152 réponses à ce sujet

[JasonPogo]

 Cinematic is the new buzz word we always hear about games these days.  Well this whole cinematic approach to game makeing has been slowly killing role playing in games for a while now.  Do you want to role play a character?  To. Ad what you have in mind dose not fit with our totaly awesome voice acting and the awkwardly animated cut scene that is so damn cinematic you'll forget your playing a game.  

[SpunkyMonkey]

Amen.

I'm just having my 3rd ME 2 playthrough and my interaction with others during cut scenes feels almost redundant.

[Fredward]

I want a cinematic gaming experience!

If only there was a developer that made such games...

[Plaintiff]

Bioware's focus has always been on telling a story. It might have variable permutations, but there are always fxed plot points. There have to be. If you don't want to or "can't" roleplay within their set parameters, then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing with some people. Why not just accept that "roleplay" is a fluid concept that means different things to different people, and that role-playing games operate on a sliding scale where freedom may range from limited to expansive?

There are choices I would like that are unavailable to me and likely always will be. I think it would be interesting to roleplay a character who is on the autism spectrum, or is blind, or is missing a limb, but even in games like Skyrim that offer a lot of freedom, I do not have the freedom to roleplay that sort of character, for practical reasons. It doesn't suit their story, just like it doesn't suit the story of DA2 or DA3 for the protagonist to be something other than human.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 décembre 2012 - 12:53 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Plaintiff wrote...

Bioware's focus has always been on telling a story. It might have variable permutations, but there are always fxed plot points. There have to be. If you don't want to or "can't" roleplay within their set parameters, then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing with some people. Why not just accept that "roleplay" is a fluid concept that means different things to different people, and that role-playing games operate on a sliding scale where freedom may range from limited to expansive?

There are choices I would like that are unavailable to me and likely always will be. I think it would be interesting to roleplay a character who is on the autism spectrum, or is blind, or is missing a limb, but even in games like Skyrim that offer a lot of freedom, I do not have the freedom to roleplay that sort of character, for practical reasons. It doesn't suit their story, just like it doesn't suit the story of DA2 or DA3 for the protagonist to be something other than human.

There's a difference between telling a story, whilst still giving the player a feeling of interaction and involvement, and just telling a story outright where the player feels like nothing but an onlooker.

BW's latest games have leaned far too far towards the latter.

[Plaintiff]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Bioware's focus has always been on telling a story. It might have variable permutations, but there are always fxed plot points. There have to be. If you don't want to or "can't" roleplay within their set parameters, then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing with some people. Why not just accept that "roleplay" is a fluid concept that means different things to different people, and that role-playing games operate on a sliding scale where freedom may range from limited to expansive?

There are choices I would like that are unavailable to me and likely always will be. I think it would be interesting to roleplay a character who is on the autism spectrum, or is blind, or is missing a limb, but even in games like Skyrim that offer a lot of freedom, I do not have the freedom to roleplay that sort of character, for practical reasons. It doesn't suit their story, just like it doesn't suit the story of DA2 or DA3 for the protagonist to be something other than human.

There's a difference between telling a story, whilst still giving the player a feeling of interaction and involvement, and just telling a story outright where the player feels like nothing but an onlooker.

BW's latest games have leaned far too far towards the latter.

In your opinion.

I can't speak for Bioware's earliest products, but I submit that DA:O does not offer substantially greater freedom than DA2 does.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Plaintiff wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Bioware's focus has always been on telling a story. It might have variable permutations, but there are always fxed plot points. There have to be. If you don't want to or "can't" roleplay within their set parameters, then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing with some people. Why not just accept that "roleplay" is a fluid concept that means different things to different people, and that role-playing games operate on a sliding scale where freedom may range from limited to expansive?

