268 réponses à ce sujet

[Solmanian]

BoBear wrote...

Alistair gets pretty upset when Duncan dies. Merrill gets upset when Keeper Merithari or any other Dalish in her clan dies. Oghren is a bit upset if Branka is killed. I'm not too sure but I think Wynne is no fan of death.

Are you just saying that no one seems to be bothered by having to take a life?

Actualy oghren isn't upset. Last time I talked to him it gave more of a "not going to miss that crazy bitc*" vibe.

[AlanC9]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The design goal should be to minimise the number of times the PC is shown to have any sort of reaction that wasn't selected by the player.

The problem with this, Sylvius, is that if done to the letter it would cripple the flow of a scene--a very unlikely choice by Bioware.

There's a slight gap between what Bioware's design objectives are and what Sylvius thinks those objectives ought to be, methinks.

[Steppenwolf]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The design goal should be to minimise the number of times the PC is shown to have any sort of reaction that wasn't selected by the player.

The problem with this, Sylvius, is that if done to the letter it would cripple the flow of a scene--a very unlikely choice by Bioware.

Only if you think that exchanges need to "flow" more than think your character needs to be controlled by you. I'm less interested in Aaron Sorkin-style dialogue exchanges and more interested in, ya know, role playing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's almost as if this represents a subjective goldlilocks problem or something.

Hence the need for player control.

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The design goal should be to minimise the number of times the PC is shown to have any sort of reaction that wasn't selected by the player.

The problem with this, Sylvius, is that if done to the letter it would cripple the flow of a scene--a very unlikely choice by Bioware.

Not necessarily.  They could stage the scene to minimise the frequency with which the PC appears on screen at emotional moments.  Or have those happen immediately after dialogue events wherein the player choose an emotional (or unemotional) response.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's almost as if this represents a subjective goldlilocks problem or something.

Hence the need for player control.

Not necessarily:

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Not necessarily.  They could stage the scene to minimise the frequency with which the PC appears on screen at emotional moments.  Or have those happen immediately after dialogue events wherein the player choose an emotional (or unemotional) response.

For example, that sounds awful.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

There's a slight gap between what Bioware's design objectives are and what Sylvius thinks those objectives ought to be, methinks.

I lost interest in the ME series with the design team came right out and told me that they were actively trying to ruin my style of gamplay.  The Dragon Age team could say something similar.

But they haven't.  In fact, they've done the opposite.  They've made statements that suggest they are trying, within constraints, to address some of my concerns.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Not necessarily.  They could stage the scene to minimise the frequency with which the PC appears on screen at emotional moments.  Or have those happen immediately after dialogue events wherein the player choose an emotional (or unemotional) response.

For example, that sounds awful.

Unless you're doing an in-depth cinematographic analysis in real-time, would you even notice?

And note that this was but one of the suggestions I made, and I came up with those ideas after about 10 seconds of thought.  Professional game developers could probably come up with even better ideas.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Not necessarily.  They could stage the scene to minimise the frequency with which the PC appears on screen at emotional moments.  Or have those happen immediately after dialogue events wherein the player choose an emotional (or unemotional) response.

For example, that sounds awful.

Unless you're doing an in-depth cinematographic analysis in real-time, would you even notice?

I guess I'd need something more concrete to evaluate the proposal. I don't see how Bio gets the PC off the screen without making it obvious that they're hiding her. Getting the player to precommit to an emotional reaction seems more promising; the trick is to get the player on record without telegraphing the upcoming plot twist.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I guess I'd need something more concrete to evaluate the proposal. I don't see how Bio gets the PC off the screen without making it obvious that they're hiding her. Getting the player to precommit to an emotional reaction seems more promising; the trick is to get the player on record without telegraphing the upcoming plot twist.

Most people expect you to make eye contact when you talk to them - at least some of the time.  If you don't, they tend to notice.

Except they don't, actually.  They'll notice if there's nothing else going on, but, just like a good stage magician, you can make sure there is other stuff going on.  I never make eye contact when I talk to people, but I've learned to disguise this through a system of misdirection.

