318 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

hhh89 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...


So I'd really prefer a text write out of the action/reaction instead of a tonal one. The wheel should pop up "hug him/acknowledge him/high five him/shoot him in the face" as options, rather than "happy/polite/friendly/aggressive" as options. 

If they'll continue to use icons (don't know if they'll do), the might create new icons for the "happy/sad/angry/etc" options, and a brief description of what the PC will do.

I wouldn't be totally against this. But the icons need to either A) be clear and/or explained, again, clearly, in-game. I shouldn't see a brand new icon that isn't covered in the manual and be trying to figure out what exactly it is even suggesting.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's a system with great consequences in my opinion, and great variability in how you want to play.  Protecting players against metagaming is likely not worth the effort, IMO.

I agree, wholeheartedly, with this. Having the most choice possible would be at the top of my list, followed by highest level of consequence possible, followed with strength of story and then concern about meta-gaming would be pretty far down on the list. For my own personal gaming tastes.

[The Elder King]

Fast Jimmy wrote...



I wouldn't be totally against this. But the icons need to either A) be clear and/or explained, again, clearly, in-game. I shouldn't see a brand new icon that isn't covered in the manual and be trying to figure out what exactly it is even suggesting.

I completely agree. If they'll continue with the icon system, the manual should contain all the icons we could encounter in the game.

[Allan Schumacher]

It is one thing to say "let's have the character do this in a scene" and an ENTIRELY different one to say "let's give the player the OPTION to have their character do this in a scene." Don't make me fall to my knees upon my mother's death. Don't make my jaw go slack when Duncan Murder Knife's Jory. Don't EVER make my Shepherd do this face...

How do we reconcile things if I like that Shepard makes that face? I personally feel that there's room for both types of games to exist in the market, as both have their pros and cons.


As a side note, Ultima 7 is actually an exceptionally non-linear game (as opposed to faux non-linear like Baldur's Gate). You can literally do whole chunks of the critical path in completely different orders, and even skip on some stuff if you find yourself stumbling upon where you need to be first.

Did the scene with Connor, where he making Teaghan dance like a possessed puppet and berating his mother seem any less creepy because your character wasn't voiced, though the other ones were and interacting with each other?

No.

Did the introduction of Morrigan, with Allistair, Jory and Daveth all speaking to and about Morrigan, seem broken up or ham-fisted with a silent PC?

No

Did the Landsmeet, where you accuse Loghain in front of an entire crowd of people, who can chime in and comment, seem arbitrarily choppy or odd to respond to?

Yes.


The tricky thing for this though, is that we don't know any better. It's hard for me to say "I think DAO would be unequivocally better with a voiced protagonist, as it's also hard for me to say "I think Alpha Protocol would be unequivocally better with a silent protagonist" because it's not what was presented.

What I do know, is that for a variety of reasons, I love Alpha Protocol's dialogues (they are my favourite in all RPGs). Some things I'm not necessarily married to (the timer... though in general I liked it), but it was a great synergy. I really enjoyed the work that Mike's voice actor did as well.

[MerinTB]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
It's a system with great consequences in my opinion, and great variability in how you want to play.  Protecting players against metagaming is likely not worth the effort, IMO.

Quite so.  Quoted for truth.

----

There's so much flying back and forth that I don't want to do my usual (which is reply to too many posts, create lengthy responses, derail the train on minutia, etc.)

...and so I will, instead, just say something similar to what I said in my review of DA2 way back when on the IGP-

I prefer how DA:O does dialog to how Mass Effect does it.  Given a choice, I'll almost always choose the former over the latter.  (Silent vs. Voiced)  That said, I can like different things.  I can enjoy apples AND oranges, even if I like apples much more.  I prefer silent, I think it is superior in almost every way that means anything to me.  But I also enjoy the cinematic approach - but usually only in certain circumstances.