There are choices I would like that are unavailable to me and likely always will be. I think it would be interesting to roleplay a character who is on the autism spectrum, or is blind, or is missing a limb, but even in games like Skyrim that offer a lot of freedom, I do not have the freedom to roleplay that sort of character, for practical reasons. It doesn't suit their story, just like it doesn't suit the story of DA2 or DA3 for the protagonist to be something other than human.

There's a difference between telling a story, whilst still giving the player a feeling of interaction and involvement, and just telling a story outright where the player feels like nothing but an onlooker.

BW's latest games have leaned far too far towards the latter.

In your opinion.

I can't speak for Bioware's earliest products, but I submit that DA:O does not offer substantially greater freedom than DA2 does.

Yes IMO.

I felt far more involved with shaping events in DA:O than I did in DA:2. Whether that can be mathmatically disproved is another thing, however it was done so well that's how things felt.

ME:2 feels awful from an RPG perspective. I've just played ME 1 through for the 3rd time (which felt very interactive) and am now on my 3rd ME:2 playthrough and the entire cut-scenes feel so pointless.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 14 décembre 2012 - 01:09 .

[MichaelStuart]

I just want a fun experience.

[Plaintiff]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Bioware's focus has always been on telling a story. It might have variable permutations, but there are always fxed plot points. There have to be. If you don't want to or "can't" roleplay within their set parameters, then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing with some people. Why not just accept that "roleplay" is a fluid concept that means different things to different people, and that role-playing games operate on a sliding scale where freedom may range from limited to expansive?

There are choices I would like that are unavailable to me and likely always will be. I think it would be interesting to roleplay a character who is on the autism spectrum, or is blind, or is missing a limb, but even in games like Skyrim that offer a lot of freedom, I do not have the freedom to roleplay that sort of character, for practical reasons. It doesn't suit their story, just like it doesn't suit the story of DA2 or DA3 for the protagonist to be something other than human.

There's a difference between telling a story, whilst still giving the player a feeling of interaction and involvement, and just telling a story outright where the player feels like nothing but an onlooker.

BW's latest games have leaned far too far towards the latter.

In your opinion.

I can't speak for Bioware's earliest products, but I submit that DA:O does not offer substantially greater freedom than DA2 does.

Yes IMO.

I felt far more involved with shaping events in DA:O than I did in DA:2. Whether that can be mathmatically disproved is another thing, however it was done so well that's how things felt.

ME:2 feels awful from an RPG perspective. I've just played ME 1 through for the 3rd time (which felt very interactive) and am now on my 3rd ME:2 playthrough and the entire cut-scenes feel so pointless.

I don't see why the protagonist always has to be a "chosen hero" at the centre of world-changing events. No, Hawke is arguably not the most important person in his own story. That is not necessarily a problem. If anything, I appreciate the change of pace.

I played ME1 for the first time recently, and I do not feel like it was very interactive at all. I have some problems with ME2, which I am playing now, but it clearly offers a greater level of variability in its story than ME1 did. The mere fact that Shepard and his entire crew can die is proof of that. In ME1, no matter what you do, the bulk of the named characters will survive to the end of the game.

[Islandrockzor]

Plaintiff wrote...

Bioware's focus has always been on telling a story. It might have variable permutations, but there are always fxed plot points. There have to be. If you don't want to or "can't" roleplay within their set parameters, then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing with some people. Why not just accept that "roleplay" is a fluid concept that means different things to different people, and that role-playing games operate on a sliding scale where freedom may range from limited to expansive?

There are choices I would like that are unavailable to me and likely always will be. I think it would be interesting to roleplay a character who is on the autism spectrum, or is blind, or is missing a limb, but even in games like Skyrim that offer a lot of freedom, I do not have the freedom to roleplay that sort of character, for practical reasons. It doesn't suit their story, just like it doesn't suit the story of DA2 or DA3 for the protagonist to be something other than human.

KOTOR says hi. The Light/Darkside last planet+endings were vastly different.

