80 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

People staring blankly at you from several feet away while the camera is even farther away seems artistic to you? Having nothing to keep us focused while even important people drone at us seems artistic to you? Are you a tranquil or something?

 

That's just your opinion. A lot of people, myself included, have expressed that this "artistic decision" is one of the reasons why the game has such poor presentation and why it's so boring.

 

Or are you just being facetious?

I don't like cinematics.  I think they detract from the game by presenting information directly to the player, rather than simply having events occur in a world the player is observing.

 

By implicitly acknowledging the player, cinematics interfere with the player's efforts to inhabit the character.  The player, I think, should perceive the game world from his character's perspective, and only the player is qualified to determine what that perspective is.  If the cinematic designers use camera tricks and post-processing effects to draw the player's attention (as movies do), the the cinematic designer is actively undermining the roleplaying aspect of the roleplaying game.

 

I would prefer not to be consciously aware that I am the player.  The cinematics serve only to remind me that I am.

Are you a tranquil or something?

You're not the first person to ask.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not certain I agree, but I'm curious: what did you like about moving away from the cinematic dialogue? 

It's more what I didn't like about moving toward it.  I never thought it added anything to the game, and it actively undermined my playstyle (as I describe above).

 

Undoing that decision is something I've wanted for some time.  Ever since BioWare first introduced cinematic conversations in KotOR, I've thought it was a mistake.  I'm overjoyed to see even one step back in the other direction.

[Winged Silver]

It's more what I didn't like about moving toward it.  I never thought it added anything to the game, and it actively undermined my playstyle (as I describe above).

 

Undoing that decision is something I've wanted for some time.  Ever since BioWare first introduced cinematic conversations in KotOR, I've thought it was a mistake.  I'm overjoyed to see even one step back in the other direction.

 

Ah I apologize for missing what you said earlier. I have some trouble keeping up with everything that gets posted. I can see where you're coming come. While I'd still like them to include some cinematics, I'm glad you got something out of the current system

[Krypplingz]

 

All this is just part one of Feynriel's long cutscene-rich questline.   *A SIDE QUEST too. Not even part of the main story.* It was awesome and memorable.   

 

I really, really hope we can get content like this again in DA4. 

~ A mandatory side quest. You cannot proceed without it. Maker knows I've tried. 

But you make very good points about how cut scenes can enrich the quest. 

[lil yonce]

To clarify, I do not believe that for every conversation we have, we need to have a fully detailed animation where, through the simple movement of the NPC's eyes, we can see the multiple emotions s/he is feeling at any given moment.

 

On the other hand, I do believe we need to have what we already did which is for the camera to become stationary and to focus on whoever is speaking rather than feeling like it is ten feet away.

 

As in this:
 

 

Rather than this:
 

Its like they spent so much time on the backgrounds and zones that they MUST be shown off at all times. Its very clear priority was on game zones at the expense of character and side quest development (because you can't do it all) unlike its polar opposite DA2. Incidentally, I think DA2 would have had better zones with more dev. time. I don't know what happened to DAI.

[JeffZero]

It isn't.

I hope the move away from cinematic dialogue was an artistic decision, because it was an excellent choice.

 

I hope I win this round and you don't. 

 

>_>;

[CDR Aedan Cousland]

I don't like cinematics.  I think they detract from the game by presenting information directly to the player, rather than simply having events occur in a world the player is observing.

 

By implicitly acknowledging the player, cinematics interfere with the player's efforts to inhabit the character.  The player, I think, should perceive the game world from his character's perspective, and only the player is qualified to determine what that perspective is.  If the cinematic designers use camera tricks and post-processing effects to draw the player's attention (as movies do), the the cinematic designer is actively undermining the roleplaying aspect of the roleplaying game.

 

I would prefer not to be consciously aware that I am the player.  The cinematics serve only to remind me that I am.

 

 

You're not the first person to ask.

 

Do you have a cool forehead brand?

 

I suppose I can respect that point of view. But, I think we're being told everything and having our status as the player pointed out to us--when engaging others--even with the game's current presentation and dialogue. At least with the cinematics, we can have a nicer presentation to somewhat make up for all that, but again it's all just a matter of opinion. Personally, I have a very poor attention span, and without the cut scenes, even characters I liked failed to keep me engrossed in their conversations. Poor Dorian...

 

I'm curious, do you feel the same way about the brief, introductory enemy cut scenes in the previous games?

 

Edit: Also, if we're viewing the world from our character's perspective, wouldn't it be better to have first-person conversations with people like in Oblivion? (Or even Skyrim because that was still better than what we got in DAI, save for when you get attacked by a dragon in the middle of a conversation.) In DAI the camera is so far away that we're really given the perspective of a stalker or something, rather than our character.

[lil yonce]

Edit: Also, if we're viewing the world from our character's perspective, wouldn't it be better to have first-person conversations with people like in Oblivion? (Or even Skyrim because that was still better than what we got in DAI, save for when you get attacked by a dragon in the middle of a conversation.) In DAI the camera is so far away that we're really given the perspective of a stalker or something, rather than our character.