I think silent protagonist works best for games where you truly create your own character, one that isn't woven into the game's story before you even create him or her as a player.  (Think New Vegas, Kingdom of Amalur: Reckoning, Elder Scrolls, Arcanum, all the "create your party" games from Storm of Zehir, Bard's Tale 1-3, Wizardry series, IWD, etc.)
And the voiced protagonist works best for games where you are playing a partially or fully established character (whether or not you get to play with stats and other options during "character creation" or not - think the whole range of games from less defined (Alpha Protocol, Mass Effect) to very defined (The Witcher, Final Fantasy XIII))

I've played ME2 once (my third play) with sub-titles off, and it was a different experience... felt more like watching a movie than playing a game, so more passive, but still enjoyable.  And my current replay of ME3 (don't start... it took a year to come down enough to give it a second go...) I have the sub-titles off.  I'm invariably missing things people say, my hearing ain't the best for human voices unfortunately, but at least ME3 has LITTLE in the way of dialog choices (up for Paragon, down for Renegade, don't need to read the paraphrase at all)

[MerinTB]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The tricky thing for this though, is that we don't know any better. It's hard for me to say "I think DAO would be unequivocally better with a voiced protagonist, as it's also hard for me to say "I think Alpha Protocol would be unequivocally better with a silent protagonist" because it's not what was presented.

What I do know, is that for a variety of reasons, I love Alpha Protocol's dialogues (they are my favourite in all RPGs). Some things I'm not necessarily married to (the timer... though in general I liked it), but it was a great synergy. I really enjoyed the work that Mike's voice actor did as well.

Well, we know that Chris Avellone strongly dislikes the cinematic presentation and voiced protagonist aspect of Alpha Protocol...
even if he DID like the voice actor's performance. 

[Brockololly]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Sylvius has said something similar arguing against cinematics, and I have the same response for you as I have for him: that would truly cripply the cinematic flow of a scene, which tells me Bioware won't be doing that. Bioware's been cinematic since KotOR, and I see no evidence of a change.

If BioWare wants to not cripple the cinematic flow of scenes then they need to adopt Alpha Protocol's timed dialogue system. If they want their games to be cinematic, then I wish they'd just go all the way at this point. Having the entire world come to screeching halt with Shepard or Hawke blankly staring at the camera as the player rummages through the dialogue wheel to try and guess what the paraphrases actually mean kills any cinematic flow.

[MerinTB]

Brockololly wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
Sylvius has said something similar arguing against cinematics, and I have the same response for you as I have for him: that would truly cripply the cinematic flow of a scene, which tells me Bioware won't be doing that. Bioware's been cinematic since KotOR, and I see no evidence of a change.

If BioWare wants to not cripple the cinematic flow of scenes then they need to adopt Alpha Protocol's timed dialogue system. If they want their games to be cinematic, then I wish they'd just go all the way at this point. Having the entire world come to screeching halt with Shepard or Hawke blankly staring at the camera as the player rummages through the dialogue wheel to try and guess what the paraphrases actually mean kills any cinematic flow.

I've been saying for awhile, quite a number of years and games ago, that I think BioWare should abandon RPG's altogether and instead focus on making their games action adventure games with strong stories, set protagonists (male and female choices, maybe some skills or such, but not involved character creation) and voiced cinematics.  Dialog choices could be preset personas that you can change on the fly (or just have button presses, with an icon flashing on the screen, a la QTE, that you have a tone selection about to happen.)

It's more or less what they are gradually doing ANYWAY.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

How do we reconcile things if I like that Shepard makes that face? I personally feel that there's room for both types of games to exist in the market, as both have their pros and cons.

Absolutely both types of games can and should exist in the market. But it is a good idea to change an IP that is one type of game into another? I don't really think it is, honestly. 

Also, while I did say Shepherd should never make that face... I did caveat it with "unless I tell him to." Shepherd having that reaction is fine. It is even say arguably good. But for it to happen without prompting and result in something that the player didn't mean or intend to happen interferes with player agency. 

As a side note, Ultima 7 is actually an exceptionally non-linear game (as opposed to faux non-linear like Baldur's Gate). You can literally do whole chunks of the critical path in completely different orders, and even skip on some stuff if you find yourself stumbling upon where you need to be first.

 

True. I was more focusing on the lack of divergent or variable content.

