298 réponses à ce sujet

[zyntifox]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

So basicly:

Some people enjoy the cinematics/cutscenes
and some don't
So no matter what the devs do someone's gonna get on these boards to rage about something DA3 did or didn't do.
Cant we all just agree to disagree

It's not about enjoying the cinematic or not. I enjoy the cinematic, but at the same time the level of cinematic Bioware seem to want kills roleplaying, for me at least. And it is sad since Bioware has been the go-to-company to me when it comes to roleplaying in games since 98. And if they had other franchises which do enable roleplaying i would not participate in these threads.

I am pretty certain that DA3 will be in the same spirit as DA2 and not DA:O which is fine by me. But i like to think that if i spend time on these boards discussing these issues Bioware might see that there is still a demand for games with emphasis on player control and not presentation we might someday get a new franchise with this emphasis. Probably a naive viewpoint but im hopeful.

[Sylvius the Mad]

simfamSP wrote...

Loghain's cutscenes were essential to the narrative, getting to know a much deeper character than the cliche Shakespearean "usurper."

It is up to you to decide how your own character reacts to Loghain. Though I understand there will be a conflict of interest, there will always be one.

The authored narrative exists solely to serve the emergent narrative.  The Loghain cutscenes got in the way.

Having the game tell me a story isn't interesting, because it can only ever tell me one story.  But leaving me to create my own story lets me experience an everlasting supply of stories playthrough after playthrough.

I'd love an option to disable the cutscenes of which the PC shouldn't be aware.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

I understand your point of view but for me personally, I have no problem continuing to role-play a character even with said knowledge. You know the whole game after one playthrough, do you have trouble immersing yourself in future playthrough's with the knowledge you have? I certainly do not.

Nor do I, because I can always refer back to what my initial natural reaction was.

But these cutscenes deprive me of that initial reaction.  In a way, the game is actively spoiling the PC's story.  It's telling us of things before we can know how the PC is going to react to them.

As long as there arn't too many cutscenes and the cutscenes dont force the player out of my control I'm fine with them. So yeah I loved how it was done in Origins.

I'm not saying Origins wasn't a great game.  it was.  But it could have been even better.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Sure it does - it tells us Zevran is telling the truth.

Or Loghain's retreat at Ostagar - because we've seen the cutscene, Morrigan's news of it isn't revelatory.  But what if it were?  Would you believe Morrigan?  Should Alistair?

Giving us this information dramatically changes how future scenes are received.

Ostagar is a poor example, since the Warden was at the top of the tower and could see Loghain retreat.
He had the best seats in the house.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ostagar is a poor example, since the Warden was at the top of the tower and could see Loghain retreat.
He had the best seats in the house.

Were there windows in that room?  And before the Warden can go look anywhere else to look, he gets hit by a bunch of arrows and knocked unconscious.

[Mike_Neel]

I don't mind cutscenes. I'd just like more dialogue options, and possibly more choices in them. Even if they are false choices.

Like lets say your party meets a guy on the road. You want to go past him but he's not having it. In DA2 you would have 3 options and a unique companion only option. First one is pay the toll to the shady gentleman and get past without a fight. Second is to walk away and come back later or just skip his quest. Third is the kill them all take their stuff. If you have Aveline she can flex her muscles so they leave you alone or if you have Morrigan she could threaten to turn them into toads.

I'd like more than just three options that are cut and dry. Even if they are false options. Like say you had all of the above but also there's a false choice where you could try to intimdate him which results in the fight which is the same as option 3. Or you can tell him you're Rank 4AAA Grey Warden Cleric Mage Hunter Rigatonis and it's his best interest to let you pass. This essentially gives you the same results as option 1. There you have 3 results but instead of 3 choice options you suddenly have 5 or 6. So it looks like more even if it's not, essentially a false choice. I'd be ok compromising for that.

