491 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I agree there could have been more reactivity, but moments where it did shine through were big for me, personally. You being able to tell King Cailain about your brutality, or saying you don't bow to a shem/surfacer king (if you are a Dalish or Dwarven commoner) brought some cool echoes.

Okay, telling Cailan I murdered an arl for raping my friend is a highpoint, but it also bothers me because Cailan doesn't really even try to do anything about someone who just admitted to murdering an arl. I mean, yes, right of conscription, but still.

Zevran, Wynne and Leliana asking about being an elf, even for just one line, and letting me respond was huge.

Whereas, for me, it wasn't. Because having played a HN, it drew out just how you're not at all treated differently. It made me feel like there was a huge contrast between the story and the party - kind of how in DA2 no one seems to really care you're a mage. It just bugged me tremendously.

It was like Velana's lines in DA:A - where half the time she seems to think you're a human instead of an elf.

On the other hand, I simply choose "Diplomatic option" for Hawke and he can express religious statements. I can express "agreesive option" and have him say "Shut up with your stalling! Answer my question already!" when I was the one who just pressed for more Investigate dialogue. 

I guess I never felt that - but (although the type of sarcasm wasn't) - the troll Hawke options were so close to my natural personality 80% of the time, that I never had a problem. 

Maybe DA2 did give me enough chances to express my own feelings... but I never got to choose what feelings were said. So those instances solidified Hawke's character... they didn't let me choose my own. If that makes any sense.

DA2 let me dodge with humour, and try and be heroic when it was convenient, and otherwise ignore people's problems and go about my own business. It felt the closest a game's ever gotten to my natural personality.

I've always played the devil's advocate and stated NPCs don't always react how we intend them to with our voice, but I can definitely understand this concern. 

Don't get me wrong - it makes no sense for an NPC to always react to your tone. But there's an issue here: we can't correct a misunderstanding in game.

If I say make a joke and it offends someone, IRL, I can apologize. I can try to correct the misunderstanding. But this is impossible in a video-game (right now). So the way to militate against the articiaility of that is to allow our tone to be telegraphed. So that there isn't this break.

I think a tone selector in DA:O would have helped just as much, even without a voiced PC, but your choices shouldn't be inherently tied to tone. I want to be able to refuse a quest in a diplomatic way, or attempt to bribe someone without making a joke of it, or tell someone I will rip them limb from limb with a calm, soothing, logical voice to make it all the more chilling.

I agree. But I think DA2 tried to do this - you'll notice their non-tone choice well exists (but the response is tied to tone).

The design process of DA2 allowed us the resources to do this with the dominant tone, so that all dialogue options were recorded with it, but it didn't allow us control of when it was used, which was a miss for me.

I agree with you here too.

Still... I still prefer choosing my dialogue than choosing my tone. Deciding WHAT is said, not how my character says it. Because I want to be nice after an NPC just died doesn't mean I want my character to offer silent prayers to the Maker. Just because I want to add humor to lighten a rough situation doesn't mean I want to make an incredibly horrifyingly inappropriate comment. 

My characters are defined by words. If you take those words away, you take my character away. That's how I feel, at least.

It's funny, because in my line of work words are key, but I care much more about intent than tone. But to me the intention - the how it is said - matters much more than what is said.

The big reason here, though, is that games never capture my unique voice. Nothing in games is ever like how I would say it, or how any character I would design would say it - so I always have to be content with the tone, intent and effect.

[In Exile]

sympathy4sarenreturns wrote..
I feel similarly, except replace books for cutscenes. I want to play, not watch a movie. BioWare has become too kuch walk here, press A, watch a movie.

I think sometimes cutscenes work well, insofar as I think sometimes a scene works well from something other than first person POV or OTS. But the problem is camera tracking, and the cutscene just creates an entirely different experience.

I think the idea of "playing a movie" was really cool when Bioware experimented with it in KoTOR and ME, but the problem is that following those games they focused (IMO) too much on "movie" and not enough on "playing".