The tricky thing for this though, is that we don't know any better. It's hard for me to say "I think DAO would be unequivocally better with a voiced protagonist, as it's also hard for me to say "I think Alpha Protocol would be unequivocally better with a silent protagonist" because it's not what was presented.

What I do know, is that for a variety of reasons, I love Alpha Protocol's dialogues (they are my favourite in all RPGs). Some things I'm not necessarily married to (the timer... though in general I liked it), but it was a great synergy. I really enjoyed the work that Mike's voice actor did as well.

But I think you are misconstruing what I am saying. I am not saying Alpha Protocol shouldn't exist... it should. It is a great game. With the way it is set up, it likely would be dminished by a silent protagonist. But it is a game with a set protagonist that doesn't give the player much in terms of creating and/or defining their own character. In addition, it is often difficult to fully predict what Michael will do, other than in a general way. Therefore, it can be difficult to accurately roleplay his character. 

Again, this is the role of the director who is off stage and yelling instruction to the actor from outside the action. That is what the experience of the player can feel like. Not for all people... and not all the time. But that feeling can present itself, which is a different feeling than BEING that character. 

Let me put it another way... let's say you are given a choice. One of the Big Decisions in games. Let's say it is DE:HR and you are struggling with the final choice, of how the information of the events at the end of the game are portrayed to the world. What if, instead of an explanation, you simply had tones to pick? Tones where you didn't know even what decision you would make, let alone how they would play out. Would that be satisfactory? 

I'd wager for most people, no. They want to pick Harrowmont or Bhelen, not Paragon or Renegade. They want to say Pro-Corporation, Pro-Regulation or Blow Up the Whole Base at the end of DE:HR, not "Diplomatic/Aggressive/Sarcastic." Because it is the DETAILS of the choice that matter. You don't want to be surprised by what your character does with these Big Decisions... so why should you be surprised by what your character decides to do when your mom dies?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 mai 2013 - 07:04 .

[Fast Jimmy]

MerinTB wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
Sylvius has said something similar arguing against cinematics, and I have the same response for you as I have for him: that would truly cripply the cinematic flow of a scene, which tells me Bioware won't be doing that. Bioware's been cinematic since KotOR, and I see no evidence of a change.

If BioWare wants to not cripple the cinematic flow of scenes then they need to adopt Alpha Protocol's timed dialogue system. If they want their games to be cinematic, then I wish they'd just go all the way at this point. Having the entire world come to screeching halt with Shepard or Hawke blankly staring at the camera as the player rummages through the dialogue wheel to try and guess what the paraphrases actually mean kills any cinematic flow.

I've been saying for awhile, quite a number of years and games ago, that I think BioWare should abandon RPG's altogether and instead focus on making their games action adventure games with strong stories, set protagonists (male and female choices, maybe some skills or such, but not involved character creation) and voiced cinematics.  Dialog choices could be preset personas that you can change on the fly (or just have button presses, with an icon flashing on the screen, a la QTE, that you have a tone selection about to happen.)

It's more or less what they are gradually doing ANYWAY.

I think this wouldn't be a bad call at all. People could go in expecting a different experience, instead of assuming the same level of role-playing and player agency was available to them.

In terms of choice and consequence and player agency, you really need to have a solid base of where you are starting out from. Are you making choices for Geralt? Or are you making choices that define your own character? If it is Geralt, then any amount of player agency you give the player outside of simple yes or no responses is seen as a bonus. If it supposed to be YOUR character, then not giving full control of every detail will seem like it is interfering. You can have the exact same experience with two different starting points and have players (even the SAME players) experience the exact same content in STRIKINGLY different ways. 

I don't think it was a good idea to make the change from DA:O to DA2 like this (at least without, as I said earlier, some much better rebranding efforts to let players know this was not going to be the same experience), but that ship has sailed now. I agree that the DA2 way of doing things, with a pretty set background, overall relationship with starting NPCs and direct plot points in the game, coupled with a more "blank slate protagonist" attempt with a voiced protagonist didn't quite hit the nail on the head. For me personally, the hammer missed the nail, bruised my hand something fierce and had my sitting there swearing my head off, personally. 

