get to put more meaningful stuff in.

I disagree. Imagine two alternative versions of Alistair's romance scene where he gives the Warden a rose.

In version one, the characters merely speak. There is no camerawork, there is no break from gameplay. There are no cinematics. Instead, they stand exactly where they are and speech bubbles appear above their heads without moving, similar to the banter that occurs in the game. If the player moves, Alistair moves to follow. After the banter is done, you get a little message "Item received: Rose".

In version two, Alistair takes the Warden's hand. He looks at her, and strokes her hand a bit. He frowns, unable to convey his words correctly. He paces a bit, clearly frustrated with his inability to speak. He stops. He sighs. He kneels before the Warden and pulls the rose out of his pouch, and places it into the Warden's hand, closing her fingers around the stem. He smiles. Return to gameplay. You get a little message "Item received: Rose".

The words being spoken in both scenarios is the exact same, but things like facial expression, body language, etc. all have a huge impact on how "real" it feels to most players. You may see the two versions of the same scene as equivalent, but I guarantee you that not everyone does.

[FaWa]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

eroeru wrote...

^^ DA2

Ok, you may have a point there. They're from two different categories, in themselves at least.

Yet that's also a point I was trying to make. I cannot imagine cinematics helping the depth of story, characters or gameplay. Yet dialogue will help, lots.

If game-makers concentrate on cinematics instead of good ol written language and semantics, it's usually worse, as they don't get to put more meaningful stuff in.

I disagree. Imagine two alternative versions of Alistair's romance scene where he gives the Warden a rose.

In version one, the characters merely speak. There is no camerawork, there is no break from gameplay. There are no cinematics. Instead, they stand exactly where they are and speech bubbles appear above their heads without moving, similar to the banter that occurs in the game. If the player moves, Alistair moves to follow. After the banter is done, you get a little message "Item received: Rose".

In version two, Alistair takes the Warden's hand. He looks at her, and strokes her hand a bit. He frowns, unable to convey his words correctly. He paces a bit, clearly frustrated with his inability to speak. He stops. He sighs. He kneels before the Warden and pulls the rose out of his pouch, and places it into the Warden's hand, closing her fingers around the stem. He smiles. Return to gameplay. You get a little message "Item received: Rose".

The words being spoken in both scenarios is the exact same, but things like facial expression, body language, etc. all have a huge impact on how "real" it feels to most players. You may see the two versions of the same scene as equivalent, but I guarantee you that not everyone does.

I think DAO did it well
DA2 did it wrong.
You are preaching to the choir using an example from DAO. 

[ggghhhxxxpuf]

DAO and DA2 had their share of AWKWARD, but DAO had a little bit more due to "blank warden stare into the infinite and beyond" in some places, souless stares and that heavy uncanny valley leliana singing, at least hawke behaved like a person.

And cinematics will allways add to a story (and despite what many of you think, DA2 overall story is quite good), make the gameplay more fluid and more inmersive.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

 Brent Knowles:

"Not choosing race is a Very Bad Thing and has everything to do with cinematic limitations — characters with different heights and sizes are difficult to build cinematic conversation for — as well the choice impacts the amount of dialog that needs to be written. But aliens and fantasy races are cool. Humans are boring (except my kids and my wife and some of you… you know who you are)."

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 28 août 2012 - 04:34 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

eroeru wrote...

^^ DA2

Ok, you may have a point there. They're from two different categories, in themselves at least.

Yet that's also a point I was trying to make. I cannot imagine cinematics helping the depth of story, characters or gameplay. Yet dialogue will help, lots.

If game-makers concentrate on cinematics instead of good ol written language and semantics, it's usually worse, as they don't get to put more meaningful stuff in.

I disagree. Imagine two alternative versions of Alistair's romance scene where he gives the Warden a rose.

In version one, the characters merely speak. There is no camerawork, there is no break from gameplay. There are no cinematics. Instead, they stand exactly where they are and speech bubbles appear above their heads without moving, similar to the banter that occurs in the game. If the player moves, Alistair moves to follow. After the banter is done, you get a little message "Item received: Rose".

In version two, Alistair takes the Warden's hand. He looks at her, and strokes her hand a bit. He frowns, unable to convey his words correctly. He paces a bit, clearly frustrated with his inability to speak. He stops. He sighs. He kneels before the Warden and pulls the rose out of his pouch, and places it into the Warden's hand, closing her fingers around the stem. He smiles. Return to gameplay. You get a little message "Item received: Rose".

The words being spoken in both scenarios is the exact same, but things like facial expression, body language, etc. all have a huge impact on how "real" it feels to most players. You may see the two versions of the same scene as equivalent, but I guarantee you that not everyone does.

If there is a narrator that can describe the scene well enough then you really don't need cinematics to make the event gripping. Imagination can be just as powerful a tool.

