438 réponses à ce sujet

[Merlex]

David Gaider wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Its mind boggling to me that the 'limited resources' argument gets used to discuss why a requested feature can't be implemented (like a mute PC or full text toggle) but when discussing a feature many fans protest (like multiplayer), limited resources or "it will come at the expense of something else" are claims that only curmudgeon, stuck-in-the-mud fans bring up, and not at all how video game design/budgeting actually works. 

Again, not trying to be seen as abrasive, but just find it... inconsistent... when two different feature decisions are defended with seemingly opposite logic.

That should really only be confusing if you consider those features equivalent.

Multiplayer is the sort of fundamental feature we would discuss, make part of our strategy, and assign additional resources for.

Resources can indeed be put aside to implement things like toggles-- but they're evaluated with a different bar. Why? Because resources are prioritized by how important they are to the overall game. Considering every toggle we implement we would need to support and test as if it were a legitimate way to play (and this is especially relevant when the toggle would fundamentally contradict the design of the game), it's not an inconsiderable cost... and thus the resources put aside for such a small part of the game are already limited. As I said previously, we're not casting around looking for toggles to put in. This is not Toggle Quest.

Could we put additional resources towards toggles, as we do towards fundamental design features? Sure. But we never will, and anyone who thinks we should has an unbalanced view of how games are designed-- which I wouldn't blame anyone for having, as there's no reason for you to be knowledgeable about such things, but it is something we have to contend with.

Thank you for your explanation. I was confused with this as well. I understand better how it works now.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Because simply turning off the voice in a game with a voiced protagonist does not make it the same as a game with a silent protagonist. We write for a voiced protagonist. We arrange the cinematics for a voiced protagonist. It's not the same.

This is absolutely true.  Simply turning off the voice wouldn't automatically turn the game back into a silent protagonist game.

But it would improve the game for some of us.

So while people are more than qualified to identify things they don't like or things they'd like to see brought back (like a voiced protagonist) -- I certainly cannot question someone's preferences in the slightest-- quite often when they come up with what they see as a solution I don't see that as actually addressing their stated issue.

Because you think the solution is supposed to fix everything, but (hopefully) we're not that dumb.  We know that the game wouldn't be exactly whatwe want.  But we think it will be better than not having the mute option.

In this case, if we allowed you to turn off the voice you'd likely still say that's not what you wanted... because clearly what you really want is a silent protagonist, not a muted voiced protagonist.

While that is what we want, if we can't have that we're forced to seek a less appealing compromise position.  The muted voiced protagonist is that compromise.

I'm not sure how this makes me arrogant.

People think you're dismissing them, and saying that they don't actually want what they think they want.  I can see how that might be perceived as condescending.

I don't think you're doing that.  I think you're actually mistaken about what we think muting the protagonist would do, and then you're correctly recognising that it wouldn't do that.  I also don't think you really understand the playtstyle we're trying to maintain (given your repeated denials that it was possible even in your silent protagonist games).

[Brockololly]

David Gaider wrote...
Could we put additional resources towards toggles, as we do towards fundamental design features? Sure. But we never will, and anyone who thinks we should has an unbalanced view of how games are designed-- which I wouldn't blame anyone for having, as there's no reason for you to be knowledgeable about such things, but it is something we have to contend with.

Well, I can see why simply muting the PC might not be a desirable toggle if BioWare is trying to make a cinematic game.

But take Project Eternity for instance- one of their big stretch goals was essentially a big series of toggles. Adding in the Expert mode, Trial of Iron and Path of the Damned and letting people have access to all those individual toggles. That is obviously different in scope than making one game compatible with a non voiced PC and a voiced PC via a toggle or silent protagonist mode but in Obsidian's case it seems they made the choice to make toggles like that a fundamental design feature. Which like you mentioned is simply a choice, but its not like there aren't developers doing that kind of thing in giving players options how to play their games.

[AmstradHero]

David Gaider wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Its mind boggling to me that the 'limited resources' argument gets used to discuss why a requested feature can't be implemented (like a mute PC or full text toggle) but when discussing a feature many fans protest (like multiplayer), limited resources or "it will come at the expense of something else" are claims that only curmudgeon, stuck-in-the-mud fans bring up, and not at all how video game design/budgeting actually works. 

Multiplayer is the sort of fundamental feature we would discuss, make part of our strategy, and assign additional resources for.