Whether DA3 can walk this tight-rope efficiently is anyone's guess... but like I said earlier, I haven't seen anyone to date to do it. It is the difference between George C. Scott being told to play General Patton, World War 2 general in a movie, or being cast as "war general in WW2." One has a known background, history, mindsey and experiences, the other is a blank slate the actor can breathe life into as they see fit. To try and straddle both sides of the fence, to be undefined within a definied quantity of a person, is something that I haven't seen executed with a high degree of fidelity.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 mai 2013 - 07:00 .

[Allan Schumacher]

MerinTB wrote...

Well, we know that Chris Avellone strongly dislikes the cinematic presentation and voiced protagonist aspect of Alpha Protocol...
even if he DID like the voice actor's performance. 

Chris is probably my favourite designer.  Doesn't mean we'll always agree with everything though.

I know he's also not a fan of how complicated their dialogue system was (because it's really, really, really complex in terms of its dependencies and the like - which is precisely why he liked it).

Although part of the reason why Chris wasn't so keen on the cinematic aspect of Alpha Protocol is more along the lines of how he felt it wouldn't compare well to other contemporaries, such as Mass Effect, because BioWare was better at it.

THough it's more the conversation system in general that I hold in high regard, not the specific cinematics part (which is part of the equation)

[Allan Schumacher]

But I think you are misconstruing what I am saying. I am not saying Alpha Protocol shouldn't exist

No, I think I am understanding what you're saying.  I know you're not saying that Alpha Protocol shouldn't exist.  What I get from what you're saying, however, is that you'd like BioWare to make games that are more in alignment with what you want, rather than say something like Alpha Protocol (I could argue that Hawke is as much of a pregen as Thorton, and even the Warden has a lot more preordained about him than earlier BioWare games).

Going back to the "BioWare is clueless as to why the silent protagonist may have value," it comes down to:

Ultimately we're making the game based on stuff we'd like to put into our game. Yes there's reconciliation between some stuff that fans want, and not everyone on the team (or the fans) is going to want the exact same things, although buy in for wanting whatever we put in to be awesome is usually pretty high.

You can say that it's a bad idea to change from DAO's system to DA2's system. I can counter by saying DAO's roots go back to long, long before even Mass Effect. You're making the assumption that everyone here just adamantly did not want to have a voiced protagonist as well for DAO.

I don't know Brent Knowles. Maybe for him it shouldn't be done, and that helped motivate his decision to leave BioWare because the direction BioWare as a whole was moving in was no longer in alignment with what he'd like to do. So he did the classy thing, said thanks, and moved on (as opposed to sticking around and working on something he wasn't actually interested in making.  That is rarely good for the project).

I can only speak so much on what the studio would have liked to do for DAO, but I do know that there were people that work here that cringe at the DAO conversations and cutscenes, even if I felt they did a pretty good job with the system in place.

What would happen if you decided to approach BioWare's games more like Alpha Protocol or The Witcher?  Would you enjoy them more if you went in with the mental expectation that the parts that let you define the character moreso are seen as bonuses?

Therefore, it can be difficult to accurately roleplay his character.

This is why I'm never keen on defining "roleplaying." I found it easy to play a wide variety of Mike Thortons, and coupled with the way the game was designed, immensely satisfying. It seems our definition, and expectations, of roleplaying are not in alignment.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 16 mai 2013 - 07:50 .

[MerinTB]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Well, we know that Chris Avellone strongly dislikes the cinematic presentation and voiced protagonist aspect of Alpha Protocol...
even if he DID like the voice actor's performance. 

Chris is probably my favourite designer.  Doesn't mean we'll always agree with everything though.

I know he's also not a fan of how complicated their dialogue system was (because it's really, really, really complex in terms of its dependencies and the like - which is precisely why he liked it).

Although part of the reason why Chris wasn't so keen on the cinematic aspect of Alpha Protocol is more along the lines of how he felt it wouldn't compare well to other contemporaries, such as Mass Effect, because BioWare was better at it.

