721 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

It's impressive puppetry of that there can be no denying, but it's still puppetry none the less. That is simply the reality of game making, or any computer generated work, that no matter how close to real life it is it is simply a person using their motions to control something else like a puppet. What it allows for is amazing but you shouldn't act as if this is some great revolutionary new way of making video games when all it's doing is making the model move better.

Same with a little known artist by the name of Ralph Bakshi, whose style was using real life people doing real life motions and filming it, then going over and drawing it in a 2-d way. It produced really fluid motions and such, but it was in the end still simply tracing. Making it seem like anything more then that seems like it's just trying to over-inflate someones ego.

You can still say "that's just a puppet show" or "that's just tracing" and still be amazed at them regardless.

[Seival]

__c wrote...

OP...

It looks like you don't really care about playing RPG. Honestly... why are you here?

10h one weekend top of the line cinematic [forgettable] experience with minimal input is not my thing. I would prefer resources to go toward story, characters and in general content of DA world.

How about rather than wasting money on overpriced hollywood stuff, we spend it to make another interesting quest chain or two... or more dialogue or another race or couple of unique companions/NPCs etc.

Any game that has RPG elements can be called RPG. Don't argue about that, please. This is not just an assumption. Ask any game developer if you don't believe me.

If you really prefer resources to go towards the story and characters then you should be on my side, actually. Let's look back at DA:O and DA2 characters. How exactly are they formed? What make them look like people? Skills? Gear? Statistics on how many rats did they kill on your playthrough? No, only dialogues, cutscenes, and VOs make them what they are. And the point is that quantity of dialogues and cut scenes doesn't determine characters' quality.

In DA:O and DA2 only VOs were made really good, and the characters were nothing more but talking dolls.

Try to play Beyond: Two Souls, and see the difference. With 5 times less amount of gameplay you will have 100 times deeper connection to the characters, because they are played by professional actors, who were fully motion captured and scanned by state of art equipment. The characters are alive. The little amount of interactive dialogues in Beyond have much more meaning than all dialogues from DA:O and DA2 combined, because you can really feel the characters' emotions.

Beyond has the same RPG elements as Mass Effect, for example. You play a role by choosing dialogue options, and which way the story will be told, what exactly will your charater do in the key moments of the story. Beyond can be called RPG game. And in fact, I like roleplaying Jodie much more than roleplaying Shepard, Warden or Hawke... But I'm not suggesting to turn DA:I into interactive movie here. I'm suggesting to get rid of plans to make a lot of excess things like side quests, unneeded lines in dialogues, and some unneeded skills/gear/features to make dialogues/cutscenes which are only very important for main plot and characters really good by modern standards. That will require a lot of actors work and motion capture.

Modifié par Seival, 03 décembre 2013 - 09:08 .

[Rawgrim]

Seival wrote...

__c wrote...

OP...

It looks like you don't really care about playing RPG. Honestly... why are you here?

10h one weekend top of the line cinematic [forgettable] experience with minimal input is not my thing. I would prefer resources to go toward story, characters and in general content of DA world.

How about rather than wasting money on overpriced hollywood stuff, we spend it to make another interesting quest chain or two... or more dialogue or another race or couple of unique companions/NPCs etc.

Any game that has RPG elements can be called RPG. Don't argue about that, please. This is not just an assumption. Ask any game developer if you don't believe me.

If you really prefer resources to go towards the story and characters then you should be on my side, actually. Let's look back at DA:O and DA2 characters. How exactly are they formed? What make them look like people? Skills? Gear? Statistics on how many rats did they kill on your playthrough? No, only dialogues, cutscenes, and VOs make them what they are. And the point is that quantity of dialogues and cut scenes doesn't determine characters' quality.

In DA:O and DA2 only VOs were made really good, and the characters were nothing more but talking dolls.

Try to play Beyond: Two Souls, and see the difference. With 5 times less amount of gameplay you will have 100 times deeper connection to the characters, because they are played by professional actors, who were fully motion captured and scanned by state of art equipment. The characters are alive. The little amount of interactive dialogues in Beyond have much more meaning than all dialogues from DA:O and DA2 combined, because you can really feel the characters' emotions.