[H. Birdman]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

H. Birdman wrote...

Sorry, DA2 was bad--no argument there--but it made an attempt at a coherent story. That's more than you can say for Skyrim. Bad dialogue and unclear motivations are one thing, and warrant criticism. But hardly anyone in Skyrim even acknowledged the existence of the massive existential threat that supposedly was driving the main story. It would be like if hundreds of 50 foot tall demons were attacking Kirkwall, but 75% of the population--including many major characters--was oblivious.

Right except everyone seems unaware that at night the entire town's population and then some turns into crazy murderers and "guard impersonators". Any onlooking guards won't even grab some popcorn. and then there's Mage Hawke tossing fireballs in Cullen's face.

Really? Comparing a believable coherent world to DA2? and that's before even taking into account the size and scope of things.

Ignoring one guy makes more sense than chatting it up about whether I make it to the Cloud District very often when giant harbingers of the apocalypse are massing right outside the gate.  If you're going to run an "end of the world" theme, you have to sell it down to the little details.  If not, the whole thing feels weird. 

But I digress.

I respect the differing opinion.  I'm certainly no DA2 fan; and I've logged 200+ hours on Skyrim.  But for me, DA2 felt like a borderline-coherent story in a semi-believable world with a lot of specific problems (e.g., nobody noticing Mage Hawke), while Skyrim's two main questlines felt like a tacked-on pretext to do some quests in a world where nobody knew or cared what was going on.

[Kizzim]

Personally I hope it's not like Skyrim, and rather than trying to be like something else it should be its own game with new ideas.

[MichaelStuart]

To me the best part about Skyrim is the exploration, adding large open areas to Dragon Age 3 would be great.
Also, In Skyrim most combat was over quickly, hopefully that will also be added.

[Rawgrim]

I`d like them to look at The Walking dead game and how that one deals with choices and such, though. Just recently startet playing it and I got blown away.

[Heimdall]

Rawgrim wrote...

I`d like them to look at The Walking dead game and how that one deals with choices and such, though. Just recently startet playing it and I got blown away.

I wonder if you'll feel the same way at the end... <_<

[FenrirENJIAN]

Lolz this doesn't make a lot of sense i just don't want it to be first person. Being a first person RPG and exploration is Skyrim's schtick. I liked the facial expressions in DA2 and DAO. I want to a see a multitude of personalities and be called Sir Stabbity or Ms. Stabbity *stab stab* or even have your companions question your sanity if you flip flop too much or they start questioning decisions because our indecisiveness in earlier events also make the advanced spells look more impressive. Also bring back Arcane Warrior and please we need more than a level 20-25 max this time 'round. and stylish menus like DAO. If this unreasonable I can understand that also make the specializations more special....duelist rly? telekinesis, rly? berserker, rly? well the classes i use mostly thru DAO and DA2 were Shadow, Assassin, Arcane Warrior, Spirit Healer, and Reaver. Blood mage is way too costly that class still requires work. Also Avernus's research lab I would like to stumble upon it sometime and the black emporium merchant again but this time uninvited.

Modifié par FenrirENJIAN, 02 janvier 2013 - 02:43 .

[HTTP 404]

I don't see how landscape looks like skyrim.

I looked out the window today and I thought I lived in Skyrim.

it was snowing outside, it looked like skyrim

I saw a picture of a snow capped mountain, must be Skyrim

This article is nothing but hot air and everyone's feathers are all ruffled. Add in a "comparison" argument between two games and you got yourself a volatile thread.

Modifié par HTTP 404, 02 janvier 2013 - 02:41 .

[FenrirENJIAN]

HTTP 404 wrote...

I don't see how landscape looks like skyrim.

I looked out the window today and I thought I lived in Skyrim.

it was snowing outside, it looked like skyrim

I saw a picture of a snow capped mountain, must be Skyrim

This article is nothing but hot air and everyone's feathers are all ruffled. Add in a "comparison" argument between two games and you got yourself a volatile thread.