The whole point of cinematic composition is to direct the eyes of the viewer.  As such, the cinematic designers should be quite good at disguising this absence.  The PC could appear on screen briefly, at a 1/4 angle, before having the camera pan away.  They could use rack focus effects to draw your attention toward whatever to which the PC is reacting, rather than the PC herself.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 25 janvier 2013 - 04:54 .

[Patchwork]

Or have the pc's back to the camera focusing on npcs or the events unfolding until the dialogue option is chosen.

I just don't want another Thessia situation 'boohoo I lost', 'oh noes the blue lesbian babes are dying (just like everyone else in the galaxy)'. I wanted to punch autoShep in the face I really did.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The problem is, though, that it might happen for more than you'd think. emotion is a very...integral part of most humans' daily dialog, not just at emotional events.

One even might role-play a character holding off emotions during an event but being affected by it progessively later on (the premise for Shepard's development in ME3, actually, and also something that I know personally). How are you going to have emotional responses for everything that has happened up to that point? Or, rather, that includes everything that has happened up to that point.

I think you've just hightlghted what's wrong with cinematic presentation.

[esper]

To be fair reaction to the first human kill does not need to be show in the moment off the kill. Realistically, speaking the character would have trouble with it before the act.

Or reality could take some times for the player character to settle in an we could have a conversation with the party after the act or at camp.

So to this specific problem, showing emotion should not be impossible.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Except they don't, actually.  They'll notice if there's nothing else going on, but, just like a good stage magician, you can make sure there is other stuff going on.  I never make eye contact when I talk to people, but I've learned to disguise this through a system of misdirection.

I'd actually like to know how you do that, and how you think it succeeds in distracting others (instead of them just not pointing anything out).

The whole point of cinematic composition is to direct the eyes of the viewer.  As such, the cinematic designers should be quite good at disguising this absence.  The PC could appear on screen briefly, at a 1/4 angle, before having the camera pan away.  They could use rack focus effects to draw your attention toward whatever to which the PC is reacting, rather than the PC herself.

It only works if you're not initially focused on the PC to start with as the focal point of the scene. 

[wright1978]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The whole point of cinematic composition is to direct the eyes of the viewer.  As such, the cinematic designers should be quite good at disguising this absence.  The PC could appear on screen briefly, at a 1/4 angle, before having the camera pan away.  They could use rack focus effects to draw your attention toward whatever to which the PC is reacting, rather than the PC herself.

Agree completely, thinking cleverly about the camera work can have a big effect.

[ReallyRue]

Hmm, well I'd quite like the companions to have a little more reaction to what's going on among themselves. DA2 examples have been listed (especially at the end of the game, with Merrill/Fenris/Aveline and Anders/Sebastian). As for DAO, if I kill Wynne and Leliana at the Ashes, the other companion doesn't really care. If I kill anyone in camp, no one cares. Kill Zevran during the Taliesan encounter, is there any reaction from the others? Kill a ghoul Tamlen, and only Alistair comments. Exile Alistair/recruit Loghain and apparently no one cares enough to speak to you about it in camp.

I'd love to see more reactions,,if possible. The conversation with the LI/Aveline after Leandra's death is a wonderful touch. And the conversation with Gamlen, and a few comments from companions, like Sebastian saying he'll light a candle or something for her in the Chantry. Or the little chat with Merrill after Bethany's taken to the Circle/Carver joins the templars.

[RedArmyShogun]

^ Would be neat to see some chain reactions.

[Sable Rhapsody]

wright1978 wrote...
Agree completely, thinking cleverly about the camera work can have a big effect.

Clever camera work still won't entirely erase elements that just plain do not make sense.  What if a particularly emotional scene involves crucial plot elements?  The PC's just going to stand briefly on screen and do/say nothing while the other NPCs talk and react to something earth-shattering?  

The option to have the PC not react doesn't have to involve cutting the PC out.  The Dark Brotherhood storyline in Bethesda games had a lot of "remain silent" dialogue options.  That's not necessarily a simple thing to implement (since a character who refuses to talk or react under emotional stress is realistically going to draw attention for that behavior from other NPCs), but it could work.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 25 janvier 2013 - 10:28 .

[wright1978]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

wright1978 wrote...
Agree completely, thinking cleverly about the camera work can have a big effect.

