82 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

I think Slyvius makes an important point that is danger of getting lost amongst all the witticisms; what is the design philosophy Bioware is using to make their games? While I do not expect an answer, I do hope that someone, somewhere who has decision making ability, carefully considers what Slyvius is asking.

The last few games have had a heavy, cinematic emphasis and now with a voiced character becoming "standard" one can only assume that this is now the preferred direction. I am not arguing whether said "standard" is good or bad - just that it lends itself to creating a game where the main character is more and more Bioware's and less the player's.

I fail to see how it could not be. The actor has only a few lines, and only a limited way to say them. With the paraphrase, we the player no longer even know what the character is going to say until he says it. Even if we did, we still would know how the actor is going to deliver them.

While this allows the writers/developers to make a far more dramatic story, it also takes something away from the player. Furthermore, it comes with other prices as well - e.g., we don't even get the possibility of a dwarf romance anymore because apparently, it is too difficult to make the models interact properly on screen (and that apart from the "ick" factor some developers have mentioned).

Not only is technology pushing game design in a certain direction, so is the culture itself; i.e., how many threads/comments on these boards have been asking for a more "action" twitch based game play? How many people have complained about "reading" all that text? There are many demands on peoples' time today, and a lot of interesting ways to spend it - a lot of players seem to want an interactive movie experience.

The limitations of previous technology, almost inadvertently at times, allowed more player freedom, and therefore more classic "role playing" just because the developers could not do certain things - unvoiced dialogue allowed the player to read any tone, intent, etc. wanted, sometimes (often) despite what the writers may have intended. But it had the serendipitous effect of allowing the character to "belong" to the player.

So it seems inevitable that we are in danger of losing something, that some of us regard as important; while also getting something that simply could not be done before. Everything has a price, you get something by giving something else up.

But I would like to know that what I am getting is something I really want; and that's why the question is a valid one. I didn't quite with DA2, but hope that I might with DA3.

Very well put.

[jackofalltrades456]

Tancred Of The Chantry wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...
I don't know how Bioware expects me to play, but I expect to play moderately buzzed and in my underdraws and slippers.

/thread

I plan on getting an early start on a drinking game once more details are out.

Every time Leliana makes an appearance, take a shot...

Drink every time Gaider writes off a decision from the last game. We'll be wasted by the first act.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

You are never able to create your character's appearance,backstory,motivation and personality exactly the way you want in a video game period.

I disagree.  We didn't have total control over his behaviour (because he could only do and say the things the writers allowed), but he could believe anything we wanted.  He could remember any past we imagined.  He could have whatever opinions and objectives we chose.

A character is defined by his values, beliefs, and goals.  If we can define those, then we have pretty much unlimited control over his personality.

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

So I do not think anyone is demanding perfect control over every aspect of a character. Sylvius (and I may be misunderstanding him here) simply wants to know "how much comtrol are we being given?" That question has a direct effect on how to approach the character in-game, with the limits already established.

This is certainly true.

[Realmzmaster]

simfamSP wrote...

Provi-dance wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm unwilling to draw a conclusion until I get some hard evidence, but I do think it valuable to keep these alternatives (and their viability) in the public eye.

Of course.

One of the beautiful aspects of Project Eternity is how they've been sharing informations and plans for the game update after update at the beginning of the development process, which allows people to offer feedback about specific potential features.

This is due to it being funded via KickStarter. I'm sure a lot of devs would love to do this, but they simply can't.

If gamers are investing (with money) in the project the expectation is that they be kept in the loop. If a company is using its own money to fund a project it can decide whether or not to keep the fanbase in the loop. The developers does not  have to disclose everything or anything  about the project until the developer is ready. Hence, Bioware has gone with show rather than tell.

The problem with telling gamers that something may or may not be in the game is that plans change. Gamers get upset if the feature they want is cut becuase of resources, story or gameplay. Bioware/EA does not have to tell us anything since the game is being funded on their dime. It is in their best interest to keep the fanbase semi-informed, but that does not mean that they have to disclose even a fraction of what they are going to do.