Resources can indeed be put aside to implement things like toggles-- but they're evaluated with a different bar. Why? Because resources are prioritized by how important they are to the overall game. Considering every toggle we implement we would need to support and test as if it were a legitimate way to play (and this is especially relevant when the toggle would fundamentally contradict the design of the game), it's not an inconsiderable cost... and thus the resources put aside for such a small part of the game are already limited. As I said previously, we're not casting around looking for toggles to put in. This is not Toggle Quest.

The argument here against a muted PC is that it would contradict the fundamental design of the game, which you've stated previously a cinematic story-driven experience.  The problem here is that multiplayer does nothing to enhance or provide a cinematic story-driven experience. EA has a policy that all games they release must include multiplayer, therefore it becomes part of the design strategy, but it is an awkward appendage stapled on to the main experience. Dead Space 2, BioShock 2, and Mass Effect 3 are all prime examples of multiplayer components that feel like they have been tacked on and are devoid of any meaningful relationship to the core game.

If you measure both a muted protagonist and multiplayer by the same yardstick of what they contribute to a cinematic story-driven experience - then they both come up short. I know BioWare doesn't have a choice in the matter, but it doesn't mean that the fans have to like it.

[Vicious]

would contradict the fundamental design of the game, which you've stated previously a cinematic story-driven experience. The problem here is that multiplayer does nothing to enhance or provide a cinematic story-driven experience

baldur's gate had multiplayer too.

EA is not the devil.

Bioware has always had a 2 year release schedule for all their games since 1998.

Voiced protagonist is their 'baby' and it's not going anywhere. They even managed to put it into an MMO. Better to understand it and move on then argue with the lead writer who writes and doesn't develop.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vicious wrote...

Bioware has always had a 2 year release schedule for all their games since 1998.

Except DAO, which was announced in 2004.  The even released screenshots in 2004 (mock-ups using the NWN engine).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 octobre 2012 - 11:03 .

[Vicious]

Except DAO, which was announced in 2004. The even released screenshots in 2004 (mock-ups using the NWN engine).

I was there, I remember it well. the blocky polygonal guy with no armor and two swords on his back was one of the first promo images. Also 'successor to baldur's gate' and all that.

DA:O is a painful one to bring up. That game was in development hell for years before it was finally released, and even when we got it it wasn't 'complete.' I'm sure they never intended it to take so long.

Nice to see someone who's been around for forever, though. Most got ran off with DA2.

Modifié par Vicious, 05 octobre 2012 - 11:08 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I have to begrudgingly agree here. We've seen a silent PC in games before. We've seen the silent PC in BIOWARE games before. I'm not sure what about the experience (if we were to get it) would be outside the realm of our comprehension?

Has a BioWare game ever had a silent PC that still moved around and animated and behaved like he was talking (complete with lip sync and emotive gestures)?

[AmstradHero]

Vicious wrote...

would contradict the fundamental design of the game, which you've stated previously a cinematic story-driven experience. The problem here is that multiplayer does nothing to enhance or provide a cinematic story-driven experience

baldur's gate had multiplayer too.

EA is not the devil.

Bioware has always had a 2 year release schedule for all their games since 1998.

Voiced protagonist is their 'baby' and it's not going anywhere. They even managed to put it into an MMO. Better to understand it and move on then argue with the lead writer who writes and doesn't develop.

You misunderstand. I'm not arguing, I'm merely raising the point of why people object to the justification presented. I don't even want to get rid of the voiced protagonist for the kind of game they're trying to make. I don't think it would work very well. That said, I still would love to get games without a voiced protagonist, because they provide a different experience. BioWare won't provide that experience anymore, but that's their choice.

I'm well aware that Baldur's Gate had multiplayer, but I'm also conscious of the fact that it was not a cinematic story-driven experience as DA3 is intended to be. You can't compare apples with oranges.  I'm not casting EA as the devil, so please don't suggest that I did. I'm merely stating that they have a policy that requires all games to have multiplayer. While I can see from their perspective that it is good for business and monetisation, I believe it is bad for a story driven experience, because it adds nothing to games attempting to provide that.

I don't expect David to do (or be able to do) anything about this corporate decision, but I still have a right to voice my opinion on the subject.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I have to begrudgingly agree here. We've seen a silent PC in games before. We've seen the silent PC in BIOWARE games before. I'm not sure what about the experience (if we were to get it) would be outside the realm of our comprehension?

