And I prefer RP in a RPG. Main story and quest cut-scenes are generally fine, but are also plentiful enough on their own without the need to emplace them for secondary tasks.
And I love role playing as well, but why on earth does giving you camera control give you any type of role playing aspect ?
And I love role playing as well, but why on earth does giving you camera control give you any type of role playing aspect ?
Not only camera control, but dialogue choices, too. In cut-scenes, the story is told from the Dev's perspective; prefer to maintain control over the PC, and not waste the added expense required for minor quests.
What about ME2, or ME1, you had no camera control but still lots of dialogue choices, or hell, what about DA:O ?
I don't see how cut-scenes prevents the developer from giving you dialogue choices, just stop the frame and boom, dialogue choices.
The ME series has several lengthy cut-scenes with speeches, dialogue with NPC's, etc, and the Player has no control over many of the lines. Some scenes have rather silly interrupts which adds to the lack of immersion by reminding the Player of a game mechanic.
Cut-scenes should be used sparingly like a spice to accent and make a better story; not become the story. Hopefully this experiment in DAI will prove beneficial, and will see the like again, though perhaps with better camera focus.
But does this mean you must have constant control over your character, for every piece of dialogue ?
Yes, ME1 and 2 had lengthy cut-scenes where Shepard would talk without dialogue choices but when that happened, Bioware, most of the time, ensured what Shepard was saying wasn't too character defining and remained something a Shepard would say.
I feel like DA:I is in one extreme of the spectrum while ME3 is on the opposite. DA:I has little cut scenes and little moment where your Inquisitor has speeches. My problem with that is, everything I listed in the above posts plus the consequence that, I feel, it rendered the Inqui less interesting. On the opposite side, ME3 went far too far in the cinematics and we were now playing the writers Shepard with all the painful auto-dialogue that would some time contradict what you were role playing. Terrible.
So to me, ME1, ME2, and DA2 (I don't count DAO as it had a silent protagonist, therefore giving it a huge edge) where in the middle of it all, allowing for cinematic and story driven cut scenes but still giving you control and allowing to role play.
That is what I'm hoping to see in the next Dragon Age.
And I though the interrupt system was really good. You and I both know we are playing a game so does it matter if you are reminded ? Doesn't the dialogue wheel also do that ?
I think the spice analogy isn't very correct, to me, cinematics should be the bone of the story, the tool that is used to provide the story to the player.
@user: @Mike_Laidlaw Would you say that The Descent is heavy on story?
Mike Laidlaw@Mike_Laidlaw: @user Heavy is a loaded term. It certainly has one.
@user: @Mike_Laidlaw Awesome!!! Sorry for putting it that way. Didn't mean it to be loaded. Just wanted to know if it has story. Thank You.
Mike Laidlaw@Mike_Laidlaw: @user It does! “Heavy” is subjective, and I’m leery of over promising. It’s too easy to get excited about your team’s stuff!
@user: @Mike_Laidlaw Thank You! One last question if you can answer. Was the lack of cutscenes in DA:I a design choice or resource constraint?
Mike Laidlaw@Mike_Laidlaw: @user It was an experiment. We wanted to try simpler conversation presentation for non-critical conversations.
Mike Laidlaw@Mike_Laidlaw: @user There were, in fact, rather a LOT of cutscenes, so the “lack of cutscenes” phrasing has always bothered me.
Sorry, but have been asking for cut-backs on cut-scenes for some time. DAI is a healthy step forward. Or backward, if folks that compare it to BG are correct.
Main quests and linked side quests are generally fine, but prefer no cut-scenes for minor content.
From the Twitter thread:
Well, for all the reasons I stated above, I believe you are wrong and to me, this was a step in the very wrong direction. I haven't played BG sadly as it is not my style of gameplay but to me it feels like a wrong regression.
Why is it ok to have cut-scenes in main-quests but not in side-quests ? From what you are saying, does it mean you don't mind less role playing in the main quest ?
Well, what you linked from the twitter thread does worry me, though they did say the lack of cut-scenes was an experiment so I do hope it doesn't stick. Also I think Mr. Laidlaw doesn't understand that what people mean by the lack of cut-scenes is it's proportion compared to the rest of the game. There might be 10 hours of cut-scenes but in a 100 hours + game, that's a poor ratio.
In the end, I hope both of us can be pleased with the next Dragon Age, we shall see in a few years I guess 
I prefer having cut scenes and closer interaction with the characters - it drives me mad trying to adjust the 'floating' camera to try and see the face of the person I'm talking to.
It's also glaringly obvious that the characters have no expressions - and I dislike that. One example of this is when I was speaking with Cullen in Skyhold, the dialogue had him a little shy and he laughed - but when you 'zoom' closer, his expression doesn't change at all and so doesn't match the dialogue. It's little bits like that which make it harder for me to engage with the NPC's of the world.
I have to agree with the OP. I love Inquisition, but it does lack the attention to detail that made the first two games great. The main course was delicious, but there were no side dishes, or even a beverage. I would like to see the next game return to a slightly more focused experience. I'm a big Elder Scrolls fan, but that scale is only partially successful in a Dragon Age game. I think Origins struck a nearly perfect balance between scope and detail.