Beyond has the same RPG elements as Mass Effect, for example. You play a role by choosing dialogue options, and which way the story will be told, what exactly will your charater do in the key moments of the story. Beyond can be called RPG game. And in fact, I like roleplaying Jodie much more than roleplaying Shepard, Warden or Hawke... But I'm not suggesting to turn DA:I into interactive movie here. I'm suggesting to get rid of plans to make a lot of excess things like side quests, unneeded lines in dialogues, and some unneeded skills/gear/features to make dialogues/cutscenes which are only very important for main plot and characters really good by modern standards. That will require a lot of actors work and motion capture.

RPGS ere a combination of several things, not just 1 element.

1. An interactive story, where your in-game choices affects the story, and maybe even the plotline.
2. A level system
3. Combat
4. Dialogue options
6. The oppertunity to create your very own character.

Remove any of these and its not an rpg. Simple as that. Game developers tend to stick the rpg label on anything these day, because it sells. If you play career mode on Fifa, you level up. This doesn`t make it an rpg. Same for Battlefield etc.

An RPG should NEVER put the player in the passanger`s seat. When that happens the game developers takes control of your character, and the character isn`t yours anymore. Auto-dialogue being one of the biggest sins here.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Rather than compare gross revenue numbers, why not ROI?  The budget of those "niche" games is vastly smaller than with the AAA titles.

Well, it's hard to talk about ROI on kickstarter games where the motivation doesn't necessarily seem wholly profit-driven 
and the companies we're looking at aren't publically held (though it's true that most gaming companies are privately held, which is why it becomes confusing for them to go for those heights). 

[Seival]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Seival wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Seival wrote...

 But please, don't expect BioWare to return to oldschool even a little. DA:I will obviously be a AAA modern game, not a DA:O or Baldur's Gate revamp.

Is that why Bioware has returned the tactical camera? Is that why Bioware removed level scaling? Is that why Bioware removed total health regen?

I'm not sure you know the game you're talking about.

You listed the features that any game can use.

Remember Me, for example:
 - Health isn't regenerating automatically, so you have to use your skills to keep your character alive.
 - Your character isn't becoming overpowered while progressing through the game.
 - You can place game on "pause" to open the abilities menu and think about current combat situation to figure out what should you do next.

And Remember Me is a great modern AAA heavily story-driven game, not some old-school boredom.

No. I listed features that are, in RPGs, a distinct throwback to "old-school" games.

So, you believe that some exact gameplay features form the oldschool? By your logic, Beyond and TWD are the oldschool games then. They both have some very old gameplay features in their basis. Remember Phantasmagoria game? Bioforge? Old quests? Sounds familiar?

Gameplay features do not determine if the game will be oldschool or not. Ability and desire of devs to make the game modern do. Ability and desire to use modern technologies in each and every aspect of the game.

...And let's look at this from little different perspective. Why do you think PCs, Consoles, Tablets, and Smartphones become more and more advanced? Mostly because of creative people have unbreakable desire to make state of art media products, and society that gladly pays for such products. A desire to create and play more realistic in all terms games literally pushes the modern technologies forwards. And all this "old-school-is-the-only-way" conservatism is nothing more but the love of stagnation and decay. So, let game developers and games do the very important job both in our minds and real life. Don't try to delay them with old-school nonsense.

Modifié par Seival, 03 décembre 2013 - 09:35 .

[Ianamus]

Rawgrim wrote...

RPGS ere a combination of several things, not just 1 element.

1. An interactive story, where your in-game choices affects the story, and maybe even the plotline.
2. A level system
3. Combat
4. Dialogue options
6. The oppertunity to create your very own character.

Remove any of these and its not an rpg. Simple as that. Game developers tend to stick the rpg label on anything these day, because it sells. If you play career mode on Fifa, you level up. This doesn`t make it an rpg. Same for Battlefield etc.

An RPG should NEVER put the player in the passanger`s seat. When that happens the game developers takes control of your character, and the character isn`t yours anymore. Auto-dialogue being one of the biggest sins here.

So the Witcher isn't a roleplaying game? Or pretty much any MMORPG? Or any JRPG?

What rubbish. 

[Rawgrim]

EJ107 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

RPGS ere a combination of several things, not just 1 element.

