371 réponses à ce sujet

[SofaJockey]

Lol. Yes that is one way to put it. Same here. I think it's unreasonable to expect Bioware to continue to do BG after all these years, so I'm prepared to make an effort to embrace changes. But I have to say that Bioware seem to make it difficult for me. Why not six party members? Why voiced protagonist? Why dialogue wheel? Why these movies? What kind of game is it Bioware is trying to make?

 

Interesting questions:

• Unreasonable to expect Bioware to continue to do BG after all these years:
  particularly because it's not Bioware's IP which Dragon Age is so they can do to the world what they want.
  (and it is nearly 20 years later !!)
• Why not six party members? :
  Because I think it's a good balance - one up from ME3,
  six would be cumbersome on screen - BG's six had smaller figures.
• Why voiced protagonist?
  I know there are silent protagonist enthusiasts but most prefer voiced.
  I prefer it for story immersion and I've been a great fan of voiced since ME1
  and the first DA voiced protagonist in DA Orgins DLC.
• Why dialogue wheel?
  No different to a list, there can be 'more' choices if required.
  Elegance, simplicity I think.
• Why these movies?
  The cutscenes?
  I love the story, the chat, the conversation choices.
• What kind of game is it Bioware is trying to make?
  It's an action RPG isn't it with options to go tactical or play real time.
  But story and relationships and agency drive it.
  Works for me.

[Vilegrim]

I often hear about the greatness of Baldur's Gate, which I've yet to experience, but I never hear anything about Neverwinter Nights. Is that game not considered a classic or something? I started with Knights of the Old Republic, and have enjoyed every BioWare game after it, but I don't know much about their early games.

 

 

NWN was a good game..but the BG series was better.  That's ofc simply imho but why talk about 'almost but not quite' when we can talk about the glory that was the Infinity engines games?

[Uccio]

Heck, I miss that when you in BG could sniff the life out of bunch of brigands or orcs as a mage. Just one spell, small whisper and all were dead. Bio has totaly forgotten what kind of characters mages should be.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I disagree with that. They didn't try to do the same game. At all. Not OC. Only one party member at a time, for instance. If anything I'd say they wanted to do something like Diablo crossbred with Dungeon Siege. Awful.

More and more, I think NWN was their best game.

Apparently I value mechanics and UI and character design freedom over story. Which I suppose should suprise me.

[teenparty]

NWN2 improved significantly on that, and it's expansion was the best experience in that particular setting (meaning Forgotten Realms), that I had since Planescape:Torment. 

I love NWN2. The original campaign is one of the most ambituous RPG campaigns ever and the MotB is one of the most original.

[PhroXenGold]

More and more, I think NWN was their best game.

Apparently I value mechanics and UI and character design freedom over story. Which I suppose should suprise me.

 

I could certainly understand people saying that NWN was their best game engine, as the toolbox was a fantasic piece of work and lead to some brilliant mods, but the OC was god awful. Even from the point of view of the things you mention, it didn't really offer that much.

 

 

I love NWN2. The original campaign is one of the most ambituous RPG campaigns ever and the MotB is one of the most original.

 

I could never quite tell what the NWN2 campaign was trying to do. It was so...unoriginal...that at times, I got the feeling that the entire thing as actually meant as a very clever critique of RPG cliches (not something I would put beyond Obsidian). Still, it was pretty fun. Wouldn't call it great, but I did enjoy the two playthroughs I did. MotB on the other hand was the closest Obsidian have gotten to their BIS roots. Utterly brilliant expansion pack. The gameplay was so-so (as all very high level D&D tends to be), but the story was a worthy spiritual successor to PST.

[AlanC9]

I could certainly understand people saying that NWN was their best game engine, as the toolbox was a fantasic piece of work and lead to some brilliant mods, but the OC was god awful. Even from the point of view of the things you mention, it didn't really offer that much.

The original outline for that OC is available somewhere (maybe NWVault?). It's better than the released version IMO. However, it was substantially more linear too, which may be why it was restructured. So the problem Jester mentioned upthread was deliberately added.