I feel like I have to almost spam this post, for all the discussion it's getting recently and because people are getting terms confused, because they each have their own idea of what "cutscene" means. This is what I had to say about it in another thread, with the bolded part especially important to this conversation:
My problem with the lack of cinematic conversation (primarily for NPCs) is twofold:
First, neither your character, the party, nor the NPC in question will have any facial expression. I don't think I have to explain how that is bad for storytelling.
Second, you can't get a good look at the NPC's face at all, naturally making them forgettable.
On a related note: People like to confuse "cutscenes" with "cinematic conversation". No, I'm not asking for full-blown cutscenes for every interaction, complete with tons of animations and camera angles. I'm just asking for cinematic conversation, à la DA:O camp conversations. Simple over-the-shoulder camera angles so we could see faces. So I hope they go back to DA:O/DA2's system of having that in almost every interaction. It was a lot of work I'm sure, but it was impressive and added a lot to the games. I think they should strive to do at least as well in the future.
Can anyone give me a specific DA:I example of a cutscene and of a cinematic conversation. Not sure I understand the discussion.
Can anyone give me a specific DA:I example of a cutscene and of a cinematic conversation. Not sure I understand the discussion.
Cut-scene: Singing before getting to Skyhold
Cinematic conversation: Speaking to Josephine about visitors.
It's possible I'm confused about when you're talking about, but if you mean asking if there are "any visiting dignitaries I should watch out for" then no, that's not a cinematic conversation. It's a "simple" conversation, according to the hints in DA:I.
Can anyone give me a specific DA:I example of a cutscene and of a cinematic conversation. Not sure I understand the discussion.
Elhanan already answered an example of a cutscene (basically stuff that has a lot of movement and animation), but you won't really find any cinematic conversations in DA:I, because they elected to replace them with "simple conversations", as in the ones that are zoomed out and spend your time turning the camera trying to find a proper angle while also being able to hear them, because the audio is stupid like that
An example of cinematic conversation is any given camp conversation in DA:O. They'll have over-the-shoulder angles so you can see faces, and switch angles for who is speaking, just like a cutscene, only simpler. They'll also have facial expressions, but not much movement. Actually, I guess an example of one in DA:I would be the War Table discussions. Not the banter, but the pre-mission discussions with the advisors.
Hope that helps 
It's possible I'm confused about when you're talking about, but if you mean asking if there are "any visiting dignitaries I should watch out for" then no, that's not a cinematic conversation. It's a "simple" conversation, according to the hints in DA:I.
Elhanan already answered an example of a cutscene (basically stuff that has a lot of movement and animation), but you won't really find any cinematic conversations in DA:I, because they elected to replace them with "simple conversations", as in the ones that are zoomed out and spend your time turning the camera trying to find a proper angle while also being able to hear them, because the audio is stupid like that
An example of cinematic conversation is any given camp conversation in DA:O. They'll have over-the-shoulder angles so you can see faces, and switch angles for who is speaking, just like a cutscene, only simpler. They'll also have facial expressions, but not much movement. Actually, I guess an example of one in DA:I would be the War Table discussions. Not the banter, but the pre-mission discussions with the advisors.
Hope that helps
They're BioWare, they're supposed to be experienced enough to handle side-quests and immersion.
I'm tired of the "we'll learn from our mistakes and do better next time"
I'm sorry, if you can't understand the basics in what makes a game interesting and immersive WHILE you're making the game, how come you expect me to believe the next game will be oh so amazing suddenly? I mean, jesus christ, indie games are handling better.
Indie devs don't have EA breathing down their necks saying hurry, hurry, hurry. You gotta do this but but not that. No, they don't want something overly complicated like that, dumb it down. Publishers like EA are just the worst. That's why I am glad devs like CDPR and Bethesda can publish their own stuff.
I do agree the sidequests are a weakness of the game. While discussing it with a friend, we compared it to the DA:O Quest in Redcliffe where you had to find that boy and could get a sword for it.
Now, down to its core it's a simple, search and return quest, so why did I like it?
- I was drawn to it not only by a mark over the head but by a sipping girl in a chantry.
- It was embedded into the story and fitted the situation and setting
- You could react in several ways (disregard her, yell at the boy or be nice to him, kick the door), thus building your character
- Depending of what you did, you get different rewards or can even spend money (A sword? A kiss? Nothing but a thank you? What'd you like?)
- Companions commented to it and reacted to it.
This is how a gread subquest has to be imho. Now compare it to "hunting for the refugees at the crossroads"... ???
You can't put too much Roleplay in a RPG.
You mentioned getting a kiss as a reward for that quest. I remember that, and I also remember how it annoyed Morrigan when I asked for one, as she was the one I was romancing at the time. I don't remember my love interest in Inquisition ever getting mad at me when I flirt with Harding.
I'm still massively confused by this. Why on earth would you prefer fewer cut-scenes for side quests ?