[Yrkoon]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

So basicly:

Some people enjoy the cinematics/cutscenes
and some don't
So no matter what the devs do someone's gonna get on these boards to rage about something DA3 did or didn't do.
Cant we all just agree to disagree

Thats how everything works. No matter how good or bad something is there will always be someone with the opposite opinion. 

Pulled the words right out of my mouth.

That said, anyone ever play NWN2?  It mixed the two styles.  Sometimes when you talked to someone  it imediately went into cutscene mode, other times it just gave you the dialogue window.  That's probably the best of both worlds IMO,  because  it still managed to maintain that cinematic feel, but it didn't overdo it to the point of annoying those of us who dislike incessant cinematic interuptions in gameplay

Modifié par Yrkoon, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:48 .

[Quething]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Oh, I understand why you guys have shied away from these kinds of choices--the whinefest about Bethany vs. Carver being determined by your character class is a prime example.  So part of the reason behind it is also because there's always some section of the playerbase who wants to be able to have their cake and eat it too . . . they want to "have meaningful choices" that don't actually change anything.  But this is impossible by the very definition of a meaningful choice . . . that it CHANGES something.

You make some good points but you're wrong here. The problem with the Bethany/Carver issue is that it's a consequence that does not flow from the choice.

If you spend all your resources and don't have resources later, that's a rational consequence. It's one the player can predict and it's a choice the character can reasonably make.

If your Hawke has been a mage her entire life and her sister hops in front of an ogre instead of her brother, that's not a rational consequence. It has nothing to do with anything, it's a purely metagame consideration that's purely arbitrary in-game; it's not something Hawke does or has control over, it's a choice the player must make from outside knowledge. That's very poor implementation and does not achieve the desired choice-consequence feeling that you get from a properly implemented story branch point.

No one complains that murderknifing Anders denies you a healer for the last battle because it's a fair consequence of murderknifing your healer. Because that actually makes sense and is something you can reasonably be expected to anticipate and thus control without metagaming.

Modifié par Quething, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:07 .

[Shadow Fox]

Quething wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Oh, I understand why you guys have shied away from these kinds of choices--the whinefest about Bethany vs. Carver being determined by your character class is a prime example.  So part of the reason behind it is also because there's always some section of the playerbase who wants to be able to have their cake and eat it too . . . they want to "have meaningful choices" that don't actually change anything.  But this is impossible by the very definition of a meaningful choice . . . that it CHANGES something.

You make some good points but you're wrong here. The problem with the Bethany/Carver issue is that it's a consequence that does not flow from the choice.

If you spend all your resources and don't have resources later, that's a rational consequence. It's one the player can predict and it's a choice the character can reasonably make.

If your Hawke has been a mage her entire life and her sister hops in front of an ogre instead of her brother, that's not a rational consequence. It has nothing to do with anything, it's a purely metagame consideration that's purely arbitrary in-game; it's not something Hawke does or has control over, it's a choice the player must make from outside knowledge. That's very poor implementation and does not achieve the desired choice-consequence feeling that you get from a properly implemented story branch point.

No one complains that murderknifing Anders denies you a healer for the last battle because it's a fair consequence of murderknifing your healer. Because that actually makes sense and is something you can reasonably be expected to anticipate and thus control without metagaming.

I never had a problem with it as I knew it was a balancing act by the developers If you're a squishy Mage you get Carver as a free  tank/damage dealer for the first act or as a Warrior/Rogue you get Bethaney to help writtle down enemy numbers or act as a healer/buffer or maybe I just don't expect to be able to control every aspect of a video game's narrative.

[Kileyan]

Cstaf wrote...

It's not about enjoying the cinematic or not. I enjoy the cinematic, but at the same time the level of cinematic Bioware seem to want kills roleplaying, for me at least.

I feel the same way, but I pretty much know I am in the minority. It isn't just Bioware games, it is most games I play. The cinematics do nothing for me, if it wasn't for subtitles that let me read what was happening quickly and then skip the scenes, I would never make it through these games.