I could never quite tell what the NWN2 campaign was trying to do. It was so...unoriginal...that at times, I got the feeling that the entire thing as actually meant as a very clever critique of RPG cliches (not something I would put beyond Obsidian).

I've felt something similar; the companions, in particular, seem to be designed around cliches.

[Jester]

oh no one of these old RPG purists again..

I'm sorry but I'm glad that Bioware has abandoned you guys

not giving a crap about cinematics, lore, story, characters??? You don't belong here man

 

Good thing that games these days have evolved to so much more

You're traying to say, that Planescape:Torment had weak story, lore and characters? Or that Fallout's lore and story are weak?!

Play this game, and then call me back when Dragon Age reaches the level of intricacy and depth to companions presented by Dak'kon. Or romance conversations from Viconia romance in BG2. 

The sad truth is, that while technologically lacking, the writing in old RPGs still holds an undeniable advantage over today's productions.

 

This doesn't mean, that I don't enjoy fully voiced and animated conversations, modern graphics or combat systems - I'm just saying, that old RPGs actually often had better story, characters and lore than modern games. So saying that we "don't give crap" about those elements is just false. 

[Borosini]

What kind of game is it Bioware is trying to make?

 

A good one.

 

You're traying to say, that Planescape:Torment had weak story, lore and characters? Or that Fallout's lore and story are weak?!

Play this game, and then call me back when Dragon Age reaches the level of intricacy and depth to companions presented by Dak'kon. Or romance conversations from Viconia romance in BG2. 

The sad truth is, that while technologically lacking, the writing in old RPGs still holds an undeniable advantage over today's productions.

 

This doesn't mean, that I don't enjoy fully voiced and animated conversations, modern graphics or combat systems - I'm just saying, that old RPGs actually often had better story, characters and lore than modern games. So saying that we "don't give crap" about those elements is just false. 

 

Your personal opinion on a subjective matter has nothing to do with "truth" or fact.

[Jester]

Your personal opinion on a subjective matter has nothing to do with "truth" or fact.

I beg to differ. Comparing the quality of writing and depth of characters in Planescape:Torment to say, DA2 is like comparing level design in Bioshock and Battlefield 3 Singleplayer. One is objectively better than the other. One can argue that whether one game is better than the other is subjective, but then again, I didn't make such a comparison. I compared particular elements of said games.

And even if so, the opinion of customers on the product determines its quality. So:

 

http://www.metacriti...nescape-torment

http://www.metacriti...me/pc/fallout-2

 

For comparison:

http://www.metacriti...gon-age-origins

http://www.metacriti...0/dragon-age-ii

 

 

When one game receives more favorable opinions than the other, than it's a better game. There is no other way to determine it's quality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

oh no one of these old RPG purists again..
I'm sorry but I'm glad that Bioware has abandoned you guys
not giving a crap about cinematics, lore, story, characters??? You don't belong here man

Good thing that games these days have evolved to so much more

Can you roleplay in these games? Can you design your character's personality and then implement it in the game? When you choose a dialogue option, do you know exactly why your character is going to say that?

That's all I want from these games. They can have cinematics and the rest if they want, as long as they offer that core roleplaying component.

They are, after all, roleplaying games.

[Sasie]

I always been a bit of a purist but I used to think the dialog wheel had some great potential when it first showed up in Mass effect 1/2. The starting scene in Mass effect 1 still makes me feel like I'm playing a movie where I have the choices to take it in the direction I want, sadly the sequels failed to live up to that.

I played quite a few older styled games of late with full dialog trees instead of the dialog wheel and I find them much more immersive. Even the "Let me ask you about/Lets discuss" option before going through a set of options are much better then the explore option in the dialog wheel conversations. Clicking on explore five times before making my decision sort of feels like pausing the dialog mid conversation instead of making the conversations more natural. I'm not going to pretend the old styled is perfect but the issue becomes so much more obvious when every line is voiced.

[Bellethiel]

oh no one of these old RPG purists again..