Has a BioWare game ever had a silent PC that still moved around and animated and behaved like he was talking (complete with lip sync and emotive gestures)?

No, because no one would actually desire that specific design.

That doesn't prevent that design from being superior for some players, when compared to different designs that actually are desired by some people.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vicious wrote...

DA:O is a painful one to bring up. That game was in development hell for years before it was finally released, and even when we got it it wasn't 'complete.' I'm sure they never intended it to take so long.

I wonder if they had trouble finding a publisher for it.

That might explain both the EA acqusition and the tone of Obsidian's remarks when they talk about why they're using Kickstarter for Project Eternity.

DAO was a terrific game that sold well, and yet it's possible that publishers weren't interested.

Remember when Sir-Tech couldn't find a publisher for Wizardry 8, so they basically liquiated the company to fund self-publishing?  That was both really great, because we got an excellent game, and really sad, because Sir-Tech knew they wouldn't survive it.

[Brockololly]

Vicious wrote...
baldur's gate had multiplayer too.

EA is not the devil.

Bioware has always had a 2 year release schedule for all their games since 1998.

Voiced protagonist is their 'baby' and it's not going anywhere. They even managed to put it into an MMO. Better to understand it and move on then argue with the lead writer who writes and doesn't develop.

Sure BG had multiplayer but I'm going to guess that the work involved in making BG's multiplayer work was significantly less than what it would take to add whatever multiplayer they'll end up adding in DA3.


Obviously the voiced PC is BioWare's Sacred Cow  right now, but  "BioWare's vision is to Create, Deliver, and Evolve the Most Emotionally Engaging Games in the World”  then why not try to diversify the ways in which they deliver their emotionally engaging games via differing presentation styles? They're obviously not doing it with DA3, but it remains frustrating to see their games seemingly all present stories in the same cinematic method when prior to DA:O being released, Muzyka and Zeschuk made note of the differing presentation between DA and ME as an important distinction.

[jillabender]

David Gaider wrote…

Because simply turning off the voice in a game with a voiced protagonist does not make it the same as a game with a silent protagonist. We write for a voiced protagonist. We arrange the cinematics for a voiced protagonist. It's not the same.

So while people are more than qualified to identify things they don't like or things they'd like to see brought back (like a voiced protagonist) -- I certainly cannot question someone's preferences in the slightest-- quite often when they come up with what they see as a solution I don't see that as actually addressing their stated issue. In this case, if we allowed you to turn off the voice you'd likely still say that's not what you wanted... because clearly what you really want is a silent protagonist, not a muted voiced protagonist. And when I say we won't do it, it's because we're not going to go out of our way to implement a feature that won't even satisfy the people who are advocating for it... because what they're advocating for is a fundamentally different game which that won't give them.

That makes sense to me. A silent protagonist would be my preference, but I can appreciate that simply muting the protagonist in a game designed for a voiced protagonist probably wouldn't make for a satisfying experience.

That said, I also appreciate that there are people who understand the problems created by muting a voiced protagonist but would still choose that option if it were available.

Modifié par jillabender, 05 octobre 2012 - 11:46 .

[SmokePants]

"Dear car manufacturer. You are dumb for making cars. Motorcycles are better. You should make motorcycles. But I know you won't because you are dumb. So you should make a button that lets the car drive on two wheels. Then you will be smart. Like me."

[Thandal N'Lyman]

I second jillabender's remarks (and Mr. Gaider's reasoning behind the negative response.)

While I, too, would prefer a return to the DOA-style of dialogue with all its options and room for individual interpretation of tone and connotation, a muted protaganist is not  a Silent Protagonist.  It's a half-measure that would do everyone a disservice.

Modifié par Thandal NLyman, 05 octobre 2012 - 11:47 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I have to begrudgingly agree here. We've seen a silent PC in games before. We've seen the silent PC in BIOWARE games before. I'm not sure what about the experience (if we were to get it) would be outside the realm of our comprehension?

Has a BioWare game ever had a silent PC that still moved around and animated and behaved like he was talking (complete with lip sync and emotive gestures)?

Had Bioware ever made a game with a PC that had paraphrases or the dialogue wheel before Mass Effect 1? No. It was a pretty radical concept at the time of its release, one that had never been done before. 