1. An interactive story, where your in-game choices affects the story, and maybe even the plotline.
2. A level system
3. Combat
4. Dialogue options
6. The oppertunity to create your very own character.

Remove any of these and its not an rpg. Simple as that. Game developers tend to stick the rpg label on anything these day, because it sells. If you play career mode on Fifa, you level up. This doesn`t make it an rpg. Same for Battlefield etc.

An RPG should NEVER put the player in the passanger`s seat. When that happens the game developers takes control of your character, and the character isn`t yours anymore. Auto-dialogue being one of the biggest sins here.

So the Witcher isn't a roleplaying game? Or pretty much any MMORPG? Or any JRPG?

What rubbish. 

Mot mmorpgs have thse things I mentioned. The Witcher is missing 1 of them. JRPGS....Those are more like interactive movies with turn based combat between the scenes.

[Ianamus]

Rawgrim wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

RPGS ere a combination of several things, not just 1 element.

1. An interactive story, where your in-game choices affects the story, and maybe even the plotline.
2. A level system
3. Combat
4. Dialogue options
6. The oppertunity to create your very own character.

Remove any of these and its not an rpg. Simple as that. Game developers tend to stick the rpg label on anything these day, because it sells. If you play career mode on Fifa, you level up. This doesn`t make it an rpg. Same for Battlefield etc.

An RPG should NEVER put the player in the passanger`s seat. When that happens the game developers takes control of your character, and the character isn`t yours anymore. Auto-dialogue being one of the biggest sins here.

So the Witcher isn't a roleplaying game? Or pretty much any MMORPG? Or any JRPG?

What rubbish. 

Mot mmorpgs have thse things I mentioned. The Witcher is missing 1 of them. JRPGS....Those are more like interactive movies with turn based combat between the scenes.

Most MMO's don't have dialgoue options or  an interactive story where you can affect the plot. And you specifically said "remove any of these and its not an rpg" so the Witcher isn't an RPG, by your definition, even if it's only missing the ability to create your own character. 

I don't even think tabletop role-playing games have all of those (I'm fairly sure they don't have dialogue options), and they are what created the genre in the first place.

Your definition is just bad 

Modifié par EJ107, 03 décembre 2013 - 09:44 .

[Rawgrim]

EJ107 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

RPGS ere a combination of several things, not just 1 element.

1. An interactive story, where your in-game choices affects the story, and maybe even the plotline.
2. A level system
3. Combat
4. Dialogue options
6. The oppertunity to create your very own character.

Remove any of these and its not an rpg. Simple as that. Game developers tend to stick the rpg label on anything these day, because it sells. If you play career mode on Fifa, you level up. This doesn`t make it an rpg. Same for Battlefield etc.

An RPG should NEVER put the player in the passanger`s seat. When that happens the game developers takes control of your character, and the character isn`t yours anymore. Auto-dialogue being one of the biggest sins here.

So the Witcher isn't a roleplaying game? Or pretty much any MMORPG? Or any JRPG?

What rubbish. 

Mot mmorpgs have thse things I mentioned. The Witcher is missing 1 of them. JRPGS....Those are more like interactive movies with turn based combat between the scenes.

Most MMO's don't have dialgoue options or  an interactive story where you can affect the plot. And you specifically said "remove any of these and its not an rpg" so the Witcher isn't an RPG, by your definition, even if it's only missing the ability to create your own character. 

I don't even think tabletop role-playing games have all of those (I'm fairly sure they don't have dialogue options), and they are what created the genre in the first place.

Your definition is just bad 

Tabletop roleplaying let you say whatever you wish to any npc or player in the game....Can`t have any more options than that.

The witcher doesn`t let you roleplay your own character, so yes. Its not a real roleplaying game. Its a great game by all means.

[Jozape]

EJ107 wrote...

I don't even think tabletop role-playing games have all of those (I'm fairly sure they don't have dialogue options in the way we know)

There is nothing stopping tabletop role-playing games from having dialog like a computer role-playing game, but who would do that when you can have much more freedom?

Anyways, I would say all of the requirements Rawgrim gave, excepting character creation, are generally expected, but not required.