I'm sorry but I'm glad that Bioware has abandoned you guys

not giving a crap about cinematics, lore, story, characters??? You don't belong here man

 

Good thing that games these days have evolved to so much more

Did you even play these old games though? 

If no, you are unable to compare or form a legit opinion in the matter.

 

And yeah games have evolved but question is if in good direction.

[bEVEsthda]

 

Interesting questions:

• Unreasonable to expect Bioware to continue to do BG after all these years:
  particularly because it's not Bioware's IP which Dragon Age is so they can do to the world what they want.
  (and it is nearly 20 years later !!)
• Why not six party members? :
  Because I think it's a good balance - one up from ME3,
  six would be cumbersome on screen - BG's six had smaller figures.
• Why voiced protagonist?
  I know there are silent protagonist enthusiasts but most prefer voiced.
  I prefer it for story immersion and I've been a great fan of voiced since ME1
  and the first DA voiced protagonist in DA Orgins DLC.
• Why dialogue wheel?
  No different to a list, there can be 'more' choices if required.
  Elegance, simplicity I think.
• Why these movies?
  The cutscenes?
  I love the story, the chat, the conversation choices.
• What kind of game is it Bioware is trying to make?
  It's an action RPG isn't it with options to go tactical or play real time.
  But story and relationships and agency drive it.
  Works for me.

 

 

Well, you can do the same kind of game without using any particular IP.

But it is reasonable to expect attempts to improve on things. In the case of the paths that Bioware have chosen, it is so far, IMO kinda a zero-sum development. Though it's reasonable to expect 3D and enhanced definition.

 

Cumbersome on the screen? Nah, I don't buy that. I would assume it's partly because of performance reasons, when trying to make the game more action'esque on the old consoles. And partly due to the change in how to balance the encounters. In later games, each battle is a compact unit and starts with everything reset, and is thus a constant. This lessens the role play experience considerably IMO. But it aligns better with the 'Space Invader' paradigm's ideal, which I gather is very dear to players coming from a console background, as well as many game designers. Interestingly, it seems DA:I will revert back to something more BG'ish in this regard, where a succession of battles will affect each other.

 

I don't think it's a verified fact that most prefer voiced. As for immersion, those who prefer silent do so for a similar reason, i.e. voiced breaks their immersion. It does that because they experience the game in a different way. But this battle is lost, for now.

 

A dialogue wheel is different from a list of explicit lines. DA2 with its many surprises demonstrates that very clearly. Also, since we cannot preview the exact line, we cannot make it our character's line before it's spoken. It's alien.

 

What does movies have to do with story, chat and conversation choices? Surely you're not saying these things don't exist in games as well as in movies? Why do we have to have the movie version of these things? Unless, of course that is exactly what you want, watch movies.

 

I agree with another commentor, They are trying to make a good game. The best they can. It will be interesting to play. But they have managed to divide their audience. Will they bridge that? Or will they go for justifying DA2, by making a good such game? It seems they've thrown in some bridges. I'll go for that.

[theflyingzamboni]

Can you roleplay in these games? Can you design your character's personality and then implement it in the game? When you choose a dialogue option, do you know exactly why your character is going to say that?

That's all I want from these games. They can have cinematics and the rest if they want, as long as they offer that core roleplaying component.

They are, after all, roleplaying games.

I've actually found that I can roleplay just fine in these games. Voiced protagonists and dialogue wheels and even line synopsis have not significantly impacted my ability to roleplay characters as I wish. I can still come up with the intended thought process behind the words, add flavor of meaning that the literal words don't capture (just like I did in older RPGs), and add any imaginary in-between interaction that I want.

In absolute terms, you don't get as many response option variations as when there was no voice, but I've found that the writers are clever enough in their writing to usually give me everything I need to say in those fewer options. So overall I feel like I've gained extra immersion at the cost of next to nothing in developing my characters. A worthwhile exchange to my mind. Obviously your mileage may vary, but I just wanted to put out there that the idea that the roleplaying is overall weaker in these more recent games is not an objective reality. Unless someone wants to tell me that my opinion on my own ability to roleplay in these different games is wrong.