THough it's more the conversation system in general that I hold in high regard, not the specific cinematics part (which is part of the equation)

I dunno, I may be parsing this wrong - 

I will say that it did try to carve some new ground with the dialogue mechanics (which were done by Brian Mitsoda – currently on Dead State, check it out – and implemented by Dan Spitzley), and the idea of having a limited cast of extremely reactive characters was a plus as far as I was concerned. I also liked how the game didn’t judge you, it simply showed you other people’s prejudices and judgments on your player character. I liked the hate-mances as much as the romances, I liked the handler perk mechanics, I liked buying intel, I liked the hints of how to tackle speech puzzles (especially if intentionally angering the target would get you an advantage based on a clue in the Intel), I liked how the game rewarded you for being a dick as much as being a hero in a positive light – there wasn’t any judgment there, either.I didn’t like the cinematic conversations (even though I liked the urgency), and I didn’t like the main character, nor did I like the fact he was voiced, either, even though I thought the voice work was good.

It may be because of Mass Effect, but I more have the general feel from MCA that he dislikes cinematic dialogs (at least in games he works on.)

Modifié par MerinTB, 16 mai 2013 - 08:14 .

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
I've been saying for awhile, quite a number of years and games ago, that I think BioWare should abandon RPG's altogether and instead focus on making their games action adventure games with strong stories, set protagonists (male and female choices, maybe some skills or such, but not involved character creation) and voiced cinematics.

I think this wouldn't be a bad call at all. People could go in expecting a different experience, instead of assuming the same level of role-playing and player agency was available to them.

If I know what I'm geting into I enjoy it more.  If DA2 hadn't followed DA:O and hadn't let me "create" Hawke as much as it did at the start, I would have been a lot less annoyed at various times in the game when it felt like Hawke was ripped from my control.

Wheras going into FFXIII, I know it was linear and I knew I wasn't making the characters, and I loved the game.

If BioWare just stopped trying to cater to old school cRPG fans at this point and up-front said "cinematic storytelling, with fairly set protagonists - like it or look elsewhere, though we hope you like it!" I'd be so onboard!

Especially since, you know, I've got Project Eternity and Torment and Wasteland 2 and... so many o thers... of the kind of game I prefer actually on the way that I no longer have to depend on BioWare to get "as close as I can" to what I want, and can instead appreciate BioWare for what it truly wants to do.

[Gregolian]

I would like to be able to boldly persuade people to do things like one could in DA:O but I enjoy having a voiced protagonist... ARGH

[Fast Jimmy]

You're making the assumption that everyone here just adamantly did not want to have a voiced protagonist as well for DAO.

I don't feel I'm making that assumption. I made no assertions or assignment of anyone at Bioware's preference in making DA:O, or their preferences in gaming in general. Just that the way the voiced protagonist in DA2 was implemented, it seemed to me, focused on creating a character that would appeal to players, rather than allowing the players to create their own characters.

I can appreciate people cringing at scenes they were involved with in DA:O. Being involved in the process of creation means you see every little ding and fault in huge magnification. And for all I know, it may have been Brent Knowles versus the world in terms of him fighting for the silent PC in DA:O and everyone else wringing their hands in the wings. I don't know.

But here is where we stand today. Bioware has fans of the DA franchise who really enjoyed something about DA:O. They felt like they did not get it for DA2. They pointed to the way DA:O did it (the silent protagonist) and said "here is why this worked for me and here is why DA2 didn't." Will DA3 make everyone happy? No. Even if it was the greatest game ever made, there will be some who say they hate it and that's just life.

But will we be able to have an Inquisitor that can fit a wide variety of both personalities, viewpoints and histories? Will we be able to have an idea of a character in our head, a character that would act in certain ways? Will we know ahead of time if a choice is going to possibly result in that idea being broken?

It's easy to say "I want to play a mean, bad-ass character." It is quite another to imagine a character that has seen abuse all of their life, or who deeply fears and resents magic, or has a view of the world that is slightly askew. This type of character might be a wholly different person under differing circumstances - polite and nice in one instance, a rage of emotion in another. They may choose to treat two groups of people in ways that are night and day different from each other.