I agree that Bioware cannot make everyone happy, so I just pray that they keep making subtitles available and let me skip them as much as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good cinematic, a not too often reward that shows me some awesome stuff in a movie like video, but I don't need a cinematic every time I open a door or approach the local beggar.

[YohkoOhno]

That said, anyone ever play NWN2? It mixed the two styles. Sometimes when you talked to someone it imediately went into cutscene mode, other times it just gave you the dialogue window. That's probably the best of both worlds IMO, because it still managed to maintain that cinematic feel, but it didn't overdo it to the point of annoying those of us who dislike incessant cinematic interuptions in gameplay

That's the game that got me to pick up Dragon Age, and I find that the mixed mode actually starts taking me out of the game. Once I saw DA:O, I don't want to mix text only modes with voice modes, and I want to see more cinematics. Dragon Age and Mass Effect are to me like what Star Wars was to the movies--once you see them, the older movies look out of date and primitive in comparison.

I think in general, the big thing for me is that Bioware needs to continue to experiment and find the right balance. In general, I think their games are getting better, even if some perceived freedoms are being narrowed. This means, however, experimenting and finding the right way to present stuff. I think it's clear that the new paradigm for videogames is movie-like instead of book-like narratives, and that's something I still encourage them to do.

The key thing is how to proceed. Can they make the wheel more immersive. Can they adapt to a user's needs by having some sort of personality framing based on the beginning of the story. Should they give the player a meta quiz or options before the characters are created. Should they experiment with procedural voice synthesis and plot based AI changes.

If people want the familiar, go support those kickstarter endeavors. Give constructive feedback, but if you find Bioware not doing what you want, just let them be and get on with your life.

[Kileyan]

YohkoOhno wrote...

That said, anyone ever play NWN2? It mixed the two styles. Sometimes when you talked to someone it imediately went into cutscene mode, other times it just gave you the dialogue window. That's probably the best of both worlds IMO, because it still managed to maintain that cinematic feel, but it didn't overdo it to the point of annoying those of us who dislike incessant cinematic interuptions in gameplay

That's the game that got me to pick up Dragon Age, and I find that the mixed mode actually starts taking me out of the game. Once I saw DA:O, I don't want to mix text only modes with voice modes, and I want to see more cinematics. Dragon Age and Mass Effect are to me like what Star Wars was to the movies--once you see them, the older movies look out of date and primitive in comparison.

I think in general, the big thing for me is that Bioware needs to continue to experiment and find the right balance. In general, I think their games are getting better, even if some perceived freedoms are being narrowed. This means, however, experimenting and finding the right way to present stuff. I think it's clear that the new paradigm for videogames is movie-like instead of book-like narratives, and that's something I still encourage them to do.

The key thing is how to proceed. Can they make the wheel more immersive. Can they adapt to a user's needs by having some sort of personality framing based on the beginning of the story. Should they give the player a meta quiz or options before the characters are created. Should they experiment with procedural voice synthesis and plot based AI changes.

If people want the familiar, go support those kickstarter endeavors. Give constructive feedback, but if you find Bioware not doing what you want, just let them be and get on with your life.

Why should we take advice from someone who broke up one of the best bands ever?

Seriously, how can you make the wheel more immersive? That is like saying make the options screen more immersive. I don't even get this wheel thing at all, its just a round way of doing what Bioware has always done with text at the bottom of the screen.

The real issue is give the player a friggin clue what they are going to say. In the old days you knew what you would say because you picked the darn text that said what you wanted to say. The wheel just lets you guess what you will say, and if the trend continues it will just give you a smily, frowny or mean face to pick from.

Oh, and I still stand by there being much less cinematics, but making them more meaningful. Again I know I am in the losing crowd, we will have to see a cinematic for every person we dare to walk past

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ostagar is a poor example, since the Warden was at the top of the tower and could see Loghain retreat.
He had the best seats in the house.