I was thinking exactly this.

[9TailsFox]

Its like they spent so much time on the backgrounds and zones that they MUST be shown off at all times. Its very clear priority was on game zones at the expense of character and side quest development (because you can't do it all) unlike its polar opposite DA2. Incidentally, I think DA2 would have had better zones with more dev. time. I don't know what happened to DAI.

Biggest DA:I problems

Frostbite.

"Open world"

Consoles. especially Xbox 360 and PS3. Bioware said in interview Defend Crestwood or Keep was cut because of console limitations.

Bad design decisions.

More money spend on marketing then actually making game. Well this is game making problem in general.

[JeffZero]

Open world obsession is the biggest problem with the presentation (as has been the case with several games of late, augh) and Frostbite is to blame for all the weird glitches. I definitely agree with those.

[Felya87]

I think the non cinematic dialogues in ME3 didn't felt as distant as in DAI (really, really distant, I'm like "heeeey!!!I'm heeeere!!!! I'm the player!!! The one who should enjoy and interpret one of the people who are talking!!! let me see what is happened!!!I can only hear voices from here!!!) becuse Sheprd's camera was much closer to Shepard, and move tha camera to look better at the character who was was speacking was easier.

[Saphiron123]

It's more what I didn't like about moving toward it.  I never thought it added anything to the game, and it actively undermined my playstyle (as I describe above).

 

Undoing that decision is something I've wanted for some time.  Ever since BioWare first introduced cinematic conversations in KotOR, I've thought it was a mistake.  I'm overjoyed to see even one step back in the other direction.

You live up to your name... they've replaced expressive conversations that made the characters seem real with wooden slightly zoomed ones that have the emotional impact of a conversation in final fantasy 1 for NES. Sure they have complete arms and legs now, but it feels like I'm playing a game from years ago.

NPCs in origins felt more real then npcs in inquisition.

That to me blows immersion out of the water.
 

[Saphiron123]

I know I'm in the minority, but I really and strongly preferred the lack of cinematics. It made the scene flow better. The solution isn't to have further cinematics to get back to that level of connection, but rather to allow us more control over the camera so we can zoom in on those features if we want.

Damn dude, I love the warden, you hate the warden. I loved tactics, you hate tactics. I loved cinematics to make the characters feel real, and you hate those.

You and I would probably fight to the death in real life if we actually met.

[MisterJB]

Consoles. especially Xbox 360 and PS3. Bioware said in interview Defend Crestwood or Keep was cut because of console limitations.

Son of a dragon!

[KaiserShep]

I think the non cinematic dialogues in ME3 didn't felt as distant as in DAI (really, really distant, I'm like "heeeey!!!I'm heeeere!!!! I'm the player!!! The one who should enjoy and interpret one of the people who are talking!!! let me see what is happened!!!I can only hear voices from here!!!) becuse Sheprd's camera was much closer to Shepard, and move tha camera to look better at the character who was was speacking was easier.

 

The non-cinematic dialogue of ME3 is inferior for the simple fact that it's pretty much just autodialogue, with only an occasional pick-a-side option, which I believe only occurs maybe 4 times in the vanilla game. Also, at times Shepard's idle animation keeps going even when engaged in dialogue in these sequences, so she might pull her neck back and roll her shoulders like she's getting tired of standing there listening.

[M_Helder]

My hope was that the lack of cutscenes allowing us to fully view the NPCs we spoke with was due to a limit on resources, rather than some form of artistic direction.

 

I certainly agree that many quests became easily forgettable because we didn't have the opportunity to see with whom we were speaking with. Additionally, even speaking to familiar characters was less fulfilling than it could have been. I often found myself swinging the camera around in boredom while companions spoke to me outside of cutscenes.

So the original Mass Effect did it back in 2007, yet today it's a huge strain on resources? Highly doubt that.

It is a design choice, one that was born from the original DA:Inquisition concept - MMORPG. 


 

[Winged Silver]

So the original Mass Effect did it back in 2007, yet today it's a huge strain on resources? Highly doubt that.

It is a design choice, one that was born from the original DA:Inquisition concept - MMORPG. 


 

 

Ah...I hope not XD

 

I have no idea how resources are allocated between these varying aspects of gameplay, but ME1 suffered from empty (though certainly atmospheric) and occasionally repetitive maps. I think Inquisition tried really hard to get away from that, with mixed levels of success. Even if it does turn out to be a design choice, I really think they can find a better balance in the future, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed for they'll take our feedback into consideration

[Sylvius the Mad]

I suppose I can respect that point of view. But, I think we're being told everything and having our status as the player pointed out to us--when engaging others--even with the game's current presentation and dialogue. At least with the cinematics, we can have a nicer presentation to somewhat make up for all that, but again it's all just a matter of opinion. Personally, I have a very poor attention span, and without the cut scenes, even characters I liked failed to keep me engrossed in their conversations. Poor Dorian...

There's a fundamental difference between how I view myself and how I view other people. My interest in NPCs has a lot to do with the extent to which I can view them in the same way I view myself (or my character). I do this by playing them, and by making decisions on their behalf.

