197 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The "problem" with what you're suggesting is that Bioware would be writing (and, recording--and recording for male and female voices--possible different voices for different races) NINE different lines for each single point of dialog. We already have three, which is way, way more expensive than the norm of one (partially because it's three, partially because they tend to require slightly different responses to them).

You're talking about costs skyrocketing, absolutely skyrocketing. I bet Bioware has a hard enough time justifying three lines for the same point of dialog.

For the record, the WRITING isn't the cost prohibitive part.

Bioware has stated previously they could never have made BG 1 or 2 today, simply because the lines of dialogue they created would have been prohibitively expensive to voice. But they could write it within budget, no problem.

"Too many options" is really only a limitation of a voiced game, not a silent one.

[Veruin]

su lu pi wrote...

Or just here me out on this.. use a voiceless protagonist.

Unfortunately, voiced protags are pretty much expected by the majority.  The BSN is a big minority compared to rest of the potential audience.

[Sully13]

Hope they use my Sue Polard sugestion then.

[Fast Jimmy]

Veruin wrote...

su lu pi wrote...

Or just here me out on this.. use a voiceless protagonist.

Unfortunately, voiced protags are pretty much expected by the majority.  The BSN is a big minority compared to rest of the potential audience.

Which is why I support Pillars of Eternity.

So much more can be done with a text-based game than a cinematic one. Voiced characters with cutscene animations are insanely limited.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 04 janvier 2014 - 01:30 .

[Sully13]

Jimmy what do you thing about Fallout 4 having a voiced PC?

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Did they specifically state that the writing would be prohibitive? because I recall statements of Gaider's about things like writing budgets.

It's been too long since I read the interview (it was post DA:O, pre DA2 and I feel like not on the BSN). 

That being said, going through a text parser is insanely easier and less resource intensive than having a writer create the dialogue, have the VA voice the lines, have the animators implement lip animations and gestures and the cinematic designer make sure how the overall scene is set and plays out. I'd assume there were writing budgets, but they likely were about equal with the animation budgets... and they didn't even likely HAVE a cinematic designer role, let alone department. And the VA's work was done primarily by a handful of people for only a handful of lines.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. Bioware has hung their hat, and they're not changing their mind. I'll happily agree that unvoiced is better than voiced, that unvoiced allows greater role-playing ability--but that discussion is pointless. If we're talking about costs, we really shouldn't consider them from a premise that we know will not happen again (with this company, at least).

I know... it just confounds me a little. If you are a company who {url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114127-Game-Devs-Vote-Baldurs-Gate-Best-Game-of-All-Time]many claim made one of the best games of all time[/url], yet you are now embracing a method that wouldn't even let you have made that game, what does that say? It's one thing to say "we wouldn't make Baldur's Gate again because it would never sell" or even "we wouldn't want to make a game on that scale because we wouldn't do it justice" but literally "the new way we do things would make this game impossible to make." 

That's... either extremely unfortunate bordering on tragic or just plain idiocy.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Which is why I support Pillars of Eternity.

So much more can be done with a text-based game than a cinematic one. Voiced characters with cutscene animations are insanely limited.

Just want to point out--calling a cinematic game "limited" is like calling a painting style that only uses oils "limited."

Some might only see limitations, but a creator sees the freedom those limitations bring.

True, but if using oil based paints means you can only paint portraits, instead of painting the entire ceiling of the Ceistine Chapel, then I think many would agree that the oil based paints were limiting to your work's scale and depth.

[Fast Jimmy]

su lu pi wrote...

Jimmy what do you thing about Fallout 4 having a voiced PC?

Voiced PC wars... war never changes.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
 It's one thing to say "we wouldn't make Baldur's Gate again because it would never sell" or even "we wouldn't want to make a game on that scale because we wouldn't do it justice" but literally "the new way we do things would make this game impossible to make." 

That's... either extremely unfortunate bordering on tragic or just plain idiocy.

Think about it. BG had..what. Six races? Eight classes? With more in BG2?

Hell, there's nothing in the way of D&D games these days period. I don't count MMOs, so there hasn't been one since 2008 and that was an NWN2 expansion.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I know... it just confounds me a little. If you are a company who {url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114127-Game-Devs-Vote-Baldurs-Gate-Best-Game-of-All-Time]many claim made one of the best games of all time[/url], yet you are now embracing a method that wouldn't even let you have made that game, what does that say? It's one thing to say "we wouldn't make Baldur's Gate again because it would never sell" or even "we wouldn't want to make a game on that scale because we wouldn't do it justice" but literally "the new way we do things would make this game impossible to make." 

That's... either extremely unfortunate bordering on tragic or just plain idiocy.

There was a comment made by In Exile in the last day or so about the fans having a strong attraction to BG that Bioware doesn't appear to share...