Were there windows in that room?  And before the Warden can go look anywhere else to look, he gets hit by a bunch of arrows and knocked unconscious.

Yes actually...and that cutscene plays AFTER Loghains retreat.

[nightscrawl]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

I see the system and I understand the system used in DA2, but I think this is why there is the complaint of being disconnected from the world and characters. So much was invested in the Companion Home scenes and such that almost nothing bled out into the rest of game with the interactions. The homes were like Vegas, and we all know about what happens in Vegas. This may have happened a bit in DAO (namely that it felt like interaction with companions was seperated from the rest of the game, that is any increase/decrease/change in relationship was only evident in a very discreet space and not reflected in the wider game world), but it was mitigated by the fact that all the companions occupied a single interactive space (the camp) and it wasn't so spread out. No matter what your relationship with the compaions in DA2, they always acted the same outside (except for some context specific banter, such as Fenris and Anders after the Tranquil Solution quest), and that is where you spent most of your time. So, if your interactions with the companions have no effect on their behavior in the wider world, it is easy to feel l disconnected from them (of course there are certain key points where companion relationships mattered in the story - end of Act 2 and Act 3 and such, which is nice, but I feel it didn't make up for the general lack). 

Also, DAO had little things as far as romances go that made them seem like an ongoing thing (reactions for flirting options from LI's and such). You could also play hide the Mabari with Morrigan any time you went back camp. Was it silly? Yes, but it did at least give the perception of an ongoing relationship.

Oh wow, this was wonderfully said, and I completely agree!

Along these same lines, I'll add that being able to initiate conversation outside of party camp was a tremendous help here. If you were in a romance with Alistair and clicked on him, even outside of the camp you would get "Yeeeeeees?" (which had evolved from an initial "What do you need?") and the list of questions.

But, at PAX East DG did say that they want to return to this in the next game while still trying to keep the same amount of character arc growth that we got with DA2. I'm really looking forward to how they will do that.

[Nomen Mendax]

Another issue I have with cutscenes is the game "cheating".  The obvious example of this is the death of your sibling, which I really disliked.  The game ignores its own rules for dealing with combat and kills a companion.  It basically tells you as a player that your actions in-game don't matter because the game is going to tell the story it wants.  How come when I fight the ogre I have HP and can use skills and healing potions but when Carver/Bethany runs at it he/she dies instantly?  There are a couple of other occasions when the game does the same thing and its something I'd like Bioware to avoid in the future.

As far as I'm concerned the game can do what it want when the PC is off-screen but anything else should follow the rules, so the PC should get a chance to do something, whether its acting in a conversation or going into combat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ostagar is a poor example, since the Warden was at the top of the tower and could see Loghain retreat.
He had the best seats in the house.

Were there windows in that room?  And before the Warden can go look anywhere else to look, he gets hit by a bunch of arrows and knocked unconscious.

Yes actually...and that cutscene plays AFTER Loghains retreat.

The principle still stands.  Cutscenes shouldn't show us things the PC wouldn't know.

[Quething]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
I never had a problem with it as I knew it was a balancing act by the developers If you're a squishy Mage you get Carver as a free  tank/damage dealer for the first act or as a Warrior/Rogue you get Bethaney to help writtle down enemy numbers or act as a healer/buffer or maybe I just don't expect to be able to control every aspect of a video game's narrative.

... and if anyone were insisting that players should be able to control everything, that might be a relevant statement.

However, people are actually discussing whether the choices that are available to us already are sufficient in number, are actually choices at all, or actually "meaningful" if they are (with perhaps a side tangent about what meaningful even means in this context), and whether they achieve BioWare's goal in terms of player response, and indeed what BioWare's goal in terms of player response might be. So your random boasting that you're capable of sane expectations for a video game seems a bit off-topic, and an oddly unfitting response to my own post, which you quote despite not actually responding to.

