110 réponses à ce sujet

[Taint Master]

brushyourteeth wrote...

"Ignorant" is a pretty subjective description. It also means "uninformed," not "stupid" -- and uninformed people can be educated.

...Your point being?

OP is no more qualified to tell Bioware how to make games than I would be telling Michaelangelo how to sculpt.  Being opinionated doesn't automatically mean you deserve to be taken seriously. 

[Archyyy]

Taint Master wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

"Ignorant" is a pretty subjective description. It also means "uninformed," not "stupid" -- and uninformed people can be educated.

...Your point being?

OP is no more qualified to tell Bioware how to make games than I would be telling Michaelangelo how to sculpt.  Being opinionated doesn't automatically mean you deserve to be taken seriously. 

If you really have such a hard time accepting critic towards bioware and suggestions as to how to make their games better you should think about your attitude for a moment.

The players play the games and enjoy some things while disliking others. We also spend money on these games and expect to get a good game in return. Many of us also have some very good points regarding how to improve these games and they shouldnt be disregarded. If dragon age 2 for example couldnt have benefited from the "ignorant" and "stupid" suggestions of "opinionated" people youre truly blind.

If michelangelo sculpts a human to be something a three year old would draw its bad. A ball with stick figure hands, legs and a head attached is not art nor is it good. He cant hide behind artistic integrity or whatever, its still bad. There are some things that cant just be accepted as subjective preference. He made a mistake with said statue and should listen to the critic. Im sure the good michelangelo is still in there somewhere. Hes just a bit lost.

Modifié par Archyyy, 10 novembre 2012 - 03:18 .

[Plaintiff]

Archyyy wrote...
There are some things that cant just be accepted as subjective preference.

This statement is, itself, subjective.

[Archyyy]

Plaintiff wrote...

Archyyy wrote...
There are some things that cant just be accepted as subjective preference.

This statement is, itself, subjective.

If you want to be very literal, yes. But if we're not being nitpicky its not. If you do want to be extremely literal then the basis here can be taken from consensus if its extremely one sided. There has to be something wrong if the fan reaction is extremely critical for example. Of course theres always criticism but here have been occasions when certain things are hardly viewed with anything but criticism. To go back to the previous example if michelangelo made a dozen masterpieces and a few that are universally regarded as utter crap then thats what defines the value of those pieces. Of course there might be someone who regards them as good but hes pretty much alone and wont matter.

[WhiteThunder]

Taint Master wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

People have opinions Kail. Get used to it, or GTFO.

So every ignorant opinion is to be valued now? 

I agree with Kail, the premise of this thread is silly.

Of course it is.  I fully support your right to keep talking.

[WhiteThunder]

Plaintiff wrote...

Archyyy wrote...
There are some things that cant just be accepted as subjective preference.

This statement is, itself, subjective.

And yours is pedantic and irrelevant.

We could do this all night, if you'd like.

[Plaintiff]

WhiteThunder wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Archyyy wrote...
There are some things that cant just be accepted as subjective preference.

This statement is, itself, subjective.

And yours is pedantic and irrelevant.

We could do this all night, if you'd like.

I didn't realise simply stating the obvious truth was pedantic.

Archyyy's example was absurd. There are galleries around the world containing mountains of extremely famous impressionist, surrealist and cubist artworks that prove his statment objectively false. Beauty and value can be found in anything.

Quality will always be down to subjective preference. If I say a piece of art is good, if I say that Dragon Age 2 is good, then on what basis do you claim that my opinion is inferior to yours? That my taste is wrong, and yours is right?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 10 novembre 2012 - 04:41 .

[brushyourteeth]

Taint Master wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

"Ignorant" is a pretty subjective description. It also means "uninformed," not "stupid" -- and uninformed people can be educated.

...Your point being?

OP is no more qualified to tell Bioware how to make games than I would be telling Michaelangelo how to sculpt.  Being opinionated doesn't automatically mean you deserve to be taken seriously. 

Point being this is a social forum made expressly for the purpose of fans sharing their opinions. Either they all have some value, or none of them do ("none" including yours and mine).

Bioware doesn't have to listen, and they definitely don't have to obey, but that doesn't mean an opinion is invaluable just because it's distasteful to you.

[Realmzmaster]

Opinions are just that a person's opinion. People do not have to like the opinion, but that does not make it any less valid than someone else's opinion. This is a social where hopefully gamers can express their views and opinions in a civil, logical and constructive manner. Every opinion is subjective. I like DA2 and other gamers did not like DA2. Both opinions are valid. I have my reasons for liking it as they have theirs for not liking it.

I had fun with DA2. That is a fact for me, not a fact for everyone else. I can speak only for me. I like the voiced protagonist. I agree with some of negative opinions expressed by the negatives for me did not outweigh the positives, but that is not universal for everyone. So I respect other opinions that disagree with mine as long as they explain why and I can get the logic behind their opinions.

Now, if my opinion and the statements I used to back up that opinion causes other to think my way that is fine. If not I accept that. But, YMMV.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 10 novembre 2012 - 06:19 .

[WhiteThunder]

Plaintiff wrote...

WhiteThunder wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Archyyy wrote...
There are some things that cant just be accepted as subjective preference.

This statement is, itself, subjective.

And yours is pedantic and irrelevant.

We could do this all night, if you'd like.

I didn't realise simply stating the obvious truth was pedantic.

Archyyy's example was absurd. There are galleries around the world containing mountains of extremely famous impressionist, surrealist and cubist artworks that prove his statment objectively false. Beauty and value can be found in anything.

Quality will always be down to subjective preference. If I say a piece of art is good, if I say that Dragon Age 2 is good, then on what basis do you claim that my opinion is inferior to yours? That my taste is wrong, and yours is right?

If I say that my little brother's chicken scratch is superior to Picasso, I'm incorrect.

It's like someone preferring The Big Bang Theory or Two and a Half Men to Community or Parks and Rec.  They have their opinion, but their opinion is wrong.

[Allan Schumacher]

They also had multiple choices and gave the player a ton of freedom in how to get things done while still having a coherent story.

Did the Baldur's Gate games (or even the Infinity Engine games in general) really offer a ton of freedom for how to get things done?

Opinions are just that a person's opinion. People do not have to like
the opinion, but that does not make it any less valid than someone
else's opinion.

In general (and especially within the context of "Do you like video game X") I agree.

They have their opinion, but their opinion is wrong.

When discussing whether or not someone feels a game provided more entertainment from them, no their opinion is not wrong.  It's fine for you to disagree and to state you found said game did not provide more entertainment for you, but telling other people that what they feel is wrong is something no person here is qualified to make.

Unless you'd appreciate me telling you that your gaming preferences are wrong, I'd encourage people to not go down this road when interacting with other posters.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 10 novembre 2012 - 09:47 .

[h0neanias]

There is one important feature of voiceless protagonists that I see unmentioned. The way a sentence is pronounced can change its meaning entirely. It can be meant ironically, or the emphasis can be put on different words. This gives the player much bigger interpretative freedom. In ME/DA2, you are stuck with how the acting comes out.

Modifié par h0neanias, 10 novembre 2012 - 04:43 .

[Taint Master]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Point being this is a social forum made expressly for the purpose of fans sharing their opinions. Either they all have some value, or none of them do ("none" including yours and mine).

That's really not true.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that doesn't mean all opinions are equal.

For example, I could opine that the Atlanta Falcons are a terrible football team.  "Worst team in the league, imo!"  Unfortunately for me, they are 8-0 and sitting atop the NFC. 

Obviously, in that case, my opinion would not only be worthless it would be flat out wrong.  I'd be entitled to think it, and even say it, but it wouldn't make me look any less asinine for doing so.

There is no all or nothing here, validity can be judged on a case by case basis.

[WhiteThunder]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

They also had multiple choices and gave the player a ton of freedom in how to get things done while still having a coherent story.

Did the Baldur's Gate games (or even the Infinity Engine games in general) really offer a ton of freedom for how to get things done?

Opinions are just that a person's opinion. People do not have to like
the opinion, but that does not make it any less valid than someone
else's opinion.

In general (and especially within the context of "Do you like video game X") I agree.

They have their opinion, but their opinion is wrong.

When discussing whether or not someone feels a game provided more entertainment from them, no their opinion is not wrong.  It's fine for you to disagree and to state you found said game did not provide more entertainment for you, but telling other people that what they feel is wrong is something no person here is qualified to make.

Unless you'd appreciate me telling you that your gaming preferences are wrong, I'd encourage people to not go down this road when interacting with other posters.

I wasn't arguing that it was invalid to like DA2.  I was saying there is such a thing as an objective level of quality. Big Rigs Over the Road Racing, anyone?