[Plaintiff]

Islandrockzor wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Bioware's focus has always been on telling a story. It might have variable permutations, but there are always fxed plot points. There have to be. If you don't want to or "can't" roleplay within their set parameters, then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing with some people. Why not just accept that "roleplay" is a fluid concept that means different things to different people, and that role-playing games operate on a sliding scale where freedom may range from limited to expansive?

There are choices I would like that are unavailable to me and likely always will be. I think it would be interesting to roleplay a character who is on the autism spectrum, or is blind, or is missing a limb, but even in games like Skyrim that offer a lot of freedom, I do not have the freedom to roleplay that sort of character, for practical reasons. It doesn't suit their story, just like it doesn't suit the story of DA2 or DA3 for the protagonist to be something other than human.

KOTOR says hi. The Light/Darkside last planet+endings were vastly different.

In what respect?

I did not say that the endings never vary, I said that there are always fixed plot points. If the ending is variable, then it is not a fixed plot point.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Plaintiff wrote...


I don't see why the protagonist always has to be a "chosen hero" at the centre of world-changing events. No, Hawke is arguably not the most important person in his own story. That is not necessarily a problem. If anything, I appreciate the change of pace.

I played ME1 for the first time recently, and I do not feel like it was very interactive at all. I have some problems with ME2, which I am playing now, but it clearly offers a greater level of variability in its story than ME1 did. The mere fact that Shepard and his entire crew can die is proof of that. In ME1, no matter what you do, the bulk of the named characters will survive to the end of the game.

I do - because it's more exciting. Whether the hero is "chosen" or not is another thing, personally I'm no big fan of prophicies, but I don't wanna feel like an on-looker to big events, I want to be part of shaping them.

And I'm talking about the cinemtic side of things regards ME - Simply put ME 1's interaction with others felt more as if you were actually interacting with characters, whereas ME:2's interaction and cut scenes didn't feel like anything other than a lazy link to the next shooting section. IMO.

[Mystch3vi0us]

Plaintiff wrote...

...In ME1, no matter what you do, the bulk of the named characters will survive to the end of the game.

Playable characters (not temporary) in ME1
Garus (lives no matter what)
Tali (lives no matter what)

Kaiden (lives or dies player choice)
Ashley (lives or dies player choice)
Wrex (dies unless you save him via impossible choice)
Liara (lives unless you just never get her then she's percievably dead.)

And if you want to get super technical about it you can just die and that is a literal game end scenereo valid in most games so everyone dies.  What I'm trying to say is that though you percieve ME2 has having more variables it doesn't.  It is in fact more mechanical than ME1.  (step 1) gather characters (step 2) run loyalty mission (step 3) wash rinse repeat (step 4) run final mission.  The combat is more fluid but everything is so compartmentalized that people felt that the ME team turned it into a shooter with rpg elements. 

I think that that is a big part of what the OP is getting at with this post.  I may be wrong, but he doesn't want a compartmentalized corridor (this happened alot in DA:2) followed by a cut scene followed by another corridor and a cutscene.  It's understandable that there have to be limits on the freedom's that the player can take so the giant task given the developers is finding a way to decieve the player into feeling that those boundries arn't there.  It sounds worse than it is. 

[SpunkyMonkey]

Mystch3vi0us wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

...In ME1, no matter what you do, the bulk of the named characters will survive to the end of the game.

Playable characters (not temporary) in ME1
Garus (lives no matter what)
Tali (lives no matter what)

Kaiden (lives or dies player choice)
Ashley (lives or dies player choice)
Wrex (dies unless you save him via impossible choice)
Liara (lives unless you just never get her then she's percievably dead.)

And if you want to get super technical about it you can just die and that is a literal game end scenereo valid in most games so everyone dies.  What I'm trying to say is that though you percieve ME2 has having more variables it doesn't.  It is in fact more mechanical than ME1.  (step 1) gather characters (step 2) run loyalty mission (step 3) wash rinse repeat (step 4) run final mission.  The combat is more fluid but everything is so compartmentalized that people felt that the ME team turned it into a shooter with rpg elements. 