The gaming public can respond to the klack of disclosure by waiting until more information about the game is forthcoming or forego purchase of the game entirely.
.

[Allan Schumacher]

I agree that it's also interesting for Obsidian to share that information.

The thing that gets me with Kickstarter is I am curious what will happen if/when projects are not able to ship all their features and/or meet their deadline. There's been a real rush of enthusiasm because it's a relatively new thing, but it's been interesting following some of the concerns that Schafer and company have at Double Fine with their documentary as they come across unexpected obstacles. (It's also cool seeing the enthusiasm restored when they are able to bypass said obstacle without significant time loss and so forth).

The problem with telling gamers that something may or may not be in the game is that plans change. Gamers get upset if the feature they want is cut becuase of resources, story or gameplay.

Just to note, I have already seen people state that BioWare has promised to have multiple races in DA4.  Which isn't what was stated.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 16 novembre 2012 - 10:57 .

[Pink Pony]

The only way I could play the Mass Efect series and Dragon Age II was by actively not role-playing. I just tried to pick the disposition that corresponded most to what I wanted the character to do. This is because phrasing is of paramount importance to me: I consider how something is said to be as important as what is said. The result is, when I role-play a character, I have a definite idea of what they would, and would not, say. Many times I did not disagree with the point, nor the other character’s reaction, but I disagreed with how my character said what they did. There were multiple instances of me reloading the game to pick all of the dialogue options, just to find none of them were right. I eventually got to the point where I was tired of doing this and decided to just let the game unfold as it will. Once I started doing this, I was much happier playing the games. This is not especially a problem with voiced dialogue: it is a problem I have with pre-written dialogue in general. There has never been a game where I could consistently say exactly what I wanted my character to.

It is not my intention to say BioWare intends for people to play their games as I do; it is just the way that makes me the happiest playing the games.

[Pink Pony]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that it's also interesting for Obsidian to share that information.

The thing that gets me with Kickstarter is I am curious what will happen if/when projects are not able to ship all their features and/or meet their deadline. There's been a real rush of enthusiasm because it's a relatively new thing, but it's been interesting following some of the concerns that Schafer and company have at Double Fine with their documentary as they come across unexpected obstacles. (It's also cool seeing the enthusiasm restored when they are able to bypass said obstacle without significant time loss and so forth).

I think they almost need to share the information. Many people want to know what is going on, which makes people feel more involved. Also, it is a way to keep interest in the game high.

I am certain that games will eventually not make their deadline and not have all the stated features. I think the outrage will be worse than it would be for traditionally-made games; as, with Kickstarter, people who backed the project tend to view the relationship as more than a customer-business one.

I am not as certain about this, but I feel like Kickstarter (and similar enterprises) will eventually lose popularity. The pitches tend to promise a lot, and it is only a matter of time before people start being disappointed.

Modifié par Pink Pony, 16 novembre 2012 - 11:13 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just to note, I have already seen people state that BioWare has promised to have multiple races in DA4.  Which isn't what was stated.

That's because when you certain people read dev statements, they only read every other word. For instance, your above statement could be read:

Just to note, I already state that BioWare promised to have multiple races in DA4.  Which was stated.

I would love to blame it on the incredible excitement and exuberance of the fanbase to rush through the statement and not a general lack of reading comprehension... but I don't want to jump to any conclusions either way.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 novembre 2012 - 12:09 .

[Pink Pony]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I would love to blame it on the incredible excitement and exuberance of the fanbase to rush through the statement and not a general lack of reading comprehension... but I don't want to jump to any conclusions either way.

I don't think it is necessarily either of those things; people project their desires (as well as their fears) onto ambiguous statements.

Modifié par Pink Pony, 17 novembre 2012 - 12:47 .

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

When I can find time away from taking care of my one-year-old son is how I'll be playing it. Stay-Home Dad here.

[Dubozz]

Going to play it with 3 days marathon, guess 50 hours on Nightmare would be enough.

[Drasanil]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Just to note, I have already seen people state that BioWare has promised to have multiple races in DA4.  Which isn't what was stated.

What was stated and where per-chance? Someone mentioned one of the devs said something to that affect in a twitter post, but provided no source/link. 

