197 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

Shards can be annoying, but the rewards offered make it worthy of my time for some characters. And simply because I do not care for something does not equate to all. Some others may actually collections far more than myself.

[Ahglock]

About the only thing I like about cutscenes over gameplay based conversation is renegade interrupts. Outside of that I don't feel they add anything to the game given the current level of gameplay graphics. Cut scenes made sense back in the final fantasy 7-10 days as it allowed them to throw up a really good looking mini movie compared to the existing engines gameplay graphics. Now it's barely better than the ordinary gameplay so I don't need it. But I do like interrupts and I don't see a way to add them without cutscenes.

Also if there is some narrative need to show things that the PC can't see then a cut scene is needed.

[ZombiePopper]

Well,
A CS conveys emotion, detail, setting, environment, npc reaction, etc etc better than standard gameplay. But thats irrelevant for many side quests (not all).
So it goes back to "depends on the side quest".
Do I want a CS for picking up a shard? No.
But I do want one for a more interesting side quest.

[Ahglock]

Well,
A CS conveys emotion, detail, setting, environment, npc reaction, etc etc better than standard gameplay. But thats irrelevant for many side quests (not all).
So it goes back to "depends on the side quest".
Do I want a CS for picking up a shard? No.
But I do want one for a more interesting side quest.

A cut scene can add some of that but gameplay can show it as well. Cut scenes also can also add too many emotions to the protagonist removing too much narrative control from the player. Also Bioware is so absurdly ham fisted at it I think the added emotions are a detriment to the story they are trying to tell. The occasional add because the characters interact with background items in the environment and other details game play can't pull off just isn't worth it. At best outside the interrupts it's a neutral add with its negatives balancing the positives.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well,
A CS conveys emotion, detail, setting, environment, npc reaction, etc etc better than standard gameplay.

That's arguably true, but what I don't want is the game deciding for me what my character's emotions and reactions are.

In normal gameplay, my character has emotions. He's frightened or determined or excited or depressed, all without the game having to show it to me.

[ZombiePopper]

True,
But wouldn't you agree that in a situation such as the fall of Thessia, for example, it's a safe bet that the emotions at that time are universal?
Would anyone say "oh, my Shep was overly excited and happy about it!" ?
There are times within the story,
The player has no-say in the protag's emotions.
Sure,
We make decisions within the game's story, but the story is already written.

[Ahglock]

True,
But wouldn't you agree that in a situation such as the fall of Thessia, for example, it's a safe bet that the emotions at that time are universal?
Would anyone say "oh, my Shep was overly excited and happy about it!" ?
There are times within the story,
The player has no-say in the protag's emotions.
Sure,
We make decisions within the game's story, but the story is already written.

I disagree somewhat. Yeah some emotions might be virtually universal but how you show them isn't.

Let's say you are watching the end of X civilization from your view screen as you escape the destruction.

The cut scene determines you gaze forlornly while a single tear goes down your cheek and then you openly weep.

Well sure sadness, despair a wide range if emotions that this cut scene might be portraying might and most likely would fit my character.

But maybe my Character would show this by turning off the screen and walking away. Maybe he would steel up his resolve and gaze in anger, maybe he would step away to comfort the people more directly effected not allowing himself to grieve until later.

The cut scene didn't give me that choice. But gameplay does.

[ZombiePopper]

But you're arguing against the Dev's story.
Ultimately,
We make decisions within the Dev's story but the story is already written. You weren't given the choice of reaction because you didn't write it.
We can't change that. Therefore the CS exists to emphasize the protag's emotional state (among other things) that the Dev wants to convey at that time. (Like it or not.)
It's always going to be the Dev's story.
We are not the of author, we are the player.
We ARE watching a story unfold on our screens, while we make small decisions within said story.
The decisions exist because we were provided that option but that does not make us the creator of the story.
CS's are provided by the creator to illustrate something they want us to understand about their story, characters, setting, etc etc that gameplay can not provide.

[Majestic Jazz]

Not sure if the OP is legