298 réponses à ce sujet

[Emzamination]

batlin wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Freedom and choice based on what perimeters?

Based on the amount of variables within the plot. based on the amount of outcomes derived from the player's choices. Based on the amount of dialogue options and character interactions. In each of these ways DA2 delivered less than DA:O did. That is my reason for saying it's not as good of an RPG.

Too vague. Such as?

[batlin]

Emzamination wrote...

Too vague. Such as?

Such as how you can only talk to your friends when the plot says you can. Such as how you are forced to walk into obvious traps. Such as how you are forced to wait around for disasters to happen even though it's clear what will happen years beforehand. Such as how you can do nothing to prevent a certain person from committing a certain crime even though it's plainly obvious he's an unhinged murderer. Such as how no matter what you choose for the "big choice" at the very end, the result is exactly the same.

Modifié par batlin, 12 septembre 2012 - 10:40 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Wozely wrote...

Characters playing to their strengths and clearly within their limits shouldn't have to roll for the slim chance of potential failure all the time, unless you have a highly sadistic DM. And DMs often let people get 'lucky' with the occasional risky endeavour, despite what the dice might say.

However, I agree with you in disliking excessive randomness in very linear path RPGs, where its a case of "You must defeat this encounter, or you can't progress. No, there's nothing else you can go and do instead", because in those situations the randomness is just an additional potential barrier that adds no real value to the player.

Random elements are far more valuable in open world settings, where the player has greater freedom to play to their strengths and, if need be, abandon an encounter where they're outmatched rather than have to repeatedly reload and try again...and again...and again...and again.

This. 100% this. 

Video games are, more and more often, abandoning the concept of having any solution to any problem be anything BUT combat. There is nothing wrong with combat, but if it the only option, it becomes a requirement to never be able to lose. And it turns every character and every class into a caricature, a being of pure awesomeness that can suffer no loss. 

Where a video game throughs up arbitrary limits to who you can engage with in combat and when, PnP games allow almost complete freedom, but the very real possibility of failure, especially attempting something outside your skill set or beyond your character's means. This opens the world up to a huge variety of options, skills, possibilities and, ultimately, fun. That type of fun is what priror video games tried to achieve, but we're limited by technology. Instead of trying to use more advanced technology to overcome the limitations of the past, video games are becoming more and more action games, with no attempt at trying to offer other options, with stealth games like DE:HR or Al, Alpha Protocol and FO:NV being the odd man's out. Even in those games, the stories are on the weaker side and the ability to 'feel' like your character is slightly diminished, due to different reasons. 


TL;DR: The reason PnP has so many dice rolls is that there is so many options to do things differently, specifically how you want to. A good DM can overcome this. And a video game designer can be the ultimate DM, if properly motivated. Instead, it seems they are more and more often being relegated to action game designers or interactive movie producers. None of which offer the most important aspect of PnP: FREEDOM. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 septembre 2012 - 10:43 .

[eroeru]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Agreed, completely.

If I am roleplaying a blank slate character, I need to be able to control the reactions, thoughts and emotions of my character. Even if it is a game like the Witcher, which is a set protagonist, I know enough about the character and their background to get a feeling for how he would act. With a more movie-like, cinematic game that, at the same time, gives me no background on the character NOR does it let me play my character as I'd ideally see fit, then it fails for me in almost every regard.

This.

[Emzamination]

batlin wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Too vague. Such as?

Such as how you can only talk to your friends when the plot says you can. Such as how you are forced to walk into obvious traps. Such as how you are forced to wait around for disasters to happen even though it's clear what will happen years beforehand. Such as how you can do nothing to prevent a certain person from committing a certain crime even though it's plainly obvious he's an unhinged murderer. Such as how no matter what you choose for the "big choice" at the very end, the result is exactly the same.

You can talk to your companions any time you like but once you have exhausted all conversational options, the game reverts to a loop, no different than Origins.

Please give an example of what traps you're referring to.