[In Exile]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...
The limitations of previous technology, almost inadvertently at times, allowed more player freedom, and therefore more classic "role playing" just because the developers could not do certain things - unvoiced dialogue allowed the player to read any tone, intent, etc. wanted, sometimes (often) despite what the writers may have intended. But it had the serendipitous effect of allowing the character to "belong" to the player.

So it seems inevitable that we are in danger of losing something, that some of us regard as important; while also getting something that simply could not be done before. Everything has a price, you get something by giving something else up.

This pressuposes a certain kind of belonging - namely, that a character belongs to you if you can imagine things about them that the game never actually reacts to. But for some players (i.e., me) the "belonging" comes from reactivity. I feel that a protagonist is mine when I feel that the protagonist can actually interact with the world, and characters actually react to him/her. 

So for me, Shepard/Hawke (and even Geralt) are characters that "belong" to me much more than the Warden might, because these are characters that feel as if they were part of that world in some sense. 

[David Gaider]

Drasanil wrote...
What was stated and where per-chance? Someone mentioned one of the devs said something to that affect in a twitter post, but provided no source/link.

Mike Laidlaw stated in the Edmonton Comic Con panel that DA3 having a human-only companion shouldn't be taken as where the series would be going from now on-- that in DA4 we would be looking once again at hopefully including other playable races, including qunari.

Insofar as the OP goes, I consider the question disingenuous. It strikes me as more an attempt to get us to make a statement (with a leading question) so that our answer could be refuted, thus inviting the same sort of argument as in the recent thread I just locked. I think we've been pretty clear on our design goals, and I'm not sure our intentions matter much to most players as they'll play it in a variety of ways that suit themselves anyhow. If someone thinks we haven't been clear, it's either because we haven't said things that they like... or they need more specific information, which won't come until later. And that's as much as I'll contribute to the topic.

[Provi-dance]

simfamSP wrote...

Provi-dance wrote...

Of course.

One of the beautiful aspects of Project Eternity is how they've been sharing informations and plans for the game update after update at the beginning of the development process, which allows people to offer feedback about specific potential features.

This is due to it being funded via KickStarter. I'm sure a lot of devs would love to do this, but they simply can't.

A company can disclose all they want about their future games, Kickstarter or not.

Perhaps a few companies are afraid to share plans for the game with their fanbase (the company's mirror image, generally) because they believe that, if plans end up changing, the fanbase will slit their own wrists in a hysterical bloodbath and/or that the game will get a lower metacritic score from disappointed fans which will in turn kill their plans to sell 10 million copies, or something like that. Loud minority, 4chan and co. are to blame too.
Everything is linked though. Ridiculous developer = ridiculous fanbase.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Insofar as the OP goes, I consider the question disingenuous.

It's not disingenuous.  I really do want to know.  Based on our previous discussions regarding DAO's dialogue (and your insistence that the player-selected lines did have a fixed tone), it's clear that the way you expected DAO to be played was not how I played it.  Now that, in and of itself, doesn't matter.  But, since I'd been playing your games the same way for 10 years, I came to expect my playstyle to be supported.  It wasn't, though, in the voiced PC games, because you had (apparently) never been actively supporting my playstyle.  The extent to which you even permitted my playstyle appears, increasingly, to have been an accident (though it clearly wasn't in BG - my playstyle was documented in the manual).

But because I expected BioWare to support my playstyle (as, again, from my point of view, they always had), I had expectations of how the games would play.  And then, suddenly, they no longer did.  I created characters that didn't work, and I found myself unable to discern what sorts of characters would.

It strikes me as more an attempt to get us to make a statement (with a leading question) so that our answer could be refuted, thus inviting the same sort of argument as in the recent thread I just locked.

You locked that thread because it wasn't DA3 related.  This thread is explicitly about DA3.

As for refutation, that wouldn't be possible if you followed your stated design goals.  Actually, since you probably do follow your design goals, perhaps I should say refutation wouldn't be possible if you defined your goals precisely.

I think we've been pretty clear on our design goals, and I'm not sure our intentions matter much to most players as they'll play it in a variety of ways that suit themselves anyhow.