And Planescape: Torment certainly offered a ton of freedom for how to get things done, obviously it was made by Black Isle, not Bioware, but, seeing as how it is pretty universally accepted as the best wRPG ever made, it should be the model to strive for in terms of story and choice in a RPG.  Obviously it would be impossible to have a story with that much reactivity be voice acted, which is the premise of this thread.

[FINE HERE]

Taint Master wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Point being this is a social forum made expressly for the purpose of fans sharing their opinions. Either they all have some value, or none of them do ("none" including yours and mine).

That's really not true.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that doesn't mean all opinions are equal.

For example, I could opine that the Atlanta Falcons are a terrible football team.  "Worst team in the league, imo!"  Unfortunately for me, they are 8-0 and sitting atop the NFC. 

Obviously, in that case, my opinion would not only be worthless it would be flat out wrong.  I'd be entitled to think it, and even say it, but it wouldn't make me look any less asinine for doing so.

There is no all or nothing here, validity can be judged on a case by case basis.

Can we stop with the bullying here?

Comparing 'football team stats and likeability' to 'a person's video game preference' isn't even the same thing. It's not like saying that since a lot more people play FPSs that means that their opinion for what makes a popular game is better than the few people who play RPGs.

[Allan Schumacher]

I wasn't arguing that it was invalid to like DA2. I was saying there is such a thing as an objective level of quality. Big Rigs Over the Road Racing, anyone?

While I understood the Picasso reference, I disagreed with your notion that people that prefer Big Bang Theory over Community are wrong in their opinions.

And Planescape: Torment certainly offered a ton of freedom for how to get things done, obviously it was made by Black Isle, not Bioware, but, seeing as how it is pretty universally accepted as the best wRPG ever made, it should be the model to strive for in terms of story and choice in a RPG. Obviously it would be impossible to have a story with that much reactivity be voice acted, which is the premise of this thread.

While I agree that it's probably my favourite RPG, it HAS been a long time since I played it. Is there really a ton of freedom, however, in how to get things done? From what I remember, it doesn't seem to hold much of a candle to a game like Fallout (a game where varying paths, and in general non-lineartyseems a lot clearer to me). Most of the variability I remember comes from dialogues, but given the game is so heavily slanted to a high int/wis build, I'll admit I don't know if some of the strength/dexterity options that I know exist in the early game hold up in the long term.

I guess my question is: "how much freedom is a ton of freedom?"

[Bernhardtbr]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Did the Baldur's Gate games (or even the Infinity Engine games in general) really offer a ton of freedom for how to get things done?

No they didn´t, but people love to to reference old games because it makes them feel smart.

There were tons of situations in BG 2 where the decisions were pointless or with minimal impact (the classical one being the Silver Dragon´s eggs, also many quests like the one you had to assemble the rod to kill the Beholder were totally linear) and charisma was totally useless. Planescape Torment fared better in that aspect and stats had a bit more impact.

Modifié par Bernhardtbr, 10 novembre 2012 - 08:43 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I guess my question is: "how much freedom is a ton of freedom?"

I think, perhaps, a better question is why one game would be PERCEIVED to have more freedom than another? The amount of ACTUAL choices is, honestly, a little pointless, since it is the feeling, the player's PERCEPTION, that ultimately is the determiner. Baldur's Gate didn't have a lot of choice opportunities in how to address situations with gameplay when compared to a game like Planescape, yet the amount of dialogue options (and shades of intent, emotion and purpose) is surpassed. Meanwhile, a game like DA2, which had a decent amount of custom dialogue based on certain situations (such as friendship/rivalry with your companions) is stated as having much less choice.

To break things down in these three examples: I'd say Fallout let you have a LARGE variety of ways to build your character's stats and skills that could be utilized in a number of situations. I'd say Planescape gave you lots of options to create the type of person/personality you'd like to play.

I would then say with a third example, Dragon Age 2, that it had many ways it changed the experience based on how you played, but I don't think it did a great job in calling the fact that they weren't part of the 'vanilla' experience that people really recognized it.


And maybe that is the problem? If a game weaves variability seamlessly into the game/dialogue/experience, it can actually run the risk of it actually being hard to recognize when a choice was being acknowledged.

I would still say DA2 could have done a little more to make the game feel different for those who had different classes/builds or personalities, for sure. But I also think the work done was done in such a way that it was overlooked, which can bring less satisfaction to the player and result in extra work that isn't providing the level of value the game makers intended.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 novembre 2012 - 08:56 .