LOLZ! 

[FenrirENJIAN]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I`d like them to look at The Walking dead game and how that one deals with choices and such, though. Just recently startet playing it and I got blown away.

I wonder if you'll feel the same way at the end... <_<

Agreed I also played Walking Dead but its just not right for this game your choices may have an impact on the story in Walking Dead but you dont really have control over what you do with your actions like you can in the Dragon Age series. >:3 Walking Dead is like a roller coaster with a few game pauses kinda like uphills on a coaster track-line. Also i can make all the choices in Walking Dead without batting an eyelash. >:3 I didn't quite make it to the end of walking dead because i was bored and started playing Mass Effect 3 lolz...

Modifié par FenrirENJIAN, 02 janvier 2013 - 02:56 .

[Elhanan]

Here is the thing with me: If the books of lore in Skyrim are kept short and concise, then it works well for me. Frostflow Lighthouse is my key example, and a fave quest in the game. Same with the cut-scenes in Bioware games, really enjoy them as they set up, finish, or augment the game I am playing. The Human Warrior/ Rogue Origin in DAO is full of excellent examples here.

But when either tend to exceed into any great length, generally they both lose me. Or at least, they do not have me as engaged as I have been in other settings or games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

No, it doens't. It reacts to a preset type of physical behaviours, and only through the pre-existing lense of the developers eyes, like every single video-game out there.

You can sneak and get dialogue because the developers want you to have sneak related dialogue. But you can't play hide and seek with the children.

That's flexibility that no games offers.  With any game, you can invent new actions the game doesn't allow.

What point are you trying to make?

The real world doesn't need to, because my actions are not limited. I could start a third rebelion, or a cult centered around the dragonborn, or replace Ulfric and declare myself High King (and true Emperor). Stupid or not, the range of possible actions available to me are quite large.

But in a game this isn't possible. My actions are limited by the designers. Multiple motives might be consistent with one action, but the very next action I take is also defined by my motives. I can't know in advance what actions the game will allow me to have (in DA:O, I had a Cousland PC who wanted to end the Theirin line and rule alone, but that was just impossible) and this is why motive becomes central.

Motive can't be central, because there's no plausible way for the game ever to react to motive.  What you're asking for is for the game to tell you which motives are supported so you can be sure that whatever actions you later imagine based on those motives are available for you.

You're choosing to avoid roadblocks at all costs, even if that cost includes being able to define your character's personality.

edit:

The game has to tell me if a motive is possible from the start, otherwise I've played for 20 hours believing the game will let me do something only to find out it's impossible, which is very frustrating. It breaks my character.

First, why did you believe that thing was possible?  The absense of evidence is not itself evidence.

Yes, designing a character that needs to do some specific thing only to then find that that thing isn't an available action would be character-breaking.  That's a risk, but you seem to exacerbate that risk by intentionally designing characters in that way.

You misunderstand. My point is that the level of reactivity I get with my fantasy alien is the same level of reactivity someone has with a Reguard. That's my litmus test for reactivity: if we both use our imaginations, is there equal support for my shapeshifting alien concept as your [insert lore appropriate character]?

I know that's what you're doing, and I don't understand why.  Aside from my thinking that your shapeshifting alien example actually demonstrates Skyrim's strengths (recall we had a nearly identical conversation regarding KotOR), why should all possible characters be supported equally?

It's not a complaint - it's my point. If I can create two widely different characters, act with different aims and motivations, and the game doesn not even acknowledge that at all, then the game is not reactive.

Why is reactivity valuable?

I think I understand the problem, Sylvius. It comes down to our personalities. I am not a passive person. I always try to change the things around me, actively.

Nor am I a passive person.  But neither am I an interactive person.

But do our personalities matter?  What's relevant here is the personalities of our characters, and we can design those however we'd like.  If you know (as you appear to) that the game won't allow these socially dominant or aggressive personalities, why are you trying to play them?