[hoorayforicecream]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

If there is a narrator that can describe the scene well enough then you really don't need cinematics to make the event gripping. Imagination can be just as powerful a tool.

I disagree. If this were true, television would never have supplanted radio and text-based games would still be king.

[FieryDove]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Cinematics had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with race choices. 

I disagree.

More cinematics just like VO costs have to come...from somewhere?

Look at ToR as an example. EA bailed early on it. The amount of new content is extremely low. A big promised update (For MAY) may be on hold till next year or never show up. A new extra race that was promised ages ago...may hit end of year? Maybe? Cross toes and fingers we might have better luck, yes?

Lots and lots of zots.

I'm not saying its bad or good, but honestly as the ToR example I would rather have had more meat and less filler.

[Zanallen]

Faerunner wrote...

Yes, because that worked so well for DA2.

In fact, why stop only on race options? It's clear the DA2 writers had to create "lame plot devices" to keep Mage Hawke running free for seven years despite constantly firing spells in broad daylight within a city full of Templars constantly on the lookout for mages and who harried every other mage for lesser displays of power. (I.e. Bethany.) Not to mention the same "lame plot device" that allowed different races to join the Grey Wardens in DA:O was used to allow mages to join the order too, so:

Why don't we just get rid of mage options to create an even more cohesive story?

In fact, come to think of it, allowing gender choice puts a strain on the writers too. They either have to create different scenarios for female PC's like in DA:O (gender-specific dialogue, forms of address, plot-alterations such as Morrigan's Ritual, etc.) or they have to create "lame plot devices" to make gender no longer really matter (unisex dialogue, gender-neutral forms of address, same quests as dude counterpart, etc), so: 

Why don't we just get rid of the female gender option to create an even more cohesive story?

I mean, really. Since it's too much of a strain on the writers to encorporate race, mage and gender choices into the narrative (and it's too unrealistic for other races, mages or women to be able to attain opportunities in dire circumstances as the default male human fighter archetypes) I think we should get rid of race, mage and gender options altogether. We should just keep the PC a male human warrior or rogue from now on. It would make the story more cohesive instead of messing it up to make room for silly character customization or role-playing.

I would be entirely fine with removing class options and having the PC's class playing a larger role in the plot. I have suggested such a thing before. The customization would then come from a choice in specialization and said specialization, due to there being less over all, could have a bigger impact on the plot as well. Plus it would allow for better balancing in terms of companions and could possible allow Bioware to craft improved combat scenarios. Yeah, I'd be all for that.

Gender choice I can take or leave.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

If there is a narrator that can describe the scene well enough then you really don't need cinematics to make the event gripping. Imagination can be just as powerful a tool.

I disagree. If this were true, television would never have supplanted radio and text-based games would still be king.

Early video games aren't really what most would refer to as cinematic, and more often than not had a very weak plot or none at all. I find it really hard to believe that video games outgrew text-based adventures because they're a more powerful storytelling tool than writing; by that line of reasoning, they would have also outgrown books, or killed off PnP roleplaying.

I find the notion that video games need cinematics to evolve ridiculous since if one were interested in that when video games first became popular, they wouldn't be playing video games, they'd go see a movie. And if they wanted a good story, they'd read a book. Video gaming didn't become popular because they did those things better than other mediums -- they became popular because they did something different (gameplay).

Frankly if the cinematic approach was so much better, Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect would be the kings of video gaming and games like Planescape: Torment or Arcanum relics, but by all accounts video games, or at least RPGs, have gotten worse over the years -- and don't really do storytelling better than some older games either.

[hoorayforicecream]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Early video games aren't really what most would refer to as cinematic, and more often than not had a very weak plot or none at all. I find it really hard to believe that video games outgrew text-based adventures because they're a more powerful storytelling tool than writing; by that line of reasoning, they would have also outgrown books, or killed off PnP roleplaying.

The novel industry and PnP roleplaying industries are both severely eclipsed by the movie, television and video game industries. I believe it is because the number of people who have developed their imagination to the point that narration and text is sufficient is a much smaller audience compared to the number who would prefer to see it happen. Perhaps narration is sufficient for you, and if so I admire your ability. But don't make the mistake of thinking "If it works for me, it works for everybody". It doesn't.

I find the notion that video games need cinematics to evolve ridiculous since if one were interested in that when video games first became popular, they wouldn't be playing video games, they'd go see a movie. And if they wanted a good story, they'd read a book. Video gaming didn't become popular because they did those things better than other mediums -- they became popular because they did something different (gameplay).

Straw man argument. Nobody said that video games need cinematics to evolve. I said that cinematics are a tool to enhance immersion and storytelling. Cinematics are not the only tool for this, there are plenty of others. Please don't conflate a single tool with the overall evolution of video games as a medium.