If we don't know the options we are choosing or what they will result in, how do we know if we will reply with a gruff response, or if we will say someone should be drug out to the street and murdered before their children's eyes? We don't. So if that level of character pre-design and play is not going to be available, then that is fine... but it should be noted and made apparent before hand. Otherwise, people are going to be try and use the product in ways it was not designed and for which it may not be safe for consumption.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 mai 2013 - 08:28 .

[abnocte]

I would like a system that divorces personality/tone from persuasion/intimidation options.
At most I would accept bonuses to intimidation if aggresive is the main personality, and bonuses to persuade if diplomatic. That assuming they keep the personality track used in DA2.

Also, I would like to see a system that allows players to use Persuasion/Intimidate options and once selected, it determines whether the option has been successful or not.

Also persuasion/intimidation difficulty should vary depending on the NPC. Its not the same to try to intimidate an aleniage elf than the captain of the city guard...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Because, again, I haven't seen any evidence of a voiced PC that provides anywhere near the level of player agency seen with a silent one. Because in these games, you are not the actor, portraying the character on stage, but the director, sitting in chair, removed from the events, simply giving the actor directions "More anger! Be more diplomatic! Throw some snark in there - don't be afraid to mix it up!" It is giving the player an entirely different role, which, for me, creates an entirely different game experience.

Fully agree here.
We went from being one of the writers to being a director that hasn't even read the script.
You scream "More anger!" and after the actor has spoken his/her lines you realize that s/he wasn't even angry for the reasons you thought... which makes the whole directing thing even more difficult.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Also, if I ask a simple math question that uses no digits larger than 7, is the question's framework decimal, or octal?  You'd probably just assume decimal (as most anyone would), but shouldn't that assumption be made consciously?  Wouldn't you want to be aware that you'd done it?

"There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

Sorry, I had to!

[Zelto]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Ultimately we're making the game based on stuff we'd like to put into our game. Yes there's reconciliation between some stuff that fans want, and not everyone on the team (or the fans) is going to want the exact same things, although buy in for wanting whatever we put in to be awesome is usually pretty high.

Im really sorry (I normally think your posts are very well writen and can understand your point even if I don't fully agree) but making a game should be solely about what the fans want, the majority, as not everyone will agree. When you don't listen or think that you know better than your customers you end up in trouble.

You can say that it's a bad idea to change from DAO's system to DA2's system. I can counter by saying DAO's roots go back to long, long before even Mass Effect. You're making the assumption that everyone here just adamantly did not want to have a voiced protagonist as well for DAO.

I can only speak so much on what the studio would have liked to do for
DAO, but I do know that there were people that work here that cringe at
the DAO conversations and cutscenes, even if I felt they did a pretty
good job with the system in place.

That is most likely true that they wanted a voiced protaganist and for whatever reason couldn't get it. But as FastJimmy ask, once you make the decision to go a particular way in a series then you should stick to it, and if you don't stick to it then you should make sure that whatever you change it too is better and executed very well, which a large number of your fans would say you didn't do. If DA:O was voiced then no one (ok some would but thats life) would be complaining about it in DA:2. I don't think many people complain about Mass Effects voiced PC because it alway was.

What would happen if you decided to approach BioWare's games more like Alpha Protocol or The Witcher?  Would you enjoy them more if you went in with the mental expectation that the parts that let you define the character moreso are seen as bonuses?

Therefore, it can be difficult to accurately roleplay his character.

This is why I'm never keen on defining "roleplaying." I found it easy to play a wide variety of Mike Thortons, and coupled with the way the game was designed, immensely satisfying. It seems our definition, and expectations, of roleplaying are not in alignment.

You are right that approching the game with a diferent mentality may cause some of the problems people have with it to disapear. But thats just the point the expectations in DA:O were simply, "Bioware make good RPG's" whatever form that RPG may fall under. The expectation with DA:2 was that DA:O was a great game and that the sequal would follow on from it and be an evolution of that game. To many people DA:2 wasn't so much an evolution as a totally different genus (sorry couldn't help myself).

[Fast Jimmy]

 To get this a little more back on topic, away from the voiced PC debate this has turned into...


If there is no return to a Persuasion system, how about a Bribery one? I always thought Bribery was the worst option in an RPG, simply because you are A) avoiding combat - and, hence, the XP and loot that comes with it and it essentially means you failed at talking your way past them.