Seeing as how no one knew exactly what Anders had planned their first playthrough, why do you believe your hawke should suddenly be able stop him on subsequent playthroughs based on your knowlege of events? That's akin to cheating don't you think? certainly not what a true rpg gamer should aspire to.

To be honest, we don't know exactly what the repercussions of hawke's actions will be as we never got that far.

[Allan Schumacher]

Firstly, the definition of an "RPG" is there in the name. If you have less choice and less freedom, you also have less ability to roleplay. This isn't a matter of opinion, this is how the RPG genre is.

This is a futile argument and not one I'm about to get into, since it's been done ad nauseum and goes no where. Continuing along this line WILL see this thread get closed. The term "Role playing game" is so ambiguous that people can (and will) literally state that in Uncharted you're playing the role of Nathan Drake. It always requires further clarification for what it exactly means to "roleplay."

Imagine, if you will, that you're playing a tabletop RPG, and you decide that you must follow an informant because you believe he may have lied to you and you want to see who he reports to. Unfortunately, the DM says you can't do that. You ask him why, and he says it's because it would be so much cooler if you went along with it as if you didn't think the informant was lying.

See what I mean?

Now this is actually more interesting. Though, this actually has nothing to do with the cinematic nature of the games and everything to do with the inherent restrictions that come with being forced to design all of your content before the player plays it, with the exceptionally limited ability to branch out the story arc without running into divergence issues. We're not just providing a tabletop D&D experience for Batlin to experience, but we're providing the same tabletop D&D experience for millions of players to experience and it has to be fully created and experienced before any of the players start doing anything in game. I imagine it'd be like concurrently DMing a million-plus people playing different iterations of the same campaign.

In addition, there's nothing stopping an Infinity Engine game from doing precisely what you just described, and it in fact happens on a regular basis in the BioWare and Black Isle games that use the engine. All you're really asking for here is better writing to properly convey the illusion of choice that exists to prevent excessive divergence in the game. At it's simplest I could infer it as an argument for "I'd like more content in my game" since that's really what limits such things.

The other alternative (which I think is very interesting), would be to create a significantly shorter game (in playthrough length) and allow a much stronger breadth of options. This would keep total time in game high, but requires replaying the game in order to accomplish it. Some like Gabe Newell feel that's a waste of resources since many (most?) players will only see a fraction of the content you actually put into the game.

[MichaelStuart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The reason PnP has so many dice rolls is that there is so many options to do things differently, specifically how you want to. A good DM can overcome this. And a video game designer can be the ultimate DM, if properly motivated. Instead, it seems they are more and more often being relegated to action game designers or interactive movie producers. None of which offer the most important aspect of PnP: FREEDOM. 

I really don't see how being shackled to the whims of luck is freedom?

Say what you want about action games and interactive movies, but they don't demand you be born blessed. 

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 12 septembre 2012 - 11:05 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

What if you have a bad DM?

Also, interactivity is fun.

For those who hate the notion of PnP playing a role in the design of video games, the thread could alternatively be titled "The ideal RPG isn't like a movie, it's like the My Career Mode in 2K NBA games but with swords, dragons and fornication".

Modifié par CrustyBot, 12 septembre 2012 - 11:10 .

[Nomen Mendax]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Now this is actually more interesting. Though, this actually has nothing to do with the cinematic nature of the games and everything to do with the inherent restrictions that come with being forced to design all of your content before the player plays it, with the exceptionally limited ability to branch out the story arc without running into divergence issues. We're not just providing a tabletop D&D experience for Batlin to experience, but we're providing the same tabletop D&D experience for millions of players to experience and it has to be fully created and experienced before any of the players start doing anything in game. I imagine it'd be like concurrently DMing a million-plus people playing different iterations of the same campaign.

In addition, there's nothing stopping an Infinity Engine game from doing precisely what you just described, and it in fact happens on a regular basis in the BioWare and Black Isle games that use the engine. All you're really asking for here is better writing to properly convey the illusion of choice that exists to prevent excessive divergence in the game. At it's simplest I could infer it as an argument for "I'd like more content in my game" since that's really what limits such things.