They probably see it as just another in a long line. And, to be honest, artistes have a history of both hating and trying to deviate (because the work overshadows them) from their material that becomes insanely popular...

Eh.

Words.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Bioware has stated previously they could never have made BG 1 or 2 today, simply because the lines of dialogue they created would have been prohibitively expensive to voice. But they could write it within budget, no problem.

Don't forget that it's not just voicing NPCs that's costly - it's animating them in a meaningful way, and having them react meaningfully to characters. Look at New Vegas: there is no interaction with you, as the PC, on any meaningful emotional level. People are friends, antagonists, etc. 

So much more can be done with a text-based game than a cinematic one. Voiced characters with cutscene animations are insanely limited

There can be a lot more content, but you have a much poorer game (generally) in terms of any meaningful dimension of human interaction. 

If you want a game that's reactive to you as the PC, then a text-based game is a failure at that. Not even the best game at introducing colour via the PC - Vampire the Masquare: Bloodlines - succeeds in creating any level of personal connection between the PC and other NPCs, save maybe your ghoul (though for reasons extrinsic to dialogue). 

Modifié par In Exile, 04 janvier 2014 - 02:15 .

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Eh.

Words.

Lol.

Think about it though--no one wants to be defined by what they did ten years ago, by people saying, "yeah, they're still doing that, but MORE of it!" They want to wow in new ways.

Fair enough... although it should be noted that Bioware is a company (or, well, WAS a company, is now a division, but whatever)... and the same people don't work in the company that used to. And for those who do, many weren't in the same roles as they were back when the BG games were being created. You have different people calling the shots, so none of the games made by Bioware were made by the same people making the calls today. So it's not even "their" success they are trying to escape from out underneath.

If that makes sense. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 04 janvier 2014 - 02:18 .

[In Exile]

CybAnt1 wrote...

I'm not saying that was a DA:O dialogue tree, but it does show that a dialogue tree can have more complexity than a wheel with a bunch of short phrases "paraphrasing" what your character is about to say.

No, it doesn't. It shows that a list with 10 options has more options than a wheel with 3 options. But a wheel can easily show more - and very often does. I wish there was a picture with what the dialogue wheel in ME1 on Feros looks like: there are 12 options that Shepard has, between all of the "Investigate" options. 

And, frankly, that's 95% of all RPG dialogue in every game not made by Bioware or PS:T. 

 I know, call me crazy, but I really want to actually dialogue with people in an RPG using complex words that express complex thoughts, not just pick from "jokey, peaceful, mad."

It's funny you say that, because in no isometric RPG is this ever an option. In fact, most RPGs don't even allow you to express thoughts at all - just ask questions and agree to take on questions in a variant of 2 different ways. 

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

There can be a lot more content, but you have a much poorer game (generally) in terms of any meaningful dimension of human interaction. 

If you want a game that's reactive to you as the PC, then a text-based game is a failure at that. Not even the best game at introducing colour via the PC - Vampire the Masquare: Bloodlines - succeeds in creating any level of personal connection between the PC and other NPCs, save maybe your ghoul (though for reasons extrinsic to dialogue). 

I'll just say we disagree on this. Saying text is ineffective at eliciting human reactions is like saying books are inferior to movies in every way possible. That's just not true.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I'll just say we disagree on this. Saying text is ineffective at eliciting human reactions is like saying books are inferior to movies in every way possible. That's just not true.

I didn't say "text is ineffective at eliciting human reactions". I said that text-based RPGs have, so far, failed completely at creating any emotional linkages between the Protagonist - who is often not even treated like a person in the game world, but a violent object to solve quests - and the various NPCs. 

A book does a lot of work to describe things like expression, emotions, feelings, etc. A movie shows it. A book is not a screenplay. But a text-based RPG is a lot like a pared down screenplay, representing just the script (because all you have is the dialogue - you have no cues about expression, emotion, etc). 

[rasloveszev]

I'm guessing I'm the only one who liked the dialouge wheel? Unlike Origins, the Dialouge Wheel kind of shows you how your answer will be perceived and allows you to task futher questions. While with the Dialouge tree you don't know what to expect.

[In Exile]

rasloveszev wrote...

I'm guessing I'm the only one who liked the dialouge wheel? Unlike Origins, the Dialouge Wheel kind of shows you how your answer will be perceived and allows you to task futher questions. While with the Dialouge tree you don't know what to expect.

No, I very much liked this part of the wheel. I can still list of a number of times in DA:O where the text-based answer just doesn't make sense unless you read it exactly the way the author intended in terms of what effect it has when it's chosen. 

More importantly, the list is structurally nonsense because some options "move" the conversation forward by preventing you from choosing other questions for no apparente reason other than the fact that the game treats some responses as "move forward" and other as "investigate options" without telling you which. And that's just plan bad design.