From my experience, giving side-quests as much cut scenes as main quests, allows for them to feel like they actually matter, not that you are suddenly doing some second tier quest that not much work was put into. I love side-quests because they give me a good little break from the main one and gives me a small, compact, story to experience, a bit like a short story. And sometimes a side-quest can tie in to the main one and that's really great.
The panning camera always reminded me that the quest I was doing was low tier compared to the other ones and it made it much harder for me to connect with the NPCs when I couldn't see their facial expressions.
I hope, very much so, that for the next Dragon Age, Bioware will ditch this panning camera and go back to what they used to do with DA:O and even DA:2.
I fully agree. I know everyone keeps bringing up the Witcher as a comparison and a lot of people are probably getting sick of it, but the amount of cut scenes in that game made the characters feel so much more alive to me. I could see their faces, their gestures, their body language, it all added up to a much better scene. Another thing...is it just me, or does every single female from Orlais make those silly circles with their fingers? Heck I think it might be the majority of females in the game period. That is, females that are not part of the party. I just see that a lot and it annoys me.
I like how you mentioned that side quests are like a short story. I agree there as well. I remember reading a trilogy in the Forgotten Realms. It was called "Threat from the Deep" I believe. They also released an anthology of short stories based around that trilogy. That's what side quests are like to me as well. That anthology. At least...they are when they are good.
Not only camera control, but dialogue choices, too. In cut-scenes, the story is told from the Dev's perspective; prefer to maintain control over the PC, and not waste the added expense required for minor quests.
*sighs* I am probably going to kick myself for this later but....you still get to make dialogue choices in the cut scenes. It's not like we have so much control over the character that we can hit a button and make him wipe his brow or something. Though...that would be kinda neat if we could. In any sense, the cut scenes tell a better story. You don't get any more RP content out of not having them.
The ME series has several lengthy cut-scenes with speeches, dialogue with NPC's, etc, and the Player has no control over many of the lines. Some scenes have rather silly interrupts which adds to the lack of immersion by reminding the Player of a game mechanic.
Cut-scenes should be used sparingly like a spice to accent and make a better story; not become the story. Hopefully this experiment in DAI will prove beneficial, and will see the like again, though perhaps with better camera focus.
I actually felt that the interrupts added greatly to things. It made it feel a lot more real. I would like to see more of that in games. It added to the experience.
I prefer having cut scenes and closer interaction with the characters - it drives me mad trying to adjust the 'floating' camera to try and see the face of the person I'm talking to.
It's also glaringly obvious that the characters have no expressions - and I dislike that. One example of this is when I was speaking with Cullen in Skyhold, the dialogue had him a little shy and he laughed - but when you 'zoom' closer, his expression doesn't change at all and so doesn't match the dialogue. It's little bits like that which make it harder for me to engage with the NPC's of the world.
That's another good point. Another, in my humble opinion, is that with the lack of cut scenes, I find myself paying less and less attention to the conversations that don't have them. The ones that don't have them the characters are just standing there so still and like you said, with no facial expressions. I find my attention wandering and I move the camera not to try and better focus on the characters and the conversation but to to try and see what's going on around them. Unfortunately that's never any more interesting. Usually it's just soldiers going through the exact same freaking practice routine over..and over...and over...and over. Holy crap would it have killed them to add a few more fighting routines during those things?
Sorry, that translated into a whole new gripe for me there, lol.
*sighs* I am probably going to kick myself for this later but....you still get to make dialogue choices in the cut scenes. It's not like we have so much control over the character that we can hit a button and make him wipe his brow or something. Though...that would be kinda neat if we could. In any sense, the cut scenes tell a better story. You don't get any more RP content out of not having them.
I feel like I have to almost spam this post, for all the discussion it's getting recently and because people are getting terms confused, because they each have their own idea of what "cutscene" means. This is what I had to say about it in another thread, with the bolded part especially important to this conversation:
Your right, that is a better term for it. And yes, that is what I want to see more of. I like the full blown cut scenes like where we see Cassie and Varrick fighting, but during the other conversations give me that over the shoulder thing where I can see facial expressions.
An example of cinematic conversation is any given camp conversation in DA:O. They'll have over-the-shoulder angles so you can see faces, and switch angles for who is speaking, just like a cutscene, only simpler. They'll also have facial expressions, but not much movement. Actually, I guess an example of one in DA:I would be the War Table discussions. Not the banter, but the pre-mission discussions with the advisors.
Hope that helps
In Inquisition an example of cinematic conversation would be the briefings that we get with Harding whenever we first go to a new area.
While true, most is auto-dialogue, and is simply watching the PC until the next prompt. Prefer cut-scenes to remain focused on the Main story and possibly linked quests; not for secondary and minor quests.
But it's the same thing with the panning camera. The difference is that you are simply waiting for the characters to finish talking in a static camera shot that is always the same, before having your next selection of choices. Having a static camera or cut-scenes changes nothing to the amount of auto dialogue. The only difference is that with cut-scenes there is added dynamism as well as having the chance of seeing characters up close.
Again, creating cut-scenes is an art, it can be a story device and when used well it adds so much to the story and I happen to want story heavy sidequests.
Retour en haut