Certainly we will.  But knowing what playstyles you intend to support will mean that we can safely play the game in that way without running into brick walls.  That's a good way to discover the limits of the game so that new approaches can be tried on subsequent playthroughs.

But going in blind produces only frustration if we guess wrong.

If someone thinks we haven't been clear, it's either because we haven't said things that they like... or they need more specific information, which won't come until later.

I don't think you've been clear at all on your design goals in this respect.  It's clear you want to tell a story.  It's clear you want to use cinematics to do that more effectively.  It is not at all clear what gameplay behaviour you expect from the players.  It is not at all clear the range of playstyles that will be possible.

I'm perfectly willing to wait for more specific information, but I think broad statements would be more valuable than specific details.

And that's as much as I'll contribute to the topic.

I can accept that.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 novembre 2012 - 09:30 .

[CitizenThom]

It isn't just an either or question, I know, but I think the question in the lowest common denominator is... Are we going to play the story of 'a' character? Or are we playing the the story of any number of characters in 'a' world?

I've played any number of entertaining and enjoyable games with a predefined main character... I've also done so without the main character being a fixed quantity. I still think DA2 fits in the latter category, but I also understand people thinking some choices were already made (third act)... and I imagine many people want to know if we're looking at an action-adventure game with rpg elements or an rpg game with action-adventure elements when it comes to DA3.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

CitizenThom wrote...
and I imagine many people want to know if we're looking at an action-adventure game with rpg elements or an rpg game with action-adventure elements when it comes to DA3.

Yes, I'm one of those people.

David Gaider wrote...

Insofar as the OP goes, I consider the question disingenuous.

I think th OP's question is valid. It could affect my decision whether to buy DA 3 or not.

David Gaider wrote...
I think we've been pretty clear on our design goals, and I'm not sure our intentions matter much to most players as they'll play it in a variety of ways that suit themselves anyhow.

You're right. I play your Neverwinter Nights and DAO as first person character. I roleplay by self inserting. My PC is represented by my avatar. That doesn't meant I never roleplay a third person character. I do create many other different characters and view those character as third person after my initial playthrough. I don't play your other games such as KoTor, Jade Empire, Sonic Chronicle etc.. I bought your Neverwinter Nights due to D&D ruleset and create-your-campaign theme. I bought your DAO due to it's similarity with Neverwinter Nights 2 which was still heavily influenced by D&D ruleset in term of race selection and the philosophy goal where I, the players, am the character. I knew it's never been an issue with your intention on how the players will play your games.

But after ME 2 and DA 2, I can no longer play your game in a manner that suit myself any longer. I was surprised with your different perspective to handle the player character. The restriction you imposed on cinematic conversion through camera view, restricted personality system, restricted tones, restricted player control over their character and choices render first person roleplaying difficult. By using third person narrator under story-within-story frame narrative in DA 2, you effectively eliminate first person roleplaying due to different perspective. I still cannot believe in what way could you expect any of your future game could be relate-able to player and suppose to be personal by this design choice. It's not about voice protagonist. It's about how you present PC and in what manner do you expect player to play them. OP question is valid, in my opinion. And I'm looking forward for the answer.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 18 novembre 2012 - 01:10 .

[Ophir147]

EntropicAngel wrote...


Me neither. I saw all the dialog in DA:O as tone-less. Perhaps with sarcasm or humor, but not "aggressive" or "diplomatic." I didn't see that at all.

And the game never contradicted me.

The only way to create dialogue choices that were tone-less would be to carefully tailor neutral and disarming responses to the player, so that as little variation as possible is presented from every one of the conversational target, I think.

All of the dialogue choices in seemed to carry a tone with me, judging by the fact that the person would react in a tone of their own. 

The fact that that the game never contradicted you is cool, because that probably means that the choices were distinct enough to show the implied tone. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Something I recently realized.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

...Based on our previous discussions regarding DAO's dialogue (and your insistence that the player-selected lines did have a fixed tone), it's clear that the way you expected DAO to be played was not how I played it.