Had Bioware ever used icons before with the dialogue wheel before Dragon Age 2? No. It was an attempt at trying something innovative with the wheel that could prevent confusion when selecting lines.

Bioware has experience in creating new ways in presenting their dialogue systems.

David did answer my question, by explaining what about the experience we would not enjoy. And I agree, it would be terrible just to, literally, have a mute button (but to still see the expression of the PC as angry, or violent, or doe-eyed, or sad, etc.) My assumed logic was that we wouldn't be able to see the PC at all, much like it was in DA:O. And that was an incorrect assumption; it seems David, yourself (and possibly even the OP in their original request) had a simple "mute" button in mind. But if someone who is hearing impaired would turn on this option and still have the exact same problems as if the toggle was off, then I think that would, indeed, be a collasal waste of resources.

Again, I wasn't intending to be adversarial (its usually fairly obvious when I'm being obstinate just for obstinate's sake). But the more you show the PC, the more the writer/developer makes the character their own, rather than the player making them their own. Some players can't or don't like to create their own players. So having a feature that makes them more of the scripted, cinematic character mold could be one toggle, while cutting out most cinematics that show anything about the PC or voicing their lines could be another toggle.

I'm not saying its not without significant hurdles or costs. And I would never be so smug as to say "if you don't do this you won't be my sale!" or even that you won't meet the same level of critical and commercial success as previous games. But it is a fan request, one that has not just been made once.

[Fast Jimmy]

SmokePants wrote...

"Dear car manufacturer. You are dumb for making cars. Motorcycles are better. You should make motorcycles. But I know you won't because you are dumb. So you should make a button that lets the car drive on two wheels. Then you will be smart. Like me."

"Dear car manufacturer. You used to make cars. Other companies made bikes. Now you've tried to make a bike-car, which is both ungainly and less pleasing. People would prefer you would either make bikes or make cars. Then you would be smart. Like me."

Other people can make snarky, non-sensical and demeaning analogies, too. Aren't we all just special little snowflakes tonight.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 06 octobre 2012 - 12:17 .

[Icinix]

Thandal NLyman wrote...

I second jillabender's remarks (and Mr. Gaider's reasoning behind the negative response.)

While I, too, would prefer a return to the DOA-style of dialogue with all its options and room for individual interpretation of tone and connotation, a muted protaganist is not  a Silent Protagonist.  It's a half-measure that would do everyone a disservice.

Having the option to mute the protagonist would not do me a disservice - I wouldn't be looking at what my character was doing - I would have read the line of dialgoue my character would say - then hit spacebar to skip animated lip sync if it was there.

Although I would rather have the pensive face while we choose a dialogue option then go straight to the npc's response - I am more than happy manually skip each and every scene.

I found towards the end of DA2 I was reading the subtitles and skipping the animation scenes anyway. 

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I have to begrudgingly agree here. We've seen a silent PC in games before. We've seen the silent PC in BIOWARE games before. I'm not sure what about the experience (if we were to get it) would be outside the realm of our comprehension?

Has a BioWare game ever had a silent PC that still moved around and animated and behaved like he was talking (complete with lip sync and emotive gestures)?

I don't recall seeing one in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, and Dragon Age: Origins. 

[eroeru]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I have to begrudgingly agree here. We've seen a silent PC in games before. We've seen the silent PC in BIOWARE games before. I'm not sure what about the experience (if we were to get it) would be outside the realm of our comprehension?

Has a BioWare game ever had a silent PC that still moved around and animated and behaved like he was talking (complete with lip sync and emotive gestures)?

As I mentioned earlier, the perfect way to implement it would be in fact without any action from the player-character after the player has picked the line.

It's like origins: 1. pick a line - 2. see the reaction of NPCs.
The talking bit would just have to be omitted. And more grand cinematic responses can have the lips moving - DAO did feel like that at times (whenever the protag silently took some mostly minor action) - and it didn't bother *at all*.

[David Gaider]

jillabender wrote...
That said, I also appreciate that there are people who understand the problems created by muting a voiced protagonist but would still choose that option if it were available.

In my experience, people saying they understand the problems and actually being okay with them are two different things. It might be true for the individual, but generally this is not the case. The complaint, after all, is by people who don't like the design direction... they're saying they'd like a compromise because that's all they think they might be able to get, but what they really want is a different design.