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Another issue I have with cutscenes is the game "cheating". The obvious example of this is the death of your sibling, which I really disliked. The game ignores its own rules for dealing with combat and kills a companion. It basically tells you as a player that your actions in-game don't matter because the game is going to tell the story it wants. How come when I fight the ogre I have HP and can use skills and healing potions but when Carver/Bethany runs at it he/she dies instantly? There are a couple of other occasions when the game does the same thing and its something I'd like Bioware to avoid in the future.

As far as I'm concerned the game can do what it want when the PC is off-screen but anything else should follow the rules, so the PC should get a chance to do something, whether its acting in a conversation or going into combat.

I'm okay with this, because it's combat itself that's the gameplay convention I'm overlooking in order to enjoy the story. I don't assume my characters are superhuman freaks of nature who can conjure six thousand bolts out of thin air and fire them all in the space of three seconds, or keep fighting with arrows sticking out of their necks without even appearing to notice. It doesn't make sense. But it does make things fun in a way that ending the game the very first time your PC gets hit by an enemy sword would not.

The problem for me is that the cutscene has to be believable. When the ogre smashes Hawke's sibling... where is Hawke? It's a long cutscene. They were standing all of four feet apart when the scene started. It's not even about why Hawke didn't get to her sibling in time, it's that Hawke should have been in-frame already when the scene started. If she jumps forward with a fireball or a dagger and tries to stop the ogre but fails, fine. But it's impossible to feel like the cutscene is actually happening in the gameworld when Hawke doesn't even try to intervene despite being in a position to do so and having both means and time.

(Well, it makes sense by the end of the game, when you realize that Not Doing Jack is Hawke's entire raison d'etre, but in the moment it's pretty immersion-violating.)

Modifié par Quething, 15 septembre 2012 - 05:23 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ostagar is a poor example, since the Warden was at the top of the tower and could see Loghain retreat.
He had the best seats in the house.

Were there windows in that room?  And before the Warden can go look anywhere else to look, he gets hit by a bunch of arrows and knocked unconscious.

Yes actually...and that cutscene plays AFTER Loghains retreat.

The principle still stands.  Cutscenes shouldn't show us things the PC wouldn't know.

I think the retreat of a big army is observable from a high tower.

If he and Alistair were unconscious atm, Morrigan and her mother should have told them about that occurrence. 

[Morty Smith]

Your argument came to the wrong neighborhood my friend.

[zyntifox]

Kroitz wrote...

Your argument came to the wrong neighborhood my friend.

What? You think he is alone in wanting player agency over cinematic presentation in a roleplaying game?

[Nerevar-as]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Another issue I have with cutscenes is the game "cheating".  The obvious example of this is the death of your sibling, which I really disliked.  The game ignores its own rules for dealing with combat and kills a companion.  It basically tells you as a player that your actions in-game don't matter because the game is going to tell the story it wants.  How come when I fight the ogre I have HP and can use skills and healing potions but when Carver/Bethany runs at it he/she dies instantly?  There are a couple of other occasions when the game does the same thing and its something I'd like Bioware to avoid in the future.

As far as I'm concerned the game can do what it want when the PC is off-screen but anything else should follow the rules, so the PC should get a chance to do something, whether its acting in a conversation or going into combat.

My favorite cutscene was when Hawke finished the high dragon after being knocked out 15 minutes earlier.

In Origins there were a few scenes and moments there was no way the PC could know. Loghains face when he says "Glory for all", Zevran´s recruitment... I guess it´s a part of the cinematic feeling BW is striving for (a bit too much IMHO). I don´t have much problem with them but understand people who do.

What I do have problems with is when the character shows emotions without player input. ME3 Shepard is a big offender, often showing different feelings than I wanted him to. Hawke had same problem on a lesser scale, but because of the saint-idiot-jerkass wheel options s/he often lacked feelings I wanted him/her to show. I felt I no longer directed these characters, was just watching them. As far as I´m concerned that´s something to avoid in a RPG.

