122 réponses à ce sujet

[9TailsFox]

Recruit the elves and recruit the dwarves do not lead naturally into the main story and they feel like side quests. The only quest that led into the narrative was to cure Arl Eamon.

I see no problem of motivation. In DA:O and in DA:I. Blight is bad no mater how muhaha evil your warden is. You need army, same Inquisition you need Orlesian army. But DA:O x1000 times better Warden background actually important to story. Human noble Howe must die vengeance . Mage all circle. City elf all alienage main story. I don't play dwarf but one is dwarf prince. Warden feels more connected as part of the world. 

[Spooky81]

The previous games' apparent need to have every conversation be cinematic was extremely expensive from a design standpoint.  That they're willing to give us less cinematic conversations means two things.

 

First, that they're using development resounrces more efficiently.  We get more content that way.

 

Second, that they're willing to present dialogue in a non-cinematic way.  That's a good sign for future development.

 

Seeing as to how cinematics can't fit into the same equation as more conversations, i'd settle for the cinematics and have quality over quantity.

[Al Foley]

You know it took me about three tries to get the point the OP was trying to make.  At first I was like 'Maker's Breath not another one of these threads' considering I think Origins gets way too much praise for a game that I thought...was just barely above average.  Then it was like...'ok what are they talking about?'  till finally I was like 'oh now I get it'.  Even then I was prepared to argue the point vehemently and make counter points how what the OP is describing sounds just as much like Origins as it does Inquisiion.  But then...I realized there is more then a kernal of truth in the post.  

 

Inquisition is, and I say this often but each time it seems to apply, a truly bizarre game for me at times.  I love the game, it is probably in my top five favorites, and I still love the game after reading and agreeing with a lot of the criticisms and having my own...and its a game I still enjoy and think is much, much better then Origins.  But at the same time in thinking about it and the two games I am actually starting to appreciate and like Origins more as a result of playing Inquisition when going back and thinking and comparing the two games side by side.  WTF?  And I think this is one of the reasons because, there were a lot of choices that occured during a lot of the DA O quests that effected the last main choice.  In DAI you get basically one huge main choice at the end of each quest.  Nothing really wrong with this, just from a story telling perspective the Origins approach seems...superior.  

[In Exile]

Well, I agree that those feel like sidequests; even if there are darkspawn running around, they're not what the missions are about. But I don't see how they tie into the main story any worse than curing Arl Eamon does. You need him for his troops, same as you need the elves and dwarves. (You need him for the Landsmeet too, sure, but the PC doesn't know that at the time.) I think you're overreacting to RedMagister a little.

I think its because the landsmeet is tied to Loghain, which is the closest thing DAO comes to having some form of antagonist.

[AlanC9]

Good point. I'm just talking from the PC's perspective. Overall, you could just outright cut the dwarves, elves, or mages without breaking anything else, just as you could cut a planet from KotOR --- but you couldn't cut Redcliffe. The DA:O plot really wouldn't work without the Landsmeet. So Eamon's quest really is more of a main quest than the others.

[Ieldra]

Seeing as to how cinematics can't fit into the same equation as more conversations, i'd settle for the cinematics and have quality over quantity.

As long as the quality of the conversations is good, the visual presentation is secondary. I like the cinematic scenes, but I hate the way they limit the amount of content that's made.

 

Maybe Bioware will develop some tools - or rather improve those they have, I guess it would be - so that they can make those scenes more efficiently.

[Ieldra]

You know it took me about three tries to get the point the OP was trying to make.  At first I was like 'Maker's Breath not another one of these threads' considering I think Origins gets way too much praise for a game that I thought...was just barely above average.  Then it was like...'ok what are they talking about?'  till finally I was like 'oh now I get it'.  Even then I was prepared to argue the point vehemently and make counter points how what the OP is describing sounds just as much like Origins as it does Inquisiion.  But then...I realized there is more then a kernal of truth in the post.  

 

Inquisition is, and I say this often but each time it seems to apply, a truly bizarre game for me at times.  I love the game, it is probably in my top five favorites, and I still love the game after reading and agreeing with a lot of the criticisms and having my own...and its a game I still enjoy and think is much, much better then Origins.  But at the same time in thinking about it and the two games I am actually starting to appreciate and like Origins more as a result of playing Inquisition when going back and thinking and comparing the two games side by side.  WTF?  And I think this is one of the reasons because, there were a lot of choices that occured during a lot of the DA O quests that effected the last main choice.  In DAI you get basically one huge main choice at the end of each quest.  Nothing really wrong with this, just from a story telling perspective the Origins approach seems...superior.  

Thank you for taking the time to read closely

 

I should mention that all of my criticism is made from the baseline position that I love DAI. I wouldn't have put several hundred hours into it if I didn't. I have no problem liking it for all those things it does well, even though other aspects are in serious need of improvement in the next DA game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Seeing as to how cinematics can't fit into the same equation as more conversations, i'd settle for the cinematics and have quality over quantity.

I dispute that cinematics = quality. I would rather ALL of the conversations were of the non-cinematic ambient variety. Like NWN.

There was never any reason to add cinematics to dialogue.

[danielkx]

I dispute that cinematics = quality. I would rather ALL of the conversations were of the non-cinematic ambient variety. Like NWN.

There was never any reason to add cinematics to dialogue.