I don't think that should be the case always. I would like to see some "best" outcomes totally unachievable without bribery. This would put emphasis on gold and actually result in some serious questions for people. Do I buy that new Sword of Epic Pwnage... or do I keep my gold handy, in case I need to grease the palm of a guard to release that orphan?

In a series like DA that doesn't really endorse or sponsor any grinding or unlimited gold accumulation (aside from glitches, of course), this could be an interesting idea.

Any thoughts?

[hoorayforicecream]

Zelto wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Ultimately we're making the game based on stuff we'd like to put into our game. Yes there's reconciliation between some stuff that fans want, and not everyone on the team (or the fans) is going to want the exact same things, although buy in for wanting whatever we put in to be awesome is usually pretty high.

Im really sorry (I normally think your posts are very well writen and can understand your point even if I don't fully agree) but making a game should be solely about what the fans want, the majority, as not everyone will agree. When you don't listen or think that you know better than your customers you end up in trouble.

There's a couple of assumptions that are wrong with this.

First, this assumes that the majority of "customers" all want one thing and that the developers are purposely ignoring it. That's not true at all. There are a lot of players who enjoy a lot of different things, and you'd be hard pressed to prove that a majority of anyone decided that one specific feature's implementation was what made a game a success or a failure. That's not only highly improbable, but would also require evidence that you just don't have. It's fine to say "I didn't like this." But to say "a majority of fans didn't like this feature" is foolish because there's no way for you to prove it and it seems like you're only saying it to make your own opinion seem more valid than it is.

Second, I've seen what happens when developers are not as invested in completing a project firsthand. It sucks, because the devs tend to phone it in when they are not invested in the project itself. Uninvested devs don't spend the extra time to polish the game, because they don't care. They just get the work done and go home. I've been there on the front lines, and I've seen it. I would personally prefer the developers make the game they feel passionate about, because that translates to a better product in the end. Making a game the developers feel the customers want, rather than the game they want, is Zynga's business model.

Edit:

That is most likely true that they wanted a voiced protaganist and for whatever reason couldn't get it. But as FastJimmy ask, once you make the decision to go a particular way in a series then you should stick to it, and if you don't stick to it then you should make sure that whatever you change it too is better and executed very well, which a large number of your fans would say you didn't do. If DA:O was voiced then no one (ok some would but thats life) would be complaining about it in DA:2. I don't think many people complain about Mass Effects voiced PC because it alway was.

I would point at Mass Effect 2 as Bioware's counterexample to this. They massively changed the gameplay between 1 and 2, and yet Mass Effect 2 is generally considered to be a success and a significant step up from the original.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 16 mai 2013 - 09:04 .

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

 To get this a little more back on topic, away from the voiced PC debate this has turned into...


If there is no return to a Persuasion system, how about a Bribery one? I always thought Bribery was the worst option in an RPG, simply because you are A) avoiding combat - and, hence, the XP and loot that comes with it and it essentially means you failed at talking your way past them.

I don't think that should be the case always. I would like to see some "best" outcomes totally unachievable without bribery. This would put emphasis on gold and actually result in some serious questions for people. Do I buy that new Sword of Epic Pwnage... or do I keep my gold handy, in case I need to grease the palm of a guard to release that orphan?

In a series like DA that doesn't really endorse or sponsor any grinding or unlimited gold accumulation (aside from glitches, of course), this could be an interesting idea.

Any thoughts?

I'm not sure, I've generally seen three problems with bribing in most rpgs I've played:

1. It's cheap. Once you get the ganf of a game, the bribes are fairly easy to gather and generally you don't lose much. I've never once seen a cripplingly high bribe.
This is made even worse by the fact that money in rpgs is a fairly cheap thing that's essentially only spent on luxury. Easy to acquire, easy to let go of.

2. It's safe. They're generally only available for the people who would accept them. So there's very little risk associated with them. I've yet to see a single instance where the bribe was not just refused but the victim was downright insulted by you offering it. Nor for that matter, have someone take the bribe and then still not do as you asked.