The other alternative (which I think is very interesting), would be to create a significantly shorter game (in playthrough length) and allow a much stronger breadth of options. This would keep total time in game high, but requires replaying the game in order to accomplish it. Some like Gabe Newell feel that's a waste of resources since many (most?) players will only see a fraction of the content you actually put into the game.

Obviously divergence is a big deal but I think it's something that developers sometimes tend to overstate.  I think that there are many opportunities to diverge but then have the different pathes converge (and obviously the sooner the better). There are also opportunites to provide more interim end states that won't make a huge difference in terms of divergence.

For example Redcliffe in DAO could have had a number of different end states.  We already had:

• Kill Connor
• Save Connor but sacrifice Isolde
• Go to tower and save everyone (which I think I read somewhere that David Gaider was not too fond of)

I'd change these to:

• Kill Connor
• Save Connor but sacrifice Isolde
• Save Connor but sacrifice Wynne (as I think she might be willing to volunteer)
• Go to tower but leave your un-used companions to hold the line, with the result that one of them perishes

I don't think these extra states are going to result in any significant divergence.  But, and here is the problem with cinematic presentation, they do all need their own cut-scenes.  It gets more expensive once you include a voiced protagonist becasue presumably they will want to speak at the funeral of any companion that dies which means multiple dialogue options.

I'd also say that PnP DMs have to deal with the same issues, yes its not nearly as difficult for me to change my campaign, but most DMs tend to follow a broad plot in the same way that Bioware does. One of the things I don't like about DA2 (and to some extent DAO) is that I get the impression that the story trumps player agency, and I would prefer more of a balance between the two.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 12 septembre 2012 - 11:46 .

[brushyourteeth]

batlin wrote...

Cinematics shouldn't take precedence over the player's options. Developer-controlled pacing shouldn't take precedence over the player's control of the pacing. A video game could probably never provide the freedom a tabletop game can, but that doesn't mean it's pointless to try.

If a game is supposed to be more like an action movie and less like an RPG, make a game like Uncharted where every second is a scripted event and where no player input ultimately matters aside from failure or success. Don't make an "RPG" that gives us few options and an uncompelling plot just so it will feel like a movie.

Agree with the OP, and would like to highlight that he/she actually said that "cinematics shouldn't take precedence over the player's options" - not that CINEMATICS ARE THE DEVIL OMG DEATH OF GAMING LOLOLOLOL

We all have an opinion on this, right? Here's mine:

Options are better than cutscenes. Cutscenes are nice. Please make pretty ones and insert them into a game in places where options aren't viable (like the Battle of Ostagar). Otherwise, I would like some options, please. If there are more cutscenes and auto-dialogue than there are options, I will enjoy the game less. That's just a fact. I am only one person. That's also a fact. No one has to cater to my preferences, but there they are all the same. Take 'em or leave 'em.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 12 septembre 2012 - 11:54 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote....

In addition, there's nothing stopping an Infinity Engine game from doing precisely what you just described, and it in fact happens on a regular basis in the BioWare and Black Isle games that use the engine. All you're really asking for here is better writing to properly convey the illusion of choice that exists to prevent excessive divergence in the game. At it's simplest I could infer it as an argument for "I'd like more content in my game" since that's really what limits such things.
.

While I agree with many of your points, I think the conclusion 'more content' is completely separate from the cinematic design approach may not be entirely accurate. 

Let's imagine the scenario playing out instead in a text-based video game. The option to follow the informant or not is separated by a few paragraphs of text, and some flags that will change some other text later in the game. 

So, in the most basic form, a video game COULD handle this type of option/gameplay. It's when you add graphics, animations, voice actinfear cinematic scenes, etc. all in an attempt to make the game more visual. Which, after a certain point, becomes an attempt to replicate a movie-like experience. 

Now, I'm not suggesting Bioware make text based games. But the reason why these options don't exist in games is because it costs resources to covey this content in a way that matches how the designer wants. So, a commitment to all-voice acting, cutscene-featuring, fully animated game. Again, not saying these features aren't great or enjoyable, but they do prevent more freedom in the vein of resource consumption. 