[Nomen Mendax]

Quething wrote...
...

I'm okay with this, because it's combat itself that's the gameplay convention I'm overlooking in order to enjoy the story. I don't assume my characters are superhuman freaks of nature who can conjure six thousand bolts out of thin air and fire them all in the space of three seconds, or keep fighting with arrows sticking out of their necks without even appearing to notice. It doesn't make sense. But it does make things fun in a way that ending the game the very first time your PC gets hit by an enemy sword would not.

 
That's intereting, I honestly never thought of the game like that.  Although more and more with Bioware games (DA2, ME2 and ME3) I do feel that the combat is a huge mini-game that you have to get through to get to the plot, but I don't like feeling that way.  I would love it if the combat could be more integrated with the cut-scenes, and less silly.

 
The problem for me is that the cutscene has to be believable. When the ogre smashes Hawke's sibling... where is Hawke? It's a long cutscene. They were standing all of four feet apart when the scene started. It's not even about why Hawke didn't get to her sibling in time, it's that Hawke should have been in-frame already when the scene started. If she jumps forward with a fireball or a dagger and tries to stop the ogre but fails, fine. But it's impossible to feel like the cutscene is actually happening in the gameworld when Hawke doesn't even try to intervene despite being in a position to do so and having both means and time.

 
The other one that really bugged me is when xxx is killing the xxx that he kidnapped (x's to avoid spoilers), and Hawke just stands there for three or four seconds watching, I kept wanting to scream "I roll for initiative".  But your comment below gives a reasonable explanation.

  
(Well, it makes sense by the end of the game, when you realize that Not Doing Jack is Hawke's entire raison d'etre, but in the moment it's pretty immersion-violating.)

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 16 septembre 2012 - 01:38 .

[Merlex]

Yrkoon wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

So basicly:

Some people enjoy the cinematics/cutscenes
and some don't
So no matter what the devs do someone's gonna get on these boards to rage about something DA3 did or didn't do.
Cant we all just agree to disagree

Thats how everything works. No matter how good or bad something is there will always be someone with the opposite opinion. 

Pulled the words right out of my mouth.

That said, anyone ever play NWN2?  It mixed the two styles.  Sometimes when you talked to someone  it imediately went into cutscene mode, other times it just gave you the dialogue window.  That's probably the best of both worlds IMO,  because  it still managed to maintain that cinematic feel, but it didn't overdo it to the point of annoying those of us who dislike incessant cinematic interuptions in gameplay

NWN2/ Mask of the Betrayer is my favorite rpg.

Modifié par Merlex, 16 septembre 2012 - 01:50 .

[zyntifox]

Kileyan wrote...


Why should we take advice from someone who broke up one of the best bands ever?

Seriously, how can you make the wheel more immersive? That is like saying make the options screen more immersive. I don't even get this wheel thing at all, its just a round way of doing what Bioware has always done with text at the bottom of the screen.

The real issue is give the player a friggin clue what they are going to say. In the old days you knew what you would say because you picked the darn text that said what you wanted to say. The wheel just lets you guess what you will say, and if the trend continues it will just give you a smily, frowny or mean face to pick from.

Oh, and I still stand by there being much less cinematics, but making them more meaningful. Again I know I am in the losing crowd, we will have to see a cinematic for every person we dare to walk past

The wheel isn't the problem. The paraphrase system is. It forces players like me to save before conversation and reload if the protagonist says something you don't want he/she to say. I understand it is not the case for all players since everyone does not try to roleplay a character which is molded outside of the game.

No matter the dialogue system there will always be occasions when none of the dialogue choices fits the character you are playing. The difference between a paraphrase-system and full-text-system is that with a ful-text-system you can always identify the lesser of all evils and thus minimze the damage to the character you are building.

The problem with the paraphrase system is not that they are poorly written, which Bioware thinks they can just fix by write them better; the problem is that they give less information than the full line.