3. It's boring. Usually it shows up, you pay and that's it. No mystique, no subtelty... just a quick and easy business transaction. As if I was buying groceries down by the corner. There's never any of the subtle play with words, the dance of hinting and negotiating price without outright saying it. No trial or error. No avarice and no opportunism. I'm not talking about interactivity here as much as just plain drama.

However, should those three be dealt with, I would not be opposed to it. The notion that sometimes the very best ending should be a result of bribery is appealing as well. Especially if it's not just money that you can use for bribing. If the same tone allowed you to offer jobs, titles, land or even promising to set them up with the people of their desires or even hand someone over to slavery, I could see a lot of merit in having it.

It'd also paint the world in a slightly darker shade, when it is playing on people's greed and lust that gets results. Which could be nice.

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Zelto wrote...

That is most likely true that they wanted a voiced protaganist and for whatever reason couldn't get it. But as FastJimmy ask, once you make the decision to go a particular way in a series then you should stick to it, and if you don't stick to it then you should make sure that whatever you change it too is better and executed very well, which a large number of your fans would say you didn't do. If DA:O was voiced then no one (ok some would but thats life) would be complaining about it in DA:2. I don't think many people complain about Mass Effects voiced PC because it alway was.

I would point at Mass Effect 2 as Bioware's counterexample to this. They massively changed the gameplay between 1 and 2, and yet Mass Effect 2 is generally considered to be a success and a significant step up from the original.

Can't disagree here.

Just because something had a feature before does not mean that it HAS to have it going forward. I'm just saying I don't think they should have with the voiced protag between DA:O and DA2.

For instance, DA:A and DA2 had Save Imports carried over from previous choices, but I wish they'd not appear in DA3. However, I don't think Bioware is biting on it.

However, a game company should look at alerting and communicating changes in the core gameplay from one game in a series to the next. If fans feel they are having a bait-and-switch pulled on them from one game to the next, they can often rail against the developer pretty radically.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 mai 2013 - 09:12 .

[Endurium]

Whatever influence system is used, if there is a mouthy companion anything like Morrigan I want the option to slap them via dialog.

[Zelto]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

There's a couple of assumptions that are wrong with this.

First, this assumes that the majority of "customers" all want one thing and that the developers are purposely ignoring it. That's not true at all. There are a lot of players who enjoy a lot of different things, and you'd be hard pressed to prove that a majority of anyone decided that one specific feature's implementation was what made a game a success or a failure. That's not only highly improbable, but would also require evidence that you just don't have. It's fine to say "I didn't like this." But to say "a majority of fans didn't like this feature" is foolish because there's no way for you to prove it and it seems like you're only saying it to make your own opinion seem more valid than it is.

Ok you appear to have misunderstood what I said. I never said that the majority wanted or indeed didn't want a silent protaganist or indeed any other feature I was simply stating that it is a companies job to produce a product that their customers want to buy not a product that they like and think their customers Should want to buy. What Allan said was in my opinion falling within the second catagory, which mean they are not necessary attempting to meet their customers desires.

Also I never said that it is easy to know what the customers want, all/majority/minority, however that is the job of a business within a capitulist system, identify the demand and produce a supply, just because this is a game company doesn't mean that no longer applies. They should have people hired to determine the wants of the customers so they can better meet them.

Finally I am old enough and (hopefully) wise enough to know not everyone wants what I want or enjoys what I enjoy and I would never be foolish enough to suggest that because I like it everyone must or try to make it seem that way to further my point.

Second, I've seen what happens when developers are not as invested in completing a project firsthand. It sucks, because the devs tend to phone it in when they are not invested in the project itself. Uninvested devs don't spend the extra time to polish the game, because they don't care. They just get the work done and go home. I've been there on the front lines, and I've seen it. I would personally prefer the developers make the game they feel passionate about, because that translates to a better product in the end. Making a game the developers feel the customers want, rather than the game they want, is Zynga's business model.

Well that may well be true, however again it is the comany's responcability to
a) hire the right people who will work regardless, at the end of they day everyone will end up doing work they dislike at some point, a good employee is one who still works hard at it.
Ensure that their employees are happy through other means than just ensuring they are doing exactly what they want