I remember that the reason they gave for non cinematics was that it enabled them to give you more conversations as you are just using what's running then instead of setting up custom zoomed in models.
While I do like more options to chat, as others have said zooming in to see them closely instead of hovering up on the ceiling would have been better.
@CDR Aedan Cousland: When I watch a film, vast parts of my brain are turned off. It's a medium that feeds you your thoughts. It has its place, and I enjoy it for what it is.
Books engage the mind and require you to process the information you're digesting into mental imagery.
Video games fall somewhere in between being spoonfed to you and requiring you to use your imagination. Cinematics are only really enjoyable for me when they're presented from a viewpoint of an outside observer. Like Loghain's cutscenes with Howe, or Cassandra and Varric.
When it involves my character I simply edit them to better suit my mental imagery as I have no interest in being told what my character is doing.
I don't really have a problem with the non-cinematic dialogue. I think there are too many people/characters for them to implement cinematics for each one. It doesn't really matter how important/unimportant each person is. For example, I don't think they should have had to implement cinematic dialogue for the people in Haven/Skyhold such as Segritt, Threnn, Adan, and the others. That's especially true for me when you reach Skyhold and Threnn, for example, only has one line.
That's also true for me when it comes to the companions/advisors. They should just do what they did. Implement cinematic dialogue for the more important conversations with Cullen for example and when you're asking him about more trivial subjects cinematics aren't necessary. Or what about the times when I go to talk to a companion/advisor and the only option is "Goodbye'?
I think Mass Effect 2 struck a very good balance between non-important character dialog and cinematic touches. Most interactions felt meaningful - even those that consisted of side-quests. The Quarian slave on Illium would've never been committed to memory had it not been for the exchanges between my Sheppard and the characters involved; same for Nassana Dantius, and "The Messenger" of the Rachni. I can't say the same for most NPCs in DA:I that weren't part of the main quest. I found it to be a huge error that the Mayor of Crestwood didn't even get a cinematic conversation in spite of how important his questline ended up being. You'd think something like that would've deserved more quality screen-time =/
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.
Sure, but that's an argument against a silent protagonist, not a zoomed in-cutscene camera. The fact that there are no animations in conversations is a different issue from a special dialogue camera.
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.
I think that to some degree, this whole issue with the non-cinematic view of DA:I's dialogue is a bit exaggerated. Like, in your example of Tyrion's speech, if Inquisition had a similar moment, it would not have been a distant view like the examples used here. Any sequence of dialogue that is more dramatic, or is a heart-to-heart moment with a companion, tend to have the shot/reverse shot format that people are familiar with, while the non-cinematic stuff tends to be the more mundane dialogue that would likely not be any more expressive if we got closeups of their faces. This is especially true of the various NPC's we come across.
I have to say also, there is a hint of irony when considering how valued party banter is, which is the epitome of distant view dialogue. We don't even get to see the companions' faces when they speak to each other most of the time, yet we like it so much. No one ever seems to say that banter should trigger some cut scene to show the companions making gestures at each other.
@KaiserShep: That would drive me nuts if it went to cutscreen for party banter.
In fact - I really liked the "on the move" dialogue (where you get to chose dialogue options while still playing) - but they only did it two or three times which I found really disappointing.
Retour en haut