Shadowrun Dragonfall director's cut has one of the best dialogue systems I have seen.

[In Exile]

Shadowrun Dragonfall director's cut has one of the best dialogue systems I have seen.

I didn't think it was good at all. What impressed you about it?

[danielkx]

I didn't think it was good at all. What impressed you about it?

I thoroughly dislike cinematic conversation systems...even kotor has a system I consider to be too cinematic for my taste (changing the whole screen for the conversation). I really like how in Dragonfall you have the dialog window open up on the right side and your whole screen stays the same as before. Plus I love the way they describe the npc's actions and all that.

 

I also like Skyrim's system to an extent. While in 3rd person view I like how all they do is pop open the dialog window on the right side and then shift the screen towards the npc to focus on them. I do wish they would have made the dialog window a little wider but that isn't a big deal too me.

 

Pretty much I despise any conversation system that results in the game loading a whole new scene for each conversation. It doesn't ruin the whole game for me but I really hate that kind of system and it is unfortunate that so many games use it. 

[Kage]

I agree OP.
DAI has choices for the sake of it, without any sense nor gameplay impact. I was quite enerved by the choice of "now you choose who dies, just because".

The replayability of DAI comes from the options you did in previous games, not of the options you took in DAI. You replay it to see how it goes if Morrigan does not have a child, for example. You dont replay it to see how it goes if you choose to kill XXX in the fade, because you know everything will be the same

[Sylvius the Mad]

I thoroughly dislike cinematic conversation systems...even kotor has a system I consider to be too cinematic for my taste (changing the whole screen for the conversation). I really like how in Dragonfall you have the dialog window open up on the right side and your whole screen stays the same as before. Plus I love the way they describe the npc's actions and all that.

That sounds brilliant. That's how dialogue should work.

The only improvement that springs to mind is leaving the text box there all the time, and let us switch back and forth between using it as a conversation log and a combat log.

[Ieldra]

Given that the dialogue scenes are the only time where I see characters' faces clearly - NPC's and my character's - I would miss them. Bioware attempts to make real conversations, which are about more than just words. I appreciate that. If it wasn't for their persistent attempts to make words insignificant - damned paraphrasing!

[danielkx]

That sounds brilliant. That's how dialogue should work.

The only improvement that springs to mind is leaving the text box there all the time, and let us switch back and forth between using it as a conversation log and a combat log.

For a game like Pillars of Eternity that would be more ideal, unfortunately they are not doing that.

 

But for Shadowrun that wouldn't be as useful. With the turn based combat and the overall style of play, having the combat log take up the same spot wouldn't really make a difference.

[Hiemoth]

Given that the dialogue scenes are the only time where I see characters' faces clearly - NPC's and my character's - I would miss them. Bioware attempts to make real conversations, which are about more than just words. I appreciate that. If it wasn't for their persistent attempts to make words insignificant - damned paraphrasing!

 

Agreed with this, even if I haven't had that much difficulties with the paraphasing. To give praise to DAI, there were more than one dialogue in the game where I felt they had an excellent use of silence to emphasize scenes and reactions, especially with Cassandra, which would be nearly impossible with written dialogue.

 

Actually, to expand on it, this is something I feel DA games have greatly improved on from DAO. Due to the silent protagonist design, almost all the dialogue scenes in DAO were reduced to talking heads. In DA2 they were really able to take advantage of the body language and motion in the dialogue scenes, which I think they further improved on in DAI.

[Nomen Mendax]

The previous games' apparent need to have every conversation be cinematic was extremely expensive from a design standpoint.  That they're willing to give us less cinematic conversations means two things.

 

First, that they're using development resounrces more efficiently.  We get more content that way.

 

Second, that they're willing to present dialogue in a non-cinematic way.  That's a good sign for future development.

Thanks, I think you are more optimistic about future development than me, but only time will tell. 

[Rawgrim]

I think its because the landsmeet is tied to Loghain, which is the closest thing DAO comes to having some form of antagonist.

 

DA:O is more about "preventing a natural disaster" kind of thing, really.

[Zatche]

I dispute that cinematics = quality. I would rather ALL of the conversations were of the non-cinematic ambient variety. Like NWN.

There was never any reason to add cinematics to dialogue.

For me, personally, cinematics help me connect with the characters. I like having "the feels-ugh." I take it you like engaging the game more on an intellectual level than on an emotional one, which is fair.

Cinematics =/= quality, but I do prefer to have them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Thanks, I think you are more optimistic about future development than me, but only time will tell.

No, I'm just less pessimistic. And yes, that is a different thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I take it you like engaging the game more on an intellectual level than on an emotional one,

I prefer engaging with everything on an intellectual level, including emotions.

[Fast Jimmy]

DA:O is more about "preventing a natural disaster" kind of thing, really.

 

Or a super-natural disaster, as it were.

[Ieldra]

I prefer engaging with everything on an intellectual level, including emotions.

I, too, reflect on the emotions triggered by the stories - or in some cases, those the story attempts to appeal to with more or less success and in service of one meme or the other. There is, rather often, a parallel process running in my mind that analyzes things while another part of me follows - or pulls - the story along and is more a part of it. That is, however, different from playing the game as if the emotional level didn't matter, or didn't exist. A conversation is more than an intellectual exercise, and in the most general sense, we - i.e. humans - like stories for the emotions they carry more than for any insghts they might confer.