[Androme]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Straight up telling other people that their perspective of what an RPG should be about is wrong

A banana is a banana.

A car is a car.

A camera is a camera.

A slice of bread is a slice of bread.

The concept of retributive justice is the concept of retributive justice.

Kindness is kindness..

.. Just like the video-game genre: RPG, is the video-game genre: RPG. Nothing more, nothing less.

[MichaelStuart]

When a game gets called a RPG, its as about as helpful as calling a banana a fruit.
If I go around saying I like fruit, will people know I'm taking about bananas. No, they will assume I'm talking about all kinds of fruit.

Just to clear, when I say I like I RPGs.
I mean any game that lets me make a character, and control what that that character says and does.

And when I say I like fruit
I talking about any sweet teasting, seeded plant matter.

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 13 septembre 2012 - 12:45 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^
Honey suckles are sweet tasting, seeded plant matter.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 septembre 2012 - 01:13 .

[wsandista]

I agree with the OP. cRPG's should provide the amount of control the player has over their character in a PnP, even if they can't provide the same amount of freedom.

As for mechanics, a good RPG should have success determined by character skill, not player skill. PnPs do that, it seems that many cRPGs are not.

CrustyBot wrote...For those who hate the notion of PnP playing a role in the design of video games, the thread could alternatively be titled "The ideal RPG isn't like a movie, it's like the My Career Mode in 2K NBA games but with swords, dragons and fornication".

This statement is so awesome I must take it as a sig.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Emzamination wrote...
You can talk to your companions any time you like but once you have exhausted all conversational options, the game reverts to a loop, no different than Origins.

Nope that's not true. DA 2 dialogues are spread out across the game and triggered by your rivalry/friendship points and plot. You can encounter loop much sooner, even without exhausting all conversational options. For example, Merril will loop talk about her house and rats for infinite times until the plot progress - which is why I stop bothering myself with DA 2 companions. They're just annoying one dimensional interaction characters who never even asked how I feel. I could talk for hours non-stop with Morrigan before exhausting dialogue option, but I can't do that with any of DA 2's companions due to plot restriction. You know, Aveline love to loop talk,"I'll see you later" in ACT 2 and Mirinda Lawson in ME 2, loves to loop talk, "well talk later." It remind me how not realistic they're and what amuse me is people keep expecting realistic response from NPC and yet could completely ignore the loop. 

Emzamination wrote...

To be honest, we don't know exactly what the repercussions of hawke's actions will be as we never got that far.

We already know we cant stop the war because Varric made it clear at beginning of game. So what's the point of playing Hawke's role when we already know what's going to happen?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 13 septembre 2012 - 02:04 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The other alternative (which I think is very interesting), would be to create a significantly shorter game (in playthrough length) and allow a much stronger breadth of options. This would keep total time in game high, but requires replaying the game in order to accomplish it. Some like Gabe Newell feel that's a waste of resources since many (most?) players will only see a fraction of the content you actually put into the game.

If the game length is shorter than let say, 20 hours per play then Gabe Newell is right. That fraction of the content you see is too short to make any meaningful decision ingame.  

[Giggles_Manically]

Just as you are trying to tell a story, an RPG or DRM is ALSO trying to tell a story.

Its give and take.
I LOVED Dragon Age Origins, or New Vegas because it was a good mix of both.

Origins was AWESOME because I could say "Now what do I WANT TO PLAY"

Dragon Age 2 and ME2/3 were not awesome because I could not say that.
I loved playing a City Elf, or a Mage, or a Dwarf because of those tiny differences you got.

If I can create and maintain an unique RP I can forgive a lot.
If I cant...I wont say its not an RPG...its just not an RPG for me.

[Allan Schumacher]

Options are better than cutscenes. Cutscenes are nice. Please make pretty ones and insert them into a game in places where options aren't viable (like the Battle of Ostagar). Otherwise, I would like some options, please. If there are more cutscenes and auto-dialogue than there are options, I will enjoy the game less. That's just a fact. I am only one person. That's also a fact. No one has to cater to my preferences, but there they are all the same. Take 'em or leave 'em.