Additionally, the value of storytelling varies with the game as well. Ikaruga has wonderful gameplay, but the story is mostly vestigial. I don't really care at all about the story for games like Minecraft or Trials HD, but story matters much more for games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect. As such, storytelling techniques like cinematics have more importance to games that depend more on story.

Cinematics are a storytelling tool that wasn't as largely available before. As humans, we tend to ascribe meaning to a lot of things, like vocal inflection, body language, movement, auditory cues, etc. By conveying them in a way that the human mind can understand, it becomes more "real" to us. "A picture is worth a thousand words" and all that. The techniques are tools and not universal solutions. Sometimes they are useful. Others they aren't. Discounting the value of storytelling techniques whole cloth is an oversimplification at best.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 28 août 2012 - 08:01 .

[Maria Caliban]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

If there is a narrator that can describe the scene well enough...

There is no narrator who can describe a scene well enough to replace a good cinematic. There is no cinematic that can play out a scene well enough to replace good narration.

The two are different types of storytelling. Narration is 'telling' while a cinematic is 'showing.' A good storyteller can weave the two together such that you don't realize when one ends and the other begins, but that doesn't mean they're the same.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Early video games aren't really what most would refer to as cinematic, and more often than not had a very weak plot or none at all. I find it really hard to believe that video games outgrew text-based adventures because they're a more powerful storytelling tool than writing; by that line of reasoning, they would have also outgrown books, or killed off PnP roleplaying.

The novel industry and PnP roleplaying industries are both severely eclipsed by the movie, television and video game industries.

Really? The PnP industry was always niche, and they're doing OK despite video games. Books are doing OK despite movies, despite televison or video games. In fact, many popular books receive movie adaptations. I find the notion that X new media will kill off Y older media rather far-fetched. Personally, I don't think I'll see books disappear anytime soon.

I believe it is because the number of people who have developed their imagination to the point that narration and text is sufficient is a much smaller audience compared to the number who would prefer to see it happen. Perhaps narration is sufficient for you, and if so I admire your ability. But don't make the mistake of thinking "If it works for me, it works for everybody". It doesn't.

You think the people who have a hard time using imagination as a tool have 'developed' their imagination to a point where imagination is no longer required?

If narration doesn't work for everybody, then that's most likely because they haven't put much effort into it. Reading requires a little more time investment than what is show to you -- maybe that's makes it a bit less qualified for mass consumption, but you seem to consider that a flaw of the medium and its inability to keep up with the times, whereas I see a lack of desire for the consumer to put effort into something to be entertained.

I find the notion that video games need cinematics to evolve ridiculous since if one were interested in that when video games first became popular, they wouldn't be playing video games, they'd go see a movie. And if they wanted a good story, they'd read a book. Video gaming didn't become popular because they did those things better than other mediums -- they became popular because they did something different (gameplay).

Cinematics are a storytelling tool that wasn't as largely available before. As humans, we tend to ascribe meaning to a lot of things, like vocal inflection, body language, movement, auditory cues, etc. By conveying them in a way that the human mind can understand, it becomes more "real" to us. "A picture is worth a thousand words" and all that. The techniques are tools and not universal solutions. Sometimes they are useful. Others they aren't. Discounting the value of storytelling techniques whole cloth is an oversimplification at best.

I don't discount the value of ze cinematics. I merely do not think that they are a superior form of storytelling, or 'needed' to make a better story. If that were true, then games like Planescape: Torment, not to mention all those book classics nobody reads would be long-abandoned in favour of newer media, or new narrative techniques, yet games, particularly RPGs, in many people's opinions seem to have gotten worse 'despite' the rise of cinematics in video games.

[Nash Latkje]

Yeah, let's blame storytelling techniques for the lacking stories.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

If the cinematics take the player out of the game and make them feel like the pc isn't "their character", but simply an avatar who is the hero of the story, then I say it isn't worth it. Of course, if the cinematics result in more sales and $$$ for the developers then they'll feel otherwise.

Games like Origins and Skyrim prove that cinematics and a voiced pc aren't required for a rpg to be good and successful.

RPG's have been proving that from day 1.
Complex cinematics with complex facial animations are not necessary for a good RPG.

I'm playing ToEE and Avernum right now and I don't feel any less engaged or immersed then in DA2.

And this is what Avernum look like:

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

RPG's have been proving that from day 1.
Complex cinematics with complex facial animations are not necessary for a good RPG.

I'm playing ToEE and Avernum right now and I don't feel any less engaged or immersed then in DA2.

And this is what Avernum look like:

Its graphic is like Fallout and Baldur's gate. Maybe less but with better resolution.

We have different RPGs from camera point of view. Some are from the above, or behind. Some other are like these:





or changeable like New Vegas.