[Borosini]

I beg to differ. Comparing the quality of writing and depth of characters in Planescape:Torment to say, DA2 is like comparing level design in Bioshock and Battlefield 3 Singleplayer. One is objectively better than the other. One can argue that whether one game is better than the other is subjective, but then again, I didn't make such a comparison. I compared particular elements of said games.

 

*snip*

 

And even if so, the opinion of customers on the product determines its quality. [...] When one game receives more favorable opinions than the other, than it's a better game. There is no other way to determine it's quality.

 

Even if breaking something down into its component parts for comparison somehow removes subjectivity from the equation (which I contest), "quality of writing" is not data that can be compared objectively. It, like anything else creative, artistic, or literary, boils down to taste, regardless of whether that taste is informed or uninformed. I would prefer taste to be informed, but that is not always possible—and it is only my preference.

 

And as someone who works in a creative field, I have big problems with your assertion that public opinion is the sole determining factor of quality. How many people would rather listen to Top 50 radio than a Mozart opera, or view a Thomas Kinkade painting as opposed to Mondrian? There are many reasons why the latter of each pair could be considered "better quality," but that isn't necessarily borne out by size of audience. I have strong belief in the kind of music that I create, and in the genre's "quality," but my and my colleagues' audience is relatively small in comparison to that of other musics. So is our music, then, worse? Is my artistry of lesser quality? Since we're working on objective terms and all. Despite being informed by nearly a decade of academic study and professional performing experience, is my taste simply bad?

 

My point: Just because you appreciate certain aspects of craftsmanship and/or artistic endeavor more than you do other styles does not mean your favored approach is inherently superior. The strengths of one do not diminish the strengths of another, and your taste is not the same as everyone else's taste.

 

An unrelated note: in the links you provide, the sample size for DA2 is much larger, by a factor of about 4, than the sample size for the other three games. Interpret that how you will, but I can imagine several plausible reasons why that might be the case.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Unless someone wants to tell me that my opinion on my own ability to roleplay in these different games is wrong.

Of course not. It perhaps means that your approach to roleplaying is different from mine.

I seem to need to know my character's motives for saying something before he says it. Waiting until afterward (when the line has already been spoken) is far more computationally complex, as I need to take into account every single thing that character has ever done to ensure internal consistency.

I also want to be in control of any and all character development, so I won't explain away contradictions by saying that my character's views have evolved.

I will allow that he's trying to mislead people though, but I find it basically impossible to keep a secret with the paraphrase system.

Also, with the voice, I can't seem to play against type. I can't be afraid or unheroic. I can be inappropriately flamboyant or disinterested. I can't break the game's story with my character design, and I really enjoy doing that. Seeing just how much I can subvert things is fun.

[PhroXenGold]

A dialogue wheel is different from a list of explicit lines. DA2 with its many surprises demonstrates that very clearly. Also, since we cannot preview the exact line, we cannot make it our character's line before it's spoken. It's alien.

 

On the other hand, having just the text means that you can't tell what the tone is, which is just as flawed. I've recently finished a playthrough of DA:O and there were a fair few times when, based on the text being excessive and downright ridiculous, I naturally assumed the Warden was being sarcastic, only to discover that, based on other character's reactions, apparently the line was actually completely serious.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Oh, and I find that cinematics actively interfere with immersion by changing how I interact with the game. If my character is distracted by a cute bunny in the background, I don't want the scene to use depth of field effects or camera movement to direct my attention elsewhere. Ideally, I'd like to retain camera control during cutscenes and conversation. Let me look wherever I think my character would.

I should be an active participant in every part of the game. Never should I be just reacting to what the game does.

[Sylvius the Mad]

On the other hand, having just the text means that you can't tell what the tone is, which is just as flawed. I've recently finished a playthrough of DA:O and there were a fair few times when, based on the text being excessive and downright ridiculous, I naturally assumed the Warden was being sarcastic, only to discover that, based on other character's reactions, apparently the line was actually completely serious.