Hmmm, maybe I'm tripping on the terminology used. For starters, every single conversation in the Dragon Age games is effectively a cutscene. The game engine cannot differentiate between the two. It's just that a great many of them are done with rapid development with simply using a default stage and setting gestures and specifying gestures and things like that. So when I see things like "cinematics," I'm thinking about a LOT more than just the longer movie like sequences in the game.

I don't think these extra states are going to result in any significant divergence. But, and here is the problem with cinematic presentation, they do all need their own cut-scenes. It gets more expensive once you include a voiced protagonist becasue presumably they will want to speak at the funeral of any companion that dies which means multiple dialogue options.

You're right, that isn't particularly divergent, and it's a lot of what we did.

Having said that, we've already shown we're willing to invest in the cinematics for things that can be quite different. It's still possible to leverage a lot of the same assets and so forth, but if you've played ME3 just imagine all the ways that you can resolve Tuchanka. I think there's a powerful thing about "show don't tell," and perhaps it's because I've grown up with more visual entertainment modes than just books but reading the text description of Dupre sacrificing himself to save the Avatar in Serpent Isle is not as intense of a scene as Mordin screamin "I MADE A MISTAKE!" when confronting a renegade Shepard.

There are so many nuances to how those scenes can play out, that it is probably one of my favourite gaming moments of all time, and it's done with some exceptionally well crafted cinematics that do nothing but add to it in my opinion. It really helps with bringing an emotional response out of me and that's such an amazing feeling for me as a gamer.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

If the game length is shorter than let say, 20 hours per play then Gabe Newell is right. That fraction of the content you see is too short to make any meaningful decision ingame.  

I emphatically disagree since Fallout is actually a pretty short game and you can make boatloads of decisions with meaning within that time frame.

A game like Baldur's Gate, on the other hand, is significantly longer but offers much less choice with any real meaning.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

If the game length is shorter than let say, 20 hours per play then Gabe Newell is right. That fraction of the content you see is too short to make any meaningful decision ingame.  

I emphatically disagree since Fallout is actually a pretty short game and you can make boatloads of decisions with meaning within that time frame.

A game like Baldur's Gate, on the other hand, is significantly longer but offers much less choice with any real meaning.

That's the thing. You guys don't make open-world games with boatloads of meaningful decisions either short length or long length. Not anymore. Instead you guys believe in strict linear story, complete railroading and tons of meaningless illusion of choices that make even games like Baldur Gate have to be played longer.  So can you guys at least try to develop system to allow multi-ways to complete a task in your story driven RPG? 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 13 septembre 2012 - 03:03 .

[Renmiri1]

Tuchanka was one of the few missions I liked in ME3. I love DA2

Auto dialogue and long cutscenes where my Sheppard stood around motionless really drove me up a wall on ME3. Thane Krios battle is maddening, the entire squad is picking buggers or something while the deadly ill guy is left to battle the meanie alone UGH . This is how that battle should have gone.

Auto dialogue and long cutscenes never bothered me in DAO or DA2 though. I wish I could tell you the difference between DA2 and ME3 that made ME3 unbearable and DA2 fun. I don't really know, only thing I can say is that nowhere on DA2 there was the feeling "that is not my Hawke" while the feeling "that is not my Sheppard" plagued me during most of ME3.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 13 septembre 2012 - 03:53 .