[The Elder King]

@Rawgrim: I don't want to enter in 'what is an RPG' discussion, but you're generalizing JRPGs. There are JRPGs which aren't 'interactive movies'. How many JRPGs have you played?
@Seival: I don't have a ps3, but if I ever buy one, Beyon will hardly be a priority for me, based on what I watch. And one of the reason I want one is coming next year in Japan.

[Leo]

Seival wrote...

In DA:O and DA2 only VOs were made really good, and the characters were nothing more but talking dolls.

Try to play Beyond: Two Souls, and see the difference. With 5 times less amount of gameplay you will have 100 times deeper connection to the characters, because they are played by professional actors, who were fully motion captured and scanned by state of art equipment. The characters are alive. The little amount of interactive dialogues in Beyond have much more meaning than all dialogues from DA:O and DA2 combined, because you can really feel the characters' emotions.

Beyond has the same RPG elements as Mass Effect, for example. You play a role by choosing dialogue options, and which way the story will be told, what exactly will your charater do in the key moments of the story. Beyond can be called RPG game. And in fact, I like roleplaying Jodie much more than roleplaying Shepard, Warden or Hawke... But I'm not suggesting to turn DA:I into interactive movie here. I'm suggesting to get rid of plans to make a lot of excess things like side quests, unneeded lines in dialogues, and some unneeded skills/gear/features to make dialogues/cutscenes which are only very important for main plot and characters really good by modern standards. That will require a lot of actors work and motion capture.

Except I cared far more for the characters in Dragon Age and Mass Effect than the ones in Beyond: Two Souls.

Honestly The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us by Telltale games do a much, much better job at being the type of games that Quantic Dream wants to make. And Telltale doesn't even need to do motion capture in the way Quantic Dream does.

[Rawgrim]

hhh89 wrote...

@Rawgrim: I don't want to enter in 'what is an RPG' discussion, but you're generalizing JRPGs. There are JRPGs which aren't 'interactive movies'. How many JRPGs have you played?
@Seival: I don't have a ps3, but if I ever buy one, Beyon will hardly be a priority for me, based on what I watch. And one of the reason I want one is coming next year in Japan.

4-5 of them. All of them were more or less interactive movies. I will take our word for it if you say there are different types too - by all means.

[Jozape]

Seival wrote...

...And let's look at this from little different perspective. Why do you think PCs, Consoles, Tablets, and Smartphones become more and more advanced? Mostly because of creative people have unbreakable desire to make state of art media products, and society that gladly pays for such products. A desire to create and play more realistic in all terms games literally pushes the modern technologies forwards. And all this "old-school-is-the-only-way" conservatism is nothing more but the love of stagnation and decay. So, let game developers and games do the very important job both in our minds and real life.

The technological demands help drive the demand for more powerful computers, but they are hardly the main reason for any part besides the graphics processing unit. Servers and workstations need that power too. Even our desktops with our bloated Microsoft operating systems can benefit from the extra juice.

And having Dragon Age not focus on the bleeding edge of technology will not do much to hinder the march of technology. There are plenty of games out there pushing the boundary, like Killzone and whatever shiny games kids play these days.

[Seival]

Rawgrim wrote...

Seival wrote...

__c wrote...

OP...

It looks like you don't really care about playing RPG. Honestly... why are you here?

10h one weekend top of the line cinematic [forgettable] experience with minimal input is not my thing. I would prefer resources to go toward story, characters and in general content of DA world.

How about rather than wasting money on overpriced hollywood stuff, we spend it to make another interesting quest chain or two... or more dialogue or another race or couple of unique companions/NPCs etc.

Any game that has RPG elements can be called RPG. Don't argue about that, please. This is not just an assumption. Ask any game developer if you don't believe me.

If you really prefer resources to go towards the story and characters then you should be on my side, actually. Let's look back at DA:O and DA2 characters. How exactly are they formed? What make them look like people? Skills? Gear? Statistics on how many rats did they kill on your playthrough? No, only dialogues, cutscenes, and VOs make them what they are. And the point is that quantity of dialogues and cut scenes doesn't determine characters' quality.

In DA:O and DA2 only VOs were made really good, and the characters were nothing more but talking dolls.

Try to play Beyond: Two Souls, and see the difference. With 5 times less amount of gameplay you will have 100 times deeper connection to the characters, because they are played by professional actors, who were fully motion captured and scanned by state of art equipment. The characters are alive. The little amount of interactive dialogues in Beyond have much more meaning than all dialogues from DA:O and DA2 combined, because you can really feel the characters' emotions.

