152 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

frostajulie wrote...

DA2 and ME3 were complete onlooker games with 0 RPG ability. The story was good but it was not an RPG DAO, ME1 and even IMO ME2 were really good RPGs that had a satisfying amount of story and really created the illusion of choice a million times better than DA2 and ME3 which is why for me these games have so much replayability and longevity because even when the story plays out the same way it still feels like my story. DA2 and ME3 do not do that. Not at all, and thats why even while they are ok games for the genre they suck balls when held up against Biowares previous works.

roleplaying isn't about story choice.

For some people it is.

But thats why we have shallow definitions of preference and a number of people presuming BioWare does one thing over another just as much as say CD Projekt Red. 

And why we see a huge interest in Kickstarter games, where people feel they can handpick the exact type of game they want to see made. We'll see if reality meets expectations.

[Savber100]

I agree...

Bioware has sacrificed too much for the sake of a "cinematic experience"

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

frostajulie wrote...

DA2 and ME3 were complete onlooker games with 0 RPG ability. The story was good but it was not an RPG DAO, ME1 and even IMO ME2 were really good RPGs that had a satisfying amount of story and really created the illusion of choice a million times better than DA2 and ME3 which is why for me these games have so much replayability and longevity because even when the story plays out the same way it still feels like my story. DA2 and ME3 do not do that. Not at all, and thats why even while they are ok games for the genre they suck balls when held up against Biowares previous works.

roleplaying isn't about story choice.

For some people it is.

But thats why we have shallow definitions of preference and a number of people presuming BioWare does one thing over another just as much as say CD Projekt Red. 

And why we see a huge interest in Kickstarter games, where people feel they can handpick the exact type of game they want to see made. We'll see if reality meets expectations.

I'm not optomistic. Honestly i'm regretting putting money in Project Eternity now...

[Redbelle]

JasonPogo wrote...

 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.  

Personally I would like to see

Role play in scenes that are of cinematic quality.

Not

Cinematic scenes that have an occasional dialogue wheel choice.

It needs to be reweighed in favour of an RP RPG first. Cinematic experience........ not second. But directed in a way where the camera work and settings enhance the role play. Not overwhelm it.

[Giggles_Manically]

Sadly EA thinks that most gamers want lens flare and ass shots all over their games.
So that is all we will be getting.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I'm not optomistic. Honestly i'm regretting putting money in Project Eternity now...

Really? As someone who's mildly interested in that project, I have to ask why.

They've promised the moon and stars with that project. They went WAY over on their contribution goal, so they felt they had to go WAY over on their promises. If they can develop a product that meets those expectations and isn't bugged worse than a bee hive, that would be fantastic. If not... well, that's a lot of letdown for an infant crowdsourcing model.

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I'm not optomistic. Honestly i'm regretting putting money in Project Eternity now...

Really? As someone who's mildly interested in that project, I have to ask why.

It is stemming from most of the comments by Avellone regarding character interaction and importance, and how they would relate to the story.

Plus several of the kickstarter goals have made me question how prevelant the storyline would be, because there is a ton of customization stuff now involved in the game that, while its a full blown extra which i'll likely use, it would detrimete any fixed plot they do make because they need to make room for the add-ons, like the custom followers and the epic tiered dungeon and what not.

I don't know, at first I thought the game would be more like Planescape Torment, but now I am getting an Elder Scrolls vibe, and Elder Scrolls is not exactly my favorite RPG series. I don't mean in terms of looks mind you, but narrative and agency. Might just be my own interpretation of their design philosophy though but I personally disagree with it. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 14 décembre 2012 - 09:23 .

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Yeah, it's been a while since I looked at their page, but last time I did I saw a lot of stuff like that--some object ingame named by special donors, custom characters, lots of random stuff.

Thats the part that worries me, and in general about what they are doing with kickstarter. We have too many producers spoiling the game, basically, because of such lofty goals.

Games like project Eternity have their place and im glad they are being made, but I am not expecting a nostalgic trip through the wayback machine or a revelation in how RPGs should be done. In the end I just want something enjoyable, even if its archaic in design. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Here's the thing.

It's not like it's a strict dichotomy.  It's a Godilocks problem. 