[Taint Master]

FINE HERE wrote...

Can we stop with the bullying here?

I'm not bullying anyone, at least not intentionally.  People misread my tone a lot.

[Fast Jimmy]

Taint Master wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...

Can we stop with the bullying here?

I'm not bullying anyone, at least not intentionally.  People misread my tone a lot.

You should color code your words in blue, red or purple. 

[WhiteThunder]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I wasn't arguing that it was invalid to like DA2. I was saying there is such a thing as an objective level of quality. Big Rigs Over the Road Racing, anyone?

While I understood the Picasso reference, I disagreed with your notion that people that prefer Big Bang Theory over Community are wrong in their opinions.

And Planescape: Torment certainly offered a ton of freedom for how to get things done, obviously it was made by Black Isle, not Bioware, but, seeing as how it is pretty universally accepted as the best wRPG ever made, it should be the model to strive for in terms of story and choice in a RPG. Obviously it would be impossible to have a story with that much reactivity be voice acted, which is the premise of this thread.

While I agree that it's probably my favourite RPG, it HAS been a long time since I played it. Is there really a ton of freedom, however, in how to get things done? From what I remember, it doesn't seem to hold much of a candle to a game like Fallout (a game where varying paths, and in general non-lineartyseems a lot clearer to me). Most of the variability I remember comes from dialogues, but given the game is so heavily slanted to a high int/wis build, I'll admit I don't know if some of the strength/dexterity options that I know exist in the early game hold up in the long term.

I guess my question is: "how much freedom is a ton of freedom?"

Sorry, I spend a little too much time on the AV Club, haha.  And I think that PST had a lot of freedom, (and I am focusing on the dialogues, because that was the heart of the game.)  for example, the bronze sphere quest unfolded in one of two very different ways depending on whether you chose to go through the Warrens of Thought or the Dead Nations, and there you had many different options on how to resolve each quest. 

The Pillar of Skulls has several different options to resolve it.  

If you never went to the siege tower the final quest resolves very differently than if you convinced Coaxmetal to create the Immortal Blade.  

And that's not even mentioning all the little atmospheric things like creating "Adahn."

[Nefla]

BioWare can have my voice for free if it means more choice and dialogue :<

[hobbit of the shire]

While I think a good voice actor can add a ton of value to the game, I also think that it is sad that we are left with much fewer choices or abrupt conversations because of the $$$/time needed for voicing. I can also understand how voiced NPCs and a mute PC can be a bit weird, but having a voiced PC runs the risk of making the game less personal. In these types of games, we put a lot of effort into our character (looks, choices, relationships), so it can be utterly jarring if the voice of the character does not mesh with what we have in our mind because, as the PC, this person is YOU. I do not like F!Hawke or M!Hawke's voice. And despite playing them all the time, they also are so unmemorable (I can see why you sort of had to have a neutral-type voice), I won't be able to recognize it out of context. So, while I tended to bond with my DAO characters, I can't really do so for my DA2 characters (also that Hawke says the stupidest things). And this leads to my last point.... because of the voice acting, I'm forced to be called "Hawke" by everyone. I hate that surname and even if I liked it, I hate being called my by surname. And for the LI to continue calling him/her by that is also silly. By virtue of VAs, I no longer can even name myself.

[Pauravi]

Vit246 wrote...

Absolutely. Look at the variety of complex text dialogue in games like DA (maybe) and KOTOR 2.

I dunno.  I look back on KOTOR and DA, and Jade Empire (which I am currently playing) and I really just don't see any more complex dialogue or freedom of choice than we had in ME or DA2.  DA2 is more restrictive in terms of equipping your companions, but not in terms of story.

[Pauravi]

Lethys1 wrote...

It seems like if one were to plot a chart, the moment at which RPG's started being fully voiced is the same moment they started being far more restrictive in their design.

Any examples?  Because I really can't see any change in restrictiveness (as far as story branching or dialogue goes) between KOTOR or DA and, say, DA2.

Combat-only design replaced more creative ideas involving skill checks, as an example.

How do either of these have to do with voice work, and how does adding skill checks make the story more complex?

I personally would trade voicework in entirely for a fuller, branching RPG experience.

Once again, I struggle to think of a game, fully voiced or not (save The Witcher 2, which is fully voiced) where any of the choices you make have a significant branching effect on the story.  I really just don't see the voice acting having any real influence on the complexity of the story or dialogue.