Beyond has the same RPG elements as Mass Effect, for example. You play a role by choosing dialogue options, and which way the story will be told, what exactly will your charater do in the key moments of the story. Beyond can be called RPG game. And in fact, I like roleplaying Jodie much more than roleplaying Shepard, Warden or Hawke... But I'm not suggesting to turn DA:I into interactive movie here. I'm suggesting to get rid of plans to make a lot of excess things like side quests, unneeded lines in dialogues, and some unneeded skills/gear/features to make dialogues/cutscenes which are only very important for main plot and characters really good by modern standards. That will require a lot of actors work and motion capture.

RPGS ere a combination of several things, not just 1 element.

1. An interactive story, where your in-game choices affects the story, and maybe even the plotline.
2. A level system
3. Combat
4. Dialogue options
6. The oppertunity to create your very own character.

Remove any of these and its not an rpg. Simple as that. Game developers tend to stick the rpg label on anything these day, because it sells. If you play career mode on Fifa, you level up. This doesn`t make it an rpg. Same for Battlefield etc.

An RPG should NEVER put the player in the passanger`s seat. When that happens the game developers takes control of your character, and the character isn`t yours anymore. Auto-dialogue being one of the biggest sins here.

Here is the definition of RPG game:

"A role-playing game is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines."

So, basically, any game that has a least one role playing feature is an RPG. RPG game doesn't have to have all or most possible RPG elements.

By the way, Beyond: Two Souls game has two (!) RPG elements, but somehow most people don't call it RPG game. This isn't fair, while the same people are calling Diablo III with only one such feature an RPG game.

[Rawgrim]

Seival wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Seival wrote...

__c wrote...

OP...

It looks like you don't really care about playing RPG. Honestly... why are you here?

10h one weekend top of the line cinematic [forgettable] experience with minimal input is not my thing. I would prefer resources to go toward story, characters and in general content of DA world.

How about rather than wasting money on overpriced hollywood stuff, we spend it to make another interesting quest chain or two... or more dialogue or another race or couple of unique companions/NPCs etc.

Any game that has RPG elements can be called RPG. Don't argue about that, please. This is not just an assumption. Ask any game developer if you don't believe me.

If you really prefer resources to go towards the story and characters then you should be on my side, actually. Let's look back at DA:O and DA2 characters. How exactly are they formed? What make them look like people? Skills? Gear? Statistics on how many rats did they kill on your playthrough? No, only dialogues, cutscenes, and VOs make them what they are. And the point is that quantity of dialogues and cut scenes doesn't determine characters' quality.

In DA:O and DA2 only VOs were made really good, and the characters were nothing more but talking dolls.

Try to play Beyond: Two Souls, and see the difference. With 5 times less amount of gameplay you will have 100 times deeper connection to the characters, because they are played by professional actors, who were fully motion captured and scanned by state of art equipment. The characters are alive. The little amount of interactive dialogues in Beyond have much more meaning than all dialogues from DA:O and DA2 combined, because you can really feel the characters' emotions.

Beyond has the same RPG elements as Mass Effect, for example. You play a role by choosing dialogue options, and which way the story will be told, what exactly will your charater do in the key moments of the story. Beyond can be called RPG game. And in fact, I like roleplaying Jodie much more than roleplaying Shepard, Warden or Hawke... But I'm not suggesting to turn DA:I into interactive movie here. I'm suggesting to get rid of plans to make a lot of excess things like side quests, unneeded lines in dialogues, and some unneeded skills/gear/features to make dialogues/cutscenes which are only very important for main plot and characters really good by modern standards. That will require a lot of actors work and motion capture.

RPGS ere a combination of several things, not just 1 element.

1. An interactive story, where your in-game choices affects the story, and maybe even the plotline.
2. A level system
3. Combat
4. Dialogue options
6. The oppertunity to create your very own character.

Remove any of these and its not an rpg. Simple as that. Game developers tend to stick the rpg label on anything these day, because it sells. If you play career mode on Fifa, you level up. This doesn`t make it an rpg. Same for Battlefield etc.