A game like Mass Effect or DA2 which grants me very limited control of the companions virtually ensures that I won't be interested in the companions.

But if I can control what skills they learn, what tactics they employ, what they wear, and what role they play in the party, they will be more real to me. The original BG companions were more real to me than unmodded Fenris or Wrex could ever be.

I'm curious, do you feel the same way about the brief, introductory enemy cut scenes in the previous games?

Yes.

Edit: Also, if we're viewing the world from our character's perspective, wouldn't it be better to have first-person conversations with people like in Oblivion? (Or even Skyrim because that was still better than what we got in DAI, save for when you get attacked by a dragon in the middle of a conversation.) In DAI the camera is so far away that we're really given the perspective of a stalker or something, rather than our character.

No, I don't find that first-person perspective helps (in fact, I play the TES games with a third-person camera whenever possible). The first-person camera denies us the situational awareness of the real world. We lack peripheral vision and directional hearing and the like. I think the third person camera better approximates the situational awareness of the real world.

Ideally, I'd like to have a free-roaming camera all the time, even during conversations, to allow us to approximate the ability to focus on specific details that interest us.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You live up to your name... they've replaced expressive conversations that made the characters seem real with wooden slightly zoomed ones that have the emotional impact of a conversation in final fantasy 1 for NES. Sure they have complete arms and legs now, but it feels like I'm playing a game from years ago.

This is why I like it.

[Felya87]

The non-cinematic dialogue of ME3 is inferior for the simple fact that it's pretty much just autodialogue, with only an occasional pick-a-side option, which I believe only occurs maybe 4 times in the vanilla game. Also, at times Shepard's idle animation keeps going even when engaged in dialogue in these sequences, so she might pull her neck back and roll her shoulders like she's getting tired of standing there listening.

 

Yeah...forgot that. But It was always better than being far away as in DAI, for me  . I usually move Shep and camera so I could look more the characters I was speaking with, than Shepard herself.

[Carmen_Willow]

I enjoy the non-cinematic dialogue. There's more interaction with more NPCs, the world seems more real, more alive, and frankly sometimes cut scene after cut scene after cut scene makes the game feel more like a movie than a game. I enjoyed the change in Skyrim, I enjoyed in Inquisition, and I hope they'll keep using it and save the cut scenes for the major drama.

[Weskerr]

I agree 100%, OP. 

[Medhia_Nox]

Having read the books.. which don't happen to contain cinematics... I'd say that Tyrions speech at his trial was not "why he's important."  Having watched the series... and watching the cinematic adaptation of his speech, while climactic and very well delivered, was again not why I believed Tyrion was important.

 

So I'm not on board the cinematic train... but if they add them in to appease this crowd it wouldn't upset me.

 

@Mister JB:  Those two images that you posted are funny.  I know Cullen is important... and I don't even know who the guy in your cinematic "makes them important" image is.

[CDR Aedan Cousland]

Having read the books.. which don't happen to contain cinematics... I'd say that Tyrions speech at his trial was not "why he's important."  Having watched the series... and watching the cinematic adaptation of his speech, while climactic and very well delivered, was again not why I believed Tyrion was important.

 

So I'm not on board the cinematic train... but if they add them in to appease this crowd it wouldn't upset me.

 

@Mister JB:  Those two images that you posted are funny.  I know Cullen is important... and I don't even know who the guy in your cinematic "makes them important" image is.

 

Would you watch a film where everyone stared blankly while communicating, no expression whatsoever? It's not a fair comparison. Film and books are two completely different forms of media/entertainment.

[Massakkolia]

Having read the books.. which don't happen to contain cinematics... I'd say that Tyrions speech at his trial was not "why he's important."  Having watched the series... and watching the cinematic adaptation of his speech, while climactic and very well delivered, was again not why I believed Tyrion was important.

 

So I'm not on board the cinematic train... but if they add them in to appease this crowd it wouldn't upset me.

 

@Mister JB:  Those two images that you posted are funny.  I know Cullen is important... and I don't even know who the guy in your cinematic "makes them important" image is.

Books are usually filled with detailed descriptions of events, people, environments, inner feelings and so on. Take all that away and you are left with a boring and uninformative book, in which you have no idea of characters' emotional depth or their motivations.

 

Cinematics, for a visual medium like games, is what descriptions are for books. Cinematics breathe life into scenes and deliver us information about the characters we're interacting with. As I pointed out before, at the very least, we should be able to see the faces of NPCs up close. That delivers us information like their approximate age, their attractiveness, perhaps their ethnicity or scars they carry - everything that in a book, is usually written on a page. Facial expressions add a whole new layer of information of their emotional range, and body language yet another layer.  

 

Edit: I should point out that, I'm talking about main stream contemporary video games. I'm aware that text-heavy games like Pillars of Eternity actually utilize descriptions more than cinematics in their characterization. In any case, something has to be used to tell us what kind of people we interact with in a game. Distant camera shot is not enough for me.