A Goldilocks problem? THERE'S TOO MANY BEARS AT BIOWARE! 

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Here's the thing.

It's not like it's a strict dichotomy.  It's a Godilocks problem. 

A Goldilocks problem? THERE'S TOO MANY BEARS AT BIOWARE! 

I would agree...except that BioWare has been very consistant in falling in their typical MO of what drives their games. The only thing changing is how to do it, vs if they do it.

There really have been no major swings one way or another, with the exception of Jade Empire and Mass Effect 3, id say. 

[In Exile]

Twisted Path wrote...

The disconnect between cutscenes and gameplay has always been pretty prominent in Bioware games but it was especially jarring in DA2 and Mass Effect 3. In the game you're an unstoppable whirling dervish of destruction, then you run into a cinematic and watch your character stand around while the a villain monologues or you get incapacitated in a cheesy way. 

Pfft. Manaan in KoTOR was way worse. As if those Selkath wouldn't get absolutely murdered by me! I could very likely take on the whole planet. One might also be tempted to go with the start to BG2. 

DA:O had a wonderful inversion here with Ser Cautherin.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
They've promised the moon and stars with that project. They went WAY over on their contribution goal, so they felt they had to go WAY over on their promises. If they can develop a product that meets those expectations and isn't bugged worse than a bee hive, that would be fantastic. If not... well, that's a lot of letdown for an infant crowdsourcing model.

It's going to be interesting to see if the SEC steps in. Crowdsourcing is going to be a hot-button financial regulation issue. 

[Madmoe77]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

This happened several times in DA2 where Hawke or someone in game would cut a head off or explode someone in combat to cut to a scene where they had the death bed speech. It's jarring! This to me defeats the purpose of having 'cinematic' events.

Did this actually happen? I am pretty sure the game didn't actually have decapitations, but I'd be surprised if a critical NPC was ever actually "chunked" (to use the term I used in BG) in combat and is then fine in a subsequent cutscene. Can you give any examples?

The Arishock duel. Although he wasn't chunked he teleported nearly thirty endgame feet to the staircase to do his crawl and die. It's been months since I played the game but I have three complete playthroughs and remember many scenes like this. And it is jarring to have such drastic shifts in perspective. 

Cut scenes allow for the story to play out where the designers want, no matter the outcome or placement. When a player is in direct control then is immediately removed from control into one of these scenes that spin where the event takes place, how the enemy dies or even shifting the tone is immersion breaking. (And to be honest I never thought I would use the term 'immersion breaking' like this.) 

I am not nitpicking! Just making an example. As an artist myself, a well crafted scene or cut scene is what I look for; but with graphics improving and graphic engines allowing for more seamless transition we shouldnt have such distracting jumps.  

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Here's the thing.

It's not like it's a strict dichotomy.  It's a Godilocks problem. 

A Goldilocks problem? THERE'S TOO MANY BEARS AT BIOWARE! 

I would agree...except that BioWare has been very consistant in falling in their typical MO of what drives their games. The only thing changing is how to do it, vs if they do it.

There really have been no major swings one way or another, with the exception of Jade Empire and Mass Effect 3, id say. 

Ah. I was actually just jokingly refering to the animals. Of the mammalian family Ursidae.

[abaris]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I would think DA ][ would be the most prominent example, no? ME3 is the typical "world catastrophe" but DA ][ was the story of Hawke, not of the savior of a nation/galaxy

ME3 was the typical cinematic canon break. Regardless of how you envisioned and defined your Shepard during the first two games, cinematics and abundant use of autodialogue put him/her onto an emotional railway system you couldn't control.

The breakage of DAII lay in another sector. For me the breaking point came as soon as I played the demo and suffered under their combat system.

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I would agree...except that BioWare has been very consistant in falling in their typical MO of what drives their games. The only thing changing is how to do it, vs if they do it.

There really have been no major swings one way or another, with the exception of Jade Empire and Mass Effect 3, id say. 

I would think DA ][ would be the most prominent example, no? ME3 is the typical "world catastrophe" but DA ][ was the story of Hawke, not of the savior of a nation/galaxy

Mass Effect 3 though did something wholly different, it made a somewhat joyless adventure filled with moments of pathos and bittersweetness with no change to breathe. It also changed up how the game was presented, (auto dialouge) which people objected to heavily. 