No, all that means is that the characters didn't acknowledge the sarcasm. Either because they didn't notice it, or because they didn't want to acknowledge it.

We can't read their minds. We don't know why they did what they did. If you wanted the lines to bw sarcastic, they were sarcastic. Your mistake was in trying to determine what tone the game (or the writers) thought those lines had. They didn't have a tone at all - they're just text. They only gain a tone when you add one.

These is demonstrably no tone accompanying the full text lines of a silent protagonist games.

[theflyingzamboni]

Of course not. It perhaps means that your approach to roleplaying is different from mine.

I seem to need to know my character's motives for saying something before he says it. Waiting until afterward (when the line has already been spoken) is far more computationally complex, as I need to take into account every single thing that character has ever done to ensure internal consistency.

I also want to be in control of any and all character development, so I won't explain away contradictions by saying that my character's views have evolved.

I will allow that he's trying to mislead people though, but I find it basically impossible to keep a secret with the paraphrase system.

Also, with the voice, I can't seem to play against type. I can't be afraid or unheroic. I can be inappropriately flamboyant or disinterested. I can't break the game's story with my character design, and I really enjoy doing that. Seeing just how much I can subvert things is fun.

You know, it's odd. The paraphrase system doesn't keep me from deciding motives and intent ahead of time. It's not perfect, of course. Sometimes something unexpected will come out and I'll go back and redo it, but generally they match my expectations so I still feel comfortable make those decisions about character intent ahead of time. I totally understand that making it more difficult to do so, though. At the end of the day, I would prefer full text for at least the lead-off sentence, but the paraphrasing doesn't usually impact me. My character's personalities still evolve at my own whim. I guess it's just some fundamental difference in mental process, as you said.

As for the latter, I can understand that. I think it just works for me because generally characters I roleplay tend to keep those fears and doubts away from the public. Leaders don't show their fears, no matter how great. That kind of thing. All of those come out for me in internal character monologue and imagined conversation with party members. That hasn't changed for me between text- and voice-based RPGs, so for me I never lost the opportunity for that. Again, that difference in roleplaying approach. Which I'd say is the really cool thing about RPGs.

[Sylvius the Mad]

<p>

[*]Why dialogue wheel?
No different to a list, there can be 'more' choices if required.
Elegance, simplicity I think.

It's very different from a list. Because of its position in the middle of the screen, it forces the displayed options to be shorter. We now get far less information about what the protagonist will say (and thus less control).

[AlanC9]

No, all that means is that the characters didn't acknowledge the sarcasm. Either because they didn't notice it, or because they didn't want to acknowledge it.

We can't read their minds. We don't know why they did what they did. If you wanted the lines to bw sarcastic, they were sarcastic. Your mistake was in trying to determine what tone the game (or the writers) thought those lines had. They didn't have a tone at all - they're just text. They only gain a tone when you add one.

These is demonstrably no tone accompanying the full text lines of a silent protagonist games.

You're sounding a bit more dogmatic here than I think you intend to. Not everyone subscribes to this method of interpretation, and I'm certain that you're aware of that.

[PhroXenGold]

No, all that means is that the characters didn't acknowledge the sarcasm. Either because they didn't notice it, or because they didn't want to acknowledge it.

We can't read their minds. We don't know why they did what they did. If you wanted the lines to bw sarcastic, they were sarcastic. Your mistake was in trying to determine what tone the game (or the writers) thought those lines had. They didn't have a tone at all - they're just text. They only gain a tone when you add one.

These is demonstrably no tone accompanying the full text lines of a silent protagonist games.

 

Except when something is said sarcastically, it is usually pretty clear (the only misunderstandings tend to come when dealing with other cultures where sarcasm is delivered differently). Therefore to have characters who would know if I was being sarcastic react as if I wasn't means that it wasn't sarcastic. No matter how much i wanted my character to deliver the line which appeared to be sarcastic in that manner, he didn't. In conversation, tone is just as important as the actual words, and as such a system which doesn't allow to to see and select the tone used is just as flawed as one which doesn't allow you to see the exact words used.