An RPG should NEVER put the player in the passanger`s seat. When that happens the game developers takes control of your character, and the character isn`t yours anymore. Auto-dialogue being one of the biggest sins here.

Here is the definition of RPG game:

"A role-playing game is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines."

So, basically, any game that has a least one role playing feature is an RPG. RPG game doesn't have to have all or most possible RPG elements.

By the way, Beyond: Two Souls game has two (!) RPG elements, but somehow most people don't call it RPG game. This isn't fair, while the same people are calling Diablo III with only one such feature an RPG game.

Well have fun playing Fifa 14, the new rpg from EA, then.

[Seival]

Jozape wrote...

Seival wrote...

...And let's look at this from little different perspective. Why do you think PCs, Consoles, Tablets, and Smartphones become more and more advanced? Mostly because of creative people have unbreakable desire to make state of art media products, and society that gladly pays for such products. A desire to create and play more realistic in all terms games literally pushes the modern technologies forwards. And all this "old-school-is-the-only-way" conservatism is nothing more but the love of stagnation and decay. So, let game developers and games do the very important job both in our minds and real life.

The technological demands help drive the demand for more powerful computers, but they are hardly the main reason for any part besides the graphics processing unit. Servers and workstations need that power too. Even our desktops with our bloated Microsoft operating systems can benefit from the extra juice.

And having Dragon Age not focus on the bleeding edge of technology will not do much to hinder the march of technology. There are plenty of games out there pushing the boundary, like Killzone and whatever shiny games kids play these days.

Disagree. You are dramatically underestimating the influence of game development on technological advancement.

By the way. I'm playing Killzone: Shadowfall on my PS4 now, and the game already looks much more story driven than all released Dragon Ages combined. Just because the characters look really alive.

Modifié par Seival, 03 décembre 2013 - 10:15 .

[Seival]

Pious_Augustine wrote...

Seival wrote...

In DA:O and DA2 only VOs were made really good, and the characters were nothing more but talking dolls.

Try to play Beyond: Two Souls, and see the difference. With 5 times less amount of gameplay you will have 100 times deeper connection to the characters, because they are played by professional actors, who were fully motion captured and scanned by state of art equipment. The characters are alive. The little amount of interactive dialogues in Beyond have much more meaning than all dialogues from DA:O and DA2 combined, because you can really feel the characters' emotions.

Beyond has the same RPG elements as Mass Effect, for example. You play a role by choosing dialogue options, and which way the story will be told, what exactly will your charater do in the key moments of the story. Beyond can be called RPG game. And in fact, I like roleplaying Jodie much more than roleplaying Shepard, Warden or Hawke... But I'm not suggesting to turn DA:I into interactive movie here. I'm suggesting to get rid of plans to make a lot of excess things like side quests, unneeded lines in dialogues, and some unneeded skills/gear/features to make dialogues/cutscenes which are only very important for main plot and characters really good by modern standards. That will require a lot of actors work and motion capture.

Except I cared far more for the characters in Dragon Age and Mass Effect than the ones in Beyond: Two Souls.

Honestly The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us by Telltale games do a much, much better job at being the type of games that Quantic Dream wants to make. And Telltale doesn't even need to do motion capture in the way Quantic Dream does.

I've seen nothing special in TWD and TWAU. Talking, poorly animated dolls can't give me any strong feelings or even satisfaction from playing.

[Muspade]

Seival wrote...

Try to play Beyond: Two Souls, and see the difference. With 5 times less amount of gameplay you will have 100 times deeper connection to the characters, because they are played by professional actors, who were fully motion captured and scanned by state of art equipment. The characters are alive. The little amount of interactive dialogues in Beyond have much more meaning than all dialogues from DA:O and DA2 combined, because you can really feel the characters' emotions.

Beyond has the same RPG elements as Mass Effect, for example. You play a role by choosing dialogue options, and which way the story will be told, what exactly will your charater do in the key moments of the story. Beyond can be called RPG game. And in fact, I like roleplaying Jodie much more than roleplaying Shepard, Warden or Hawke... But I'm not suggesting to turn DA:I into interactive movie here. I'm suggesting to get rid of plans to make a lot of excess things like side quests, unneeded lines in dialogues, and some unneeded skills/gear/features to make dialogues/cutscenes which are only very important for main plot and characters really good by modern standards. That will require a lot of actors work and motion capture.