Moreover, don't you find this modern trend toward enforcing a leadership role on the PC irtritating, given that you can't actually have your character behave appropriately to that role?

Games that say they allow for "freedom" but don't allow me (as the player) to be an agent for change feel as restrictive as linear games with a preset protagonist - because the very choice that I would make (change the world) is the one choice that the game doesn't give you.

If you were to concern yourself more with beginnings than with middles or ends, this might still work for you.  Imagine a character who seeks to effect change in a particular way.  The set-up for that change may well still be possible, though the end-game never actually comes.  You would finish the game with your over-arching plan still on-going.

That's usually how I do it.

That opposite choices (release or imprison X). made with opposite motivations, lead to the same result.

Well, then I insist that doesn't matter, as such things are only knowable from a metagame perspective.

Within the game's reality, how something might have turned out differently is never knowable (just like the real world).

No game allows you to do that.

Yes they do.  They allow the play to choose from a finite list, but the player is ultimately allowed to choose.

DA2, however, does not let the player choose at all.

That's a very good point. I hadn't though of it that way before. I really like this point!

As was pointed out above, Skyrim does have a problem in that passers-by do tend to know an awful lot about the Dragonborn, but as those tend not to have any gameplay consequences (the banter makes no material difference), I had been ignoring them.

[Ghost]

Rawgrim wrote...

I`d like them to look at The Walking dead game and how that one deals with choices and such, though. Just recently startet playing it and I got blown away.

Your choices don't matter in TWD. All it does for the most part is change a small bit of dialogue.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

H. Birdman wrote...

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

H. Birdman wrote...

Sorry, DA2 was bad--no argument there--but it made an attempt at a coherent story. That's more than you can say for Skyrim. Bad dialogue and unclear motivations are one thing, and warrant criticism. But hardly anyone in Skyrim even acknowledged the existence of the massive existential threat that supposedly was driving the main story. It would be like if hundreds of 50 foot tall demons were attacking Kirkwall, but 75% of the population--including many major characters--was oblivious.

Right except everyone seems unaware that at night the entire town's population and then some turns into crazy murderers and "guard impersonators". Any onlooking guards won't even grab some popcorn. and then there's Mage Hawke tossing fireballs in Cullen's face.

Really? Comparing a believable coherent world to DA2? and that's before even taking into account the size and scope of things.

Ignoring one guy makes more sense than chatting it up about whether I make it to the Cloud District very often when giant harbingers of the apocalypse are massing right outside the gate.  If you're going to run an "end of the world" theme, you have to sell it down to the little details.  If not, the whole thing feels weird. 

But I digress.

I respect the differing opinion.  I'm certainly no DA2 fan; and I've logged 200+ hours on Skyrim.  But for me, DA2 felt like a borderline-coherent story in a semi-believable world with a lot of specific problems (e.g., nobody noticing Mage Hawke), while Skyrim's two main questlines felt like a tacked-on pretext to do some quests in a world where nobody knew or cared what was going on.

I guess if you're talking about the general atmosphere it does seem a wee bit peaceful in the land of the nords. Did you want something a bit more chaotic and depressing where everyone is looting and going crazy? That's kinda a problem with the openness of the game though, I keep hearing some people don't even want to be a dragonborn. I do wish the player was acknowledged more though, I got the feeling this was better done in previous ES games.

In any case, your surprising civility is commendable, good sir.

[Gaav]

I rather have alot of smaller maps with alot of content packed together, then one enormous maps like skyrim and fallout where its spread out alot.

[Cobretti ftw]

THing is, i rather have tha VERY cool story of Dragon age origins, the awesome characters and character interactions, with more freedom to interact with them, than to have a "skyrim like" freedom.

The rpg's will reach a whole new level when they can conceive freedom of interaction with characters and MANY options to do it ( similar to dragon age origins) and a skyrim like freedom to explore the imaginary world they created.