Do you really think that, if we implemented such a toggle, they'd suck up any gaps between that experience and an actual silent protagonist design and say "well, we've no right to complain since we got what we asked for"? Of course not. They'd say "that doesn't go far enough-- take it the rest of the way."

And I'm saying there would be a gap. Anyone who says there wouldn't be is wrong, with all due respect. An individual might be willing to put up with it, or are saying they'll put up because they think it'll get them closer to what they actually want-- which is a different fundamental design. I understand, but that's not going to happen and I really don't think this would help... and that's about all the discussion I'm going to get into about it.

[jillabender]

David Gaider wrote...

jillabender wrote...
That said, I also appreciate that there are people who understand the problems created by muting a voiced protagonist but would still choose that option if it were available.

In my experience, people saying they understand the problems and actually being okay with them are two different things. It might be true for the individual, but generally this is not the case. The complaint, after all, is by people who don't like the design direction... they're saying they'd like a compromise because that's all they think they might be able to get, but what they really want is a different design.

Do you really think that, if we implemented such a toggle, they'd suck up any gaps between that experience and an actual silent protagonist design and say "well, we've no right to complain since we got what we asked for"? Of course not. They'd say "that doesn't go far enough-- take it the rest of the way."

And I'm saying there would be a gap. Anyone who says there wouldn't be is wrong, with all due respect. An individual might be willing to put up with it, or are saying they'll put up because they think it'll get them closer to what they actually want-- which is a different fundamental design. I understand, but that's not going to happen and I really don't think this would help... and that's about all the discussion I'm going to get into about it.

That's fair – I don't deny that most fans probably don't have a very clear idea of what muting a voiced protagonist would actually look or feel like. In retrospect, my comment may have been a bit naïve.

And just to be clear, I'm not one of those who think that muting a voiced protagonist is something that I would find satisfactory, or preferable to a voiced protagonist.

Modifié par jillabender, 06 octobre 2012 - 01:15 .

[eroeru]

Thank you for the honest replies.

At least what's going on seems mostly transparent.

[Icinix]

David Gaider wrote...

jillabender wrote...
That said, I also appreciate that there are people who understand the problems created by muting a voiced protagonist but would still choose that option if it were available.

In my experience, people saying they understand the problems and actually being okay with them are two different things. It might be true for the individual, but generally this is not the case. The complaint, after all, is by people who don't like the design direction... they're saying they'd like a compromise because that's all they think they might be able to get, but what they really want is a different design.

Do you really think that, if we implemented such a toggle, they'd suck up any gaps between that experience and an actual silent protagonist design and say "well, we've no right to complain since we got what we asked for"? Of course not. They'd say "that doesn't go far enough-- take it the rest of the way."

And I'm saying there would be a gap. Anyone who says there wouldn't be is wrong, with all due respect. An individual might be willing to put up with it, or are saying they'll put up because they think it'll get them closer to what they actually want-- which is a different fundamental design. I understand, but that's not going to happen and I really don't think this would help... and that's about all the discussion I'm going to get into about it.

Do you find that with every design direction though? Are those design decisions handled in such a way that it goes with the way of the market, and having minimal groups taking issue? Or does a lot of it only come up after the game is out and players start voicing their opinions?

..and by that I don't mean you guys sit around thinking 'oh these people are going to hate us because of this..lets do this instead.' but more going 'we feel people may not approve of this but believe the direction is better for everyone.'

[Fast Jimmy]

David Gaider wrote...

And I'm saying there would be a gap. Anyone who says there wouldn't be is wrong, with all due respect. An individual might be willing to put up with it, or are saying they'll put up because they think it'll get them closer to what they actually want-- which is a different fundamental design. I understand, but that's not going to happen and I really don't think this would help... and that's about all the discussion I'm going to get into about it.

 

We apprecaite the response, David. And if this is truly the case, then the only plea I'd have left is that either a mod kit be included for DA3 to let players try and take a stab at this experience on their own, or that when compiling/creating resource files, the possilibity of a modder going in behind you to try and do this be, on the most back burner area possible, on your mind.



Also, I'm kind of giggling to myself on the "and that's about all the discussion I'm going to get into about it." line. Just because it seems like you say that, and then in a matter of hours, get dragged back into a conversation pretty often. At no fault of yours, of course, just seems like that's the way these conversations often go.