I'm glad we have different experiences and preferences.

Perhaps you should try playing call of duty, medal of honor and other shooters? They have excellent graphics and drama.

Modifié par Muspade, 03 décembre 2013 - 10:18 .

[Muspade]

w00ts, double postus!

Modifié par Muspade, 03 décembre 2013 - 10:16 .

[AresKeith]

Seival wrote...

Pious_Augustine wrote...

Seival wrote...

In DA:O and DA2 only VOs were made really good, and the characters were nothing more but talking dolls.

Try to play Beyond: Two Souls, and see the difference. With 5 times less amount of gameplay you will have 100 times deeper connection to the characters, because they are played by professional actors, who were fully motion captured and scanned by state of art equipment. The characters are alive. The little amount of interactive dialogues in Beyond have much more meaning than all dialogues from DA:O and DA2 combined, because you can really feel the characters' emotions.

Beyond has the same RPG elements as Mass Effect, for example. You play a role by choosing dialogue options, and which way the story will be told, what exactly will your charater do in the key moments of the story. Beyond can be called RPG game. And in fact, I like roleplaying Jodie much more than roleplaying Shepard, Warden or Hawke... But I'm not suggesting to turn DA:I into interactive movie here. I'm suggesting to get rid of plans to make a lot of excess things like side quests, unneeded lines in dialogues, and some unneeded skills/gear/features to make dialogues/cutscenes which are only very important for main plot and characters really good by modern standards. That will require a lot of actors work and motion capture.

Except I cared far more for the characters in Dragon Age and Mass Effect than the ones in Beyond: Two Souls.

Honestly The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us by Telltale games do a much, much better job at being the type of games that Quantic Dream wants to make. And Telltale doesn't even need to do motion capture in the way Quantic Dream does.

I've seen nothing special in TWD and TWAU. Talking, poorly animated dolls can't give me any strong feelings or even satisfaction from playing.

This is where I no longer care for your posts

[Leo]

Seival wrote...
I've seen nothing special in TWD and TWAU. Talking, poorly animated dolls can't give me any strong feelings or even satisfaction from playing.

And I see nothing remotely fantastic about Beyond: Two Souls, just poor execution of a plot that could be good and isn't despite having two noteworthy or "professional" Actors who use motion capture, and good-looking visuals.

[ruggly]

Have you tried interacting with real, actual people?

[General TSAR]

Seival wrote...
In DA:O and DA2 only VOs were made really good, and the characters were nothing more but talking dolls.
Try to play Beyond: Two Souls, and see the difference. With 5 times less amount of gameplay you will have 100 times deeper connection to the characters, because they are played by professional actors, who were fully motion captured and scanned by state of art equipment. The characters are alive. The little amount of interactive dialogues in Beyond have much more meaning than all dialogues from DA:O and DA2 combined, because you can really feel the characters' emotions.

Bloody Liar. 

I cared more about Colonel Campbell when he was forcibly relieved of duty then I did about Jodie after she killed her mother. Know why? Visual Effects and motion capture are hamster farts if the Story can't hold itself together, B2S Fell Apart after the stupid "black op" mission to kill an African Warlord who is the "Democratically elected President" (but still hangs rivals and fields Child Soldiers) and Jodie has a hissy fit that the CIA lied to her( Really David Cage?).

Beyond has the same RPG elements as Mass Effect, for example. You play a role by choosing dialogue options, and which way the story will be told, what exactly will your charater do in the key moments of the story. Beyond can be called RPG game. And in fact, I like roleplaying Jodie much more than roleplaying Shepard, Warden or Hawke... But I'm not suggesting to turn DA:I into interactive movie here. I'm suggesting to get rid of plans to make a lot of excess things like side quests, unneeded lines in dialogues, and some unneeded skills/gear/features to make dialogues/cutscenes which are only very important for main plot and characters really good by modern standards. That will require a lot of actors work and motion capture.

Stick to Ellen Page's Stalker's Interactive Movies and leave Dragon Age to the people who know what the hell they are doing.

Modifié par General TSAR, 03 décembre 2013 - 11:03 .