I think that that is a big part of what the OP is getting at with this post.  I may be wrong, but he doesn't want a compartmentalized corridor (this happened alot in DA:2) followed by a cut scene followed by another corridor and a cutscene.  It's understandable that there have to be limits on the freedom's that the player can take so the giant task given the developers is finding a way to decieve the player into feeling that those boundries arn't there.  It sounds worse than it is. 

Excellent post.

"Compartmentalized" is a great term for how it was in ME:2. The whole experience just feels so cheap.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 14 décembre 2012 - 01:42 .

[Plaintiff]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...


I don't see why the protagonist always has to be a "chosen hero" at the centre of world-changing events. No, Hawke is arguably not the most important person in his own story. That is not necessarily a problem. If anything, I appreciate the change of pace.

I played ME1 for the first time recently, and I do not feel like it was very interactive at all. I have some problems with ME2, which I am playing now, but it clearly offers a greater level of variability in its story than ME1 did. The mere fact that Shepard and his entire crew can die is proof of that. In ME1, no matter what you do, the bulk of the named characters will survive to the end of the game.

I do - because it's more exciting. Whether the hero is "chosen" or not is another thing, personally I'm no big fan of prophicies, but I don't wanna feel like an on-looker to big events, I want to be part of shaping them.

And I'm talking about the cinemtic side of things regards ME - Simply put ME 1's interaction with others felt more as if you were actually interacting with characters, whereas ME:2's interaction and cut scenes didn't feel like anything other than a lazy link to the next shooting section. IMO.

After seeing it play out a million times, not just in videogames but in movies and books and everywhere else, it doesn't excite me at all.

ME2's cinematics offer much more interactivity than ME1's did, they introduce a whole new level of interactivity on top of what ME1 already possessed, in the form of Interrupts.

You don't have to like it, but ME2 offers objectively more interactivity than ME1 did. If you're intent on clinging to your 'feelings" despite their demonstrable falsehood, then there's nothing for anyone else to do but ignore them.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Plaintiff wrote...



After seeing it play out a million times, not just in videogames but in movies and books and everywhere else, it doesn't excite me at all.

ME2's cinematics offer much more interactivity than ME1's did, they introduce a whole new level of interactivity on top of what ME1 already possessed, in the form of Interrupts.

You don't have to like it, but ME2 offers objectively more interactivity than ME1 did. If you're intent on clinging to your 'feelings" despite their demonstrable falsehood, then there's nothing for anyone else to do but ignore them.

I think that you've summed up what to me is wrong with video games, and some video gamers, as a whole in that post there - Entertainment media is all about feelings - feelings of excitement, fun, interaction etc. and running everything through the Spock logic mill only gives a logical, scientific answer, which games based on emotion shouldn't have to be restricted by.

John Petruci, Steve Vai - both technically "better" guitarists than Slash or David Gilmour, but I know which two move me more.

I think the Bing Bang Theory types have helped kill games and other forms of entertainment media by trying to de-volve everything down to a fine science - it shouldn't be what games should be about.

For me ME:1's overall scenarios, setups and interactions felt deeper, better and less run-of the mill. The addition of explorable planets for one just giving that overall feeling of size.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 14 décembre 2012 - 02:01 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

krul2k wrote...

didnt they say they were trying to work something out with cutscenes and interaction? or am i just totally wrong again

Not sure - it would be nice though

For me I'd like to see genuine reactions to conversations. Branches which they could lead down and not return. Having an "investigation" section seems silly - in real life you can ask a question and offend someone - the whole feeling of being "safe" from doing that kills the realism.

And they really need to scrap the whole good/evil thing - let players decide what's good/evil for themselves, or just ask/speak how they feel.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 14 décembre 2012 - 02:11 .