I don't know, I guess Dragon Age II would fit into this as well then...you have a point. 

[In Exile]

abaris wrote...
The breakage of DAII lay in another sector. For me the breaking point came as soon as I played the demo and suffered under their combat system.

I too missed seeing people slowly swing 2H swords like baseball bats. Not to derail the thread, but I've never understood the issue with the animations. 

[Madmoe77]

Twisted Path wrote...

The disconnect between cutscenes and gameplay has always been pretty prominent in Bioware games but it was especially jarring in DA2 and Mass Effect 3. In the game you're an unstoppable whirling dervish of destruction, then you run into a cinematic and watch your character stand around while the a villain monologues or you get incapacitated in a cheesy way.

The other day I actually playing DA2, during the Qunari attack on Kirkwall, and ran into a scene like this. I had just wiped out a bazillion Qunari including one of their wizards who my rogue just about insta-killed with two special attacks in a row. As soon as I killed the wizard a cut scene pops up where another, identical wizard appeared and magically incapacitated my whole party. He's looming over you and the Knight Commander lady makes her first dramatic appearance and kills him. I guess the scene was supposed to make you think that the Knight Commander was big and tough and awesome because she saved you or something but the disparity between effortlessly killing a bunch of these enemies in a row and then being incapacitated by one made the whole scene just feel silly.

Another example of this would be Commander Shepard always forgetting that she has biotic powers during cinimatics and becoming a soldier armed with the generic assault rifle (even if you never use it.)

Then on the other side of things you get characters having insane super powers in their introductory cutscenes to show you how cool they are (Jack and Talis come to mind,) that are way beyond what they can actually do as companions.

It would be nice (and more immersive,) if more thought was put into connecting gameplay and cinematics. Maybe just some little things, like making finishing move animations that start when a character scores the final hit on a boss and continue into a cutscene, or having objects that you press a button to vault over and it sometimes segs into you jumping into a new area in a cutscene. Another important thing would be never showing a character use an ability in a cutscene that they can't use in the actual gameplay and having options open up in cutscenes if you have certain abilities. Alpha Protocal did this really well, there were little points in the game (usually purely aesthetic,) where having a high tech skill meant you did stuff that normally a techy NPC would do, or having high martial art skills made the way you beat someone up in a cutscene a lot more painful looking.

Little things like that would make gameplay and cutscenes flow together better, I think. That and just remembering how the gameplay works as the story is being designed.

THIS!! Great breakdown.

[abaris]

In Exile wrote...

I too missed seeing people slowly swing 2H swords like baseball bats. Not to derail the thread, but I've never understood the issue with the animations. 

DAII had another problem. The idea could have been brilliant. Basing a whole game around a single location is a very ambitious plan.

But for it to succeed it needed brilliant writers, creating an unforgettable atmosphere, a living breathing location and it needed time. Certainly not a development cycle of about a year. That was bound to fail right from the start.

[Madmoe77]

Cinematic scenes become so frequent that they become the "That's what she said!" catch phrases of the game. Eventually they lose effectiveness if used to often.

[abaris]

Madmoe77 wrote...

 Eventually they lose effectiveness if used to often.

They're effective all right, but in the wrong sense of the meaning. All too often they reflect a canon and have nothing to do with the character you tried to design and build throughout the story. At least recently they did, when interrupts and branches do happen less frequently.

[argan1985]

I agree. For the last years, there has been far too much focus on "cinematic" experiences with overly long cutscenes and excessive voice-acting in Bioware's games. I preferred things as they were with BG; a few cutscenes when fitting but most of the story told through a narrative. Nothing beats your own imagination.

[unknown16]

It's finding the perfect mixture that matters to me. I would love Mass Effect 2's interrupts in DA3 to mix them together whilst having the dialogue wheel during conversation. If Bioware ever even thinks I want the Auto-Dialogue BS in DA3 and think I'll buy it, they're wrong. If there was one thing I hated the most in ME3 it was Auto-Dialogue, hell to even skip it, I think I'd rather have DA:O text dialogue by the protagonist instead of speech.