Thata will be the enxt level of rpg's. But i know thats not an easy job.

[Sidney]

Ghost1017 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I`d like them to look at The Walking dead game and how that one deals with choices and such, though. Just recently startet playing it and I got blown away.

Your choices don't matter in TWD. All it does for the most part is change a small bit of dialogue.

Your choices don't need to matter in any real sense. You make choices because those choices define who you are. Heck, in DAO in game terms none of your choices mattered at all. Your end game difference was rather you had mages or werewolves or elves or templars. Woo-hoo. The choices were important because they were choices not because they changed the game.

[Sidney]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

As long as they don't take anything related to main or side-quest from Skyrim, I guess the game will be good hehe.

Stealing characters and dialog tips from Bethesda isn't a good idea. It is telling the best thing in the TES style games they've done is FNV and they didn't do it.

What Bethesda does well is load up a ton of game mechanics for the OCD types to piddle around with and figure out how to min/max out. They allow you to develop character skills/stats not character personality/ethics or anything like that. I'm horrified of the idea of Bioware turning DA3 into a character leveling simulator like Skyrim.

[Faust1979]

Sidney wrote...

Ghost1017 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I`d like them to look at The Walking dead game and how that one deals with choices and such, though. Just recently startet playing it and I got blown away.

Your choices don't matter in TWD. All it does for the most part is change a small bit of dialogue.

Your choices don't need to matter in any real sense. You make choices because those choices define who you are. Heck, in DAO in game terms none of your choices mattered at all. Your end game difference was rather you had mages or werewolves or elves or templars. Woo-hoo. The choices were important because they were choices not because they changed the game.

The choices didn't change much so they really weren't all that important. I would rather have choices that mean something if they are going to put them in there.  Choices should carry some kind of consequence or affect

[Sidney]

Faust1979 wrote...
The choices didn't change much so they really weren't all that important. I would rather have choices that mean something if they are going to put them in there.  Choices should carry some kind of consequence or affect

Do you have to feel that in game? Picking Behlen or Harrowmont didn't matter a whit in the game mechanically (you got the same allies at the end, got the same XP and so on) but in terms of story and your character it carried a lot of meaning. I have no issue with the latter being how choices happen in many cases.

[Herr Uhl]

Sidney wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...
The choices didn't change much so they really weren't all that important. I would rather have choices that mean something if they are going to put them in there.  Choices should carry some kind of consequence or affect

Do you have to feel that in game? Picking Behlen or Harrowmont didn't matter a whit in the game mechanically (you got the same allies at the end, got the same XP and so on) but in terms of story and your character it carried a lot of meaning. I have no issue with the latter being how choices happen in many cases.

See, that is where the difference is between giving choices and making them interesting. You have to make it seem like they matter. If you got to choose between Bhelen and Harrowmont and Bhelen staged a coup if you chose Harrowmont, the choice would feel pointless.

[Faust1979]

Sidney wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...
The choices didn't change much so they really weren't all that important. I would rather have choices that mean something if they are going to put them in there.  Choices should carry some kind of consequence or affect

Do you have to feel that in game? Picking Behlen or Harrowmont didn't matter a whit in the game mechanically (you got the same allies at the end, got the same XP and so on) but in terms of story and your character it carried a lot of meaning. I have no issue with the latter being how choices happen in many cases.

Yes I do have to feel that in the game other wise what is the point of making the decision? That choice worked for me and does carrie some weight but others are pointless like the arl of redcliff and his family there is no consequences at all for killing the son or killing the wife with blood magic. If you're going to put choices like that in the game they need to carry some kind of reprecussions

[Guiverno]

I think DA and Skyrim preserve a different essence that tends to be incompatible. Indeed, choosing one over the other meets nearly opposed interests. And having said that, I would like to see a more open environment, but only in the right measure. Exploration could suit DA in particular contexts.

Modifié par Guiverno, 02 janvier 2013 - 04:20 .