[Dessalines]

I think freedom and choice is matter of perspective.
Personally, I could never wrapped my mind around while the Warden in certain origins cared so much about the other Wardens. In some origins, you just met them, and they withhold some vital information from you.
Dragon Age Origins wasn't even coded to have your parents and siblings match your skin color. I am already beginning the game with having to do head cannon to explain why my character doesn't look like his parents or siblings. It gave me no freedom or choice in choosing what a Warden meant to me, or how deep I immerse myself into the world.
I hate silent protaganists, because I talk in rl. I think it breaks the immersion into game, when everyone else is talking and you are just staring at them
I am not fond of Skyrim of Alamur, and I know people think they are great rpgs, but walking around for hours to find a place is not fun. You ever notice you never have the freedom or the choice to ask all of those guards or people traveling outside of town for directions.
Freedom and choice is a matter of perspective, and I think it begins with your immersion into the character.
I always believe that is why some people like the Warden more. The Warden's voice was the voice in their head. You had the freedom and the choice to dress your companions in whatever you wanted them too, and if you still didnt like them you can kill them too. The Warden's story initiates all the action in the story. It is not really freedom or choice, but just how his or her story plays out.
Hawke story is a bit different, and even in Hawke's story the Warden initiates it. It basically starts off stating that you are not the center of the universe, you are just lucky not to die in the battle of Ostagar, and even luckier not to die in the destruction of Lothering. Your friends/rivals have their own lives.
For me rpging is making me believe the game world is real,so that means it needs to illict an emotion.
There are more scenes in Dragon Age 2 for me that illicted an emotion, but don't get me wrong if it was not for Leilana singing, Anorna giving the battle speech, and Claudia Black's voice acting, then I would have thought no one did it better than Bethesda.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

That's the thing. You guys don't make open-world games with boatloads of meaningful decisions either short length or long length. Not anymore. Instead you guys believe in strict linear story, complete railroading and tons of meaningless illusion of choices that make even games like Baldur Gate have to be played longer.  So can you guys at least try to develop system to allow multi-ways to complete a task in your story driven RPG? 

I'm sorry, you're definitely going to need to elaborate the "that's the thing" since I don't see how your post here is in any way relevant to your original assertion that Gabe is correct if the game is less than 20 hours, while I post an example that refutes it.

Unless you had originally decided to post something that you knowingly didn't believe was true as a fact....


Or were you just wanting to state that you'd like us to provide more alternatives to task completition going forward?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 septembre 2012 - 05:57 .

[nightscrawl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

... this actually has nothing to do with the cinematic nature of the games and everything to do with the inherent restrictions that come with being forced to design all of your content before the player plays it, with the exceptionally limited ability to branch out the story arc without running into divergence issues. We're not just providing a tabletop D&D experience for Batlin to experience, but we're providing the same tabletop D&D experience for millions of players to experience and it has to be fully created and experienced before any of the players start doing anything in game. I imagine it'd be like concurrently DMing a million-plus people playing different iterations of the same campaign.

You nailed it with this I think. This is the reason why, when I sometimes become frustrated when there isn't the dialogue option that reflects exactly what I would like to say/do I give the game devs a bit of slack, knowing they can't have thousands of options for one conversation, nor even one option for every Bioware employee (assuming they would all react differently).

All you're really asking for here is better writing to properly convey the illusion of choice that exists to prevent excessive divergence in the game.

I think having a nice amount of choice illusion is very important. One thing that would have made a difference in some instances in DA2 would have been a different NPC verbal response per choice, even if the actual result is the same.

Yes I know the following is rather metagame. That said, it can be kind of annoying to do a second play or a reload, pick some different responses, and have the NPC say the same thing, no matter my choice. I felt like I shouldn't have bothered to make the choice at all.

The other alternative (which I think is very interesting), would be to create a significantly shorter game (in playthrough length) and allow a much stronger breadth of options. This would keep total time in game high, but requires replaying the game in order to accomplish it. Some like Gabe Newell feel that's a waste of resources since many (most?) players will only see a fraction of the content you actually put into the game.

I agree that many players would only see a fraction of the potential content. However, since it's well known that most players only do play the game once, and some that never finish at all, I don't really see that it makes a difference. If a player is the type to play multiple times then they will regardless of length.

For my part, I prefer a longer game. It makes me feel more invested in the story and the characters. I've played DA2 twice as many times as I have DAO, for the simple reason that DA2 is half as long (and well Fenris is hot...). But if I like the game, and while playing I see that there are several paths to take, I will certainly play it multiple times to see everything. But that's just me.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 13 septembre 2012 - 06:37 .