[Madmoe77]

PLaintiff

[/quote]


"ME2's cinematics offer much more interactivity than ME1's did, they introduce a whole new level of interactivity on top of what ME1 already possessed, in the form of Interrupts."


[/quote]

I feel like you are confusing ME2 for Dragon's Lair. To be honest that is a fully interactive cinematic experience. Using a dialogue wheel to navigate a closed conversation is not necessarily interactive as it is opportunity to direct the stories narrative without the arbritary left/right corridor choices that change voiceovers and the like in action shooters. 

When I hear cinematic it brings me to a cutscene in my mind and that is merely a checkpoint after some clearly interactive play for the story to progress. I have no control over that scene unless the game chooses to go the route of Dragon's Lair as I mentioned before. So when a game tallies up several hours in cutscenes it doesn't equate gameplay for me. I may as well be watching TV!  

Edit* However I do understand part of what you are saying with the interupt.

Modifié par Madmoe77, 14 décembre 2012 - 02:16 .

[Plaintiff]

Mystch3vi0us wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

...In ME1, no matter what you do, the bulk of the named characters will survive to the end of the game.

Playable characters (not temporary) in ME1
Garus (lives no matter what)
Tali (lives no matter what)

Kaiden (lives or dies player choice)
Ashley (lives or dies player choice)
Wrex (dies unless you save him via impossible choice)
Liara (lives unless you just never get her then she's percievably dead.)

And if you want to get super technical about it you can just die and that is a literal game end scenereo valid in most games so everyone dies.  What I'm trying to say is that though you percieve ME2 has having more variables it doesn't.  It is in fact more mechanical than ME1.  (step 1) gather characters (step 2) run loyalty mission (step 3) wash rinse repeat (step 4) run final mission.  The combat is more fluid but everything is so compartmentalized that people felt that the ME team turned it into a shooter with rpg elements. 

I think that that is a big part of what the OP is getting at with this post.  I may be wrong, but he doesn't want a compartmentalized corridor (this happened alot in DA:2) followed by a cut scene followed by another corridor and a cutscene.  It's understandable that there have to be limits on the freedom's that the player can take so the giant task given the developers is finding a way to decieve the player into feeling that those boundries arn't there.  It sounds worse than it is. 

I don't perceive ME1 as being any less compartmentalized. The choices you make have no impact on any other missions, or ultimately on the ending. The missions and sidequests are all utterly self-contained and have no impact on how the story ends. The only variable that matters is Shepard's overall Paragon/Renegade score, which can be affected outside of the main story missions, and even then, it's slight. 

ME2's choices have an arguably (I would say obviously) far greater impact, but are still ultimately superficial because there are redundancies in place to make sure the story ultimately stays on track.

DA:O's quests are also quite clearly compartmentalized. Choosing the Werewolves over the Elves, or who will rule Ferelden, for example, does not affect the allegiance of any of the other allied armies, for instance, or the outcome of the final battle. DA2 is practically identical in this respect.

I have no problems with the fact that the games work this way by necessity, and I see no sense in indulging the delusion that any of the choices "mattered" according to the arbitrary parameters set by others. I do not find DA2 or ME2 any less immersive than their counterparts, and even if the impact of choice was lesser, it is not the sole factor in immersion and there were several technical problems that I had with ME1 that prevented me from becoming immersed in the story, which ME2 improves on vastly.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Plaintiff wrote...

Mystch3vi0us wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

...In ME1, no matter what you do, the bulk of the named characters will survive to the end of the game.

Playable characters (not temporary) in ME1
Garus (lives no matter what)
Tali (lives no matter what)

Kaiden (lives or dies player choice)
Ashley (lives or dies player choice)
Wrex (dies unless you save him via impossible choice)
Liara (lives unless you just never get her then she's percievably dead.)