Me neither. I saw all the dialog in DA:O as tone-less. Perhaps with sarcasm or humor, but not "aggressive" or "diplomatic." I didn't see that at all.

And the game never contradicted me.

Right, and that highlights a playstyle which appears will no longer be possible now that we have voiced protagonists.

So, given that we have voiced protagonists, how do we play?  I think I and others like me have done a very good job of describing how we played DAO (and prior games), and how that didn't seem to work in DA2 (or ME), so that offers a good basis from which to begin a description of how gameplay can work with the voiced protagonist in DA3.

Ultimately, I didn't enjoy playing D2 because I didn't get it.  I didn't understand what it was I was doing, as a player.  I didn't understand my part in the interactivity.

I think this is an opportunity for BioWare to retain some confused players who need some guidance.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Something I recently realized.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

...Based on our previous discussions regarding DAO's dialogue (and your insistence that the player-selected lines did have a fixed tone), it's clear that the way you expected DAO to be played was not how I played it.

Me neither. I saw all the dialog in DA:O as tone-less. Perhaps with sarcasm or humor, but not "aggressive" or "diplomatic." I didn't see that at all.

And the game never contradicted me.

Right, and that highlights a playstyle which appears will no longer be possible now that we have voiced protagonists.

So, given that we have voiced protagonists, how do we play?  I think I and others like me have done a very good job of describing how we played DAO (and prior games), and how that didn't seem to work in DA2 (or ME), so that offers a good basis from which to begin a description of how gameplay can work with the voiced protagonist in DA3.

Ultimately, I didn't enjoy playing D2 because I didn't get it.  I didn't understand what it was I was doing, as a player.  I didn't understand my part in the interactivity.

I think this is an opportunity for BioWare to retain some confused players who need some guidance.

Instructions? 

Less think-y. More click-y.

Bioware wants to tell their stories with their characters, not let us make our own stories with our own characters. Any incidental ability to do this with past games surely wasn't intentional or planned to account for different character types in the past. 

As with many things, I blame the import mechanic for the confusion. For the change in focus. For the overall more narrow mindset in playing a Bioware RPG. Its become all about choices. Its not about WHY your character made that choice... its just the outcomes that results from it. I feel like Bioware's game design is becoming inherently deterministic, where they now view every possible outcome as having branches which can go down forever and they don't like that. Rather than allow freedom in ambiguity, they know see it is a design flaw, which produces countless holes which must then be plugged. 

Becoming so intent on managing, accounting and devising narrative for choices that can stretch across games, across years worth of work, means even the simplest question of "what if my character would not want to?" seems to be almost baffling. Imagining a player wanting to play a character who doesn't conform easily to the choices because of a legitimate, but unthought of reason by the writer is ignored or even invalidated by a voiced protagonist.

So I'd say your choices are this: set your character according to the guidelines in the character creator. Don't try anything fancy or creative, stay within the lines and, above all, don't form any opinions about why your character would do anything until after you have already made the choice.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 novembre 2012 - 01:17 .

[Shadow Fox]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Something I recently realized.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

...Based on our previous discussions regarding DAO's dialogue (and your insistence that the player-selected lines did have a fixed tone), it's clear that the way you expected DAO to be played was not how I played it.

Me neither. I saw all the dialog in DA:O as tone-less. Perhaps with sarcasm or humor, but not "aggressive" or "diplomatic." I didn't see that at all.

And the game never contradicted me.

Right, and that highlights a playstyle which appears will no longer be possible now that we have voiced protagonists.

So, given that we have voiced protagonists, how do we play?  I think I and others like me have done a very good job of describing how we played DAO (and prior games), and how that didn't seem to work in DA2 (or ME), so that offers a good basis from which to begin a description of how gameplay can work with the voiced protagonist in DA3.

Ultimately, I didn't enjoy playing D2 because I didn't get it.  I didn't understand what it was I was doing, as a player.  I didn't understand my part in the interactivity.

I think this is an opportunity for BioWare to retain some confused players who need some guidance.

I'm sorry but I have to call bull**** on this the Warden's lines clearly had a tone based on the way npcs reacted.