Clever camera work still won't entirely erase elements that just plain do not make sense.  What if a particularly emotional scene involves crucial plot elements?  The PC's just going to stand briefly on screen and do/say nothing while the other NPCs talk and react to something earth-shattering?  

The option to have the PC not react doesn't have to involve cutting the PC out.  The Dark Brotherhood storyline in Bethesda games had a lot of "remain silent" dialogue options.  That's not necessarily a simple thing to implement (since a character who refuses to talk or react under emotional stress is realistically going to draw attention for that behavior from other NPCs), but it could work.

Not saying it will be perfect. I still prefer it to not thinking about camera work and instead adding characterising auto-dialogue involving the protaganist everywhere.

[In Exile]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
Clever camera work still won't entirely erase elements that just plain do not make sense.  What if a particularly emotional scene involves crucial plot elements?  The PC's just going to stand briefly on screen and do/say nothing while the other NPCs talk and react to something earth-shattering?  

That's the dream of the silent PC - DA:O illustrated this well, when the PC was a lampost decorating the scenery and other characters drove the dramatic moments. 

[Sable Rhapsody]

wright1978 wrote...

Not saying it will be perfect. I still prefer it to not thinking about camera work and instead adding characterising auto-dialogue involving the protaganist everywhere.

Sure, I'd prefer a silent lamppost protagonist to ME3's solution.  But I'd also prefer eating oatmeal to shoe leather, even if oatmeal is kinda meh   I personally think it's better to provide a wider range of options for the protagonist's characterization and hope you've covered 95% of plausible player reactions for a given situation.  Probably expensive and difficult, though.

In Exile wrote...

That's the dream of the silent PC - DA:O illustrated this well, when the PC was a lampost decorating the scenery and other characters drove the dramatic moments. 

This CAN work, but sometimes it's just as jarring as the mountains of autodialogue from ME3.  It varies for me pretty wildly from game to game.  I didn't mind the lamppost PC in Skyrim.  I minded a lot in DA:O.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

But anyway, sure...but that's the way things are headed. Just is.

And I'll keep pointing out its shortcomings.

In Exile wrote...

I'd actually like to know how you do that, and how you think it succeeds in distracting others (instead of them just not pointing anything out).

If I get through a job interview sucessfully, I figure I masked it pretty well.

I make eye contact when the other people are talking, and I make sure I always appear to be looking at something , rather than just staring into space.  It works better when dealing with at leasttwo people at a time, as I can make eye contact briefly befor I start speaking, and then move my attention to a point near the other person.  As a result, each tends to think I'm addressing the other. 

It only works if you're not initially focused on the PC to start with as the focal point of the scene.

How often is your attention focused on you?

I look where my character looks.  I almost never look at my character during conversations, just as I almost never look at myself during real-world conversations.

[In Exile]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
This CAN work, but sometimes it's just as jarring as the mountains of autodialogue from ME3.  It varies for me pretty wildly from game to game.  I didn't mind the lamppost PC in Skyrim.  I minded a lot in DA:O.

I don't like the PC lampost at all. I'm just saying that there are people that do. So that wouldn't be a problem for them.

If I get through a job interview sucessfully, I figure I masked it pretty well.

I'd imagine it depends on the job and the interviewer.

I make eye contact when the other people are talking, and I make sure I always appear to be looking at something , rather than just staring into space.  It works better when dealing with at leasttwo people at a time, as I can make eye contact briefly befor I start speaking, and then move my attention to a point near the other person.  As a result, each tends to think I'm addressing the other.  

Right, that makes perfect sense. I was imagining it in the one on one context. 

How often is your attention focused on you?

In RL? I'm always aware of my social/personal space. I'm hypervigilant in that regard. 

If you mean in-game, most of the time. 

I look where my character looks.  I almost never look at my character during conversations, just as I almost never look at myself during real-world conversations.

I typically look at the character, and in conversations I generally always look at the character who is speaking - so this means the PC when (s)he is talking. I would find it very striking if the camera wasn't on the PC when he was speaking.

In cutscenes, I follow the PC, unless someone is speaking, but I'm aware of the where the PC is, and when the PC isn't on camera. It's very easy to follow, because the game never shows a lot on screen. 

[Fawx9]

Dear god don't give them ideas.

I do not want Thessia 2.0