And if you want to get super technical about it you can just die and that is a literal game end scenereo valid in most games so everyone dies.  What I'm trying to say is that though you percieve ME2 has having more variables it doesn't.  It is in fact more mechanical than ME1.  (step 1) gather characters (step 2) run loyalty mission (step 3) wash rinse repeat (step 4) run final mission.  The combat is more fluid but everything is so compartmentalized that people felt that the ME team turned it into a shooter with rpg elements. 

I think that that is a big part of what the OP is getting at with this post.  I may be wrong, but he doesn't want a compartmentalized corridor (this happened alot in DA:2) followed by a cut scene followed by another corridor and a cutscene.  It's understandable that there have to be limits on the freedom's that the player can take so the giant task given the developers is finding a way to decieve the player into feeling that those boundries arn't there.  It sounds worse than it is. 

I don't perceive ME1 as being any less compartmentalized. The choices you make have no impact on any other missions, or ultimately on the ending. The missions and sidequests are all utterly self-contained and have no impact on how the story ends. The only variable that matters is Shepard's overall Paragon/Renegade score, which can be affected outside of the main story missions, and even then, it's slight. 

ME2's choices have an arguably (I would say obviously) far greater impact, but are still ultimately superficial because there are redundancies in place to make sure the story ultimately stays on track.

DA:O's quests are also quite clearly compartmentalized. Choosing the Werewolves over the Elves, or who will rule Ferelden, for example, does not affect the allegiance of any of the other allied armies, for instance, or the outcome of the final battle. DA2 is practically identical in this respect.

I have no problems with the fact that the games work this way by necessity, and I see no sense in indulging the delusion that any of the choices "mattered" according to the arbitrary parameters set by others. I do not find DA2 or ME2 any less immersive than their counterparts, and even if the impact of choice was lesser, it is not the sole factor in immersion and there were several technical problems that I had with ME1 that prevented me from becoming immersed in the story, which ME2 improves on vastly.

It's not what's done, but the way that it's done. As I've said earlier the fact that you can explore worlds in ME:1 for example just makes you feel more as if you are actually in space and exploring. You can pick it apart all you want but just play the game and feel the vibe which you get from it - ME:2 feel processed, ME:1 feels well crafted and cared for.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 14 décembre 2012 - 02:18 .

[Plaintiff]

Madmoe77 wrote...
I feel like you are confusing ME2 for Dragon's Lair.

Impossible. I have never played Dragon's Lair or even heard of it before now.

When I hear cinematic it brings me to a cutscene in my mind and that is merely a checkpoint after some clearly interactive play for the story to progress. I have no control over that scene unless the game chooses to go the route of Dragon's Lair as I mentioned before. So when a game tallies up several hours in cutscenes it doesn't equate gameplay for me. I may as well be watching TV!

But the cinematics are not separate from the gameplay of any of the ME or DA games. They are a part of it.

[Ridwan]

I didn't think the DA games were that cinematic (which was a good thing).

[Madmoe77]

Plaintiff wrote...

Madmoe77 wrote...
I feel like you are confusing ME2 for Dragon's Lair.

Impossible. I have never played Dragon's Lair or even heard of it before now.

When I hear cinematic it brings me to a cutscene in my mind and that is merely a checkpoint after some clearly interactive play for the story to progress. I have no control over that scene unless the game chooses to go the route of Dragon's Lair as I mentioned before. So when a game tallies up several hours in cutscenes it doesn't equate gameplay for me. I may as well be watching TV!

But the cinematics are not separate from the gameplay of any of the ME or DA games. They are a part of it.

I just feel that when I hear interactive it means something different apparently. For example, if I am watching football or MMA I am not participating. I have not control over the events going on in my eyesight therefore it is not interactive. ME2 tried to remedy this in the interrupts you mentioned which is almost the entirety of Dragons Lair which I mentioned and apparently dated myself there. 

I am sure the full video of Dragon's Lair is on youtube or something but each decision leads either to progression or your demise in fully animated scenes. It was an old arcade game. 

Modifié par Madmoe77, 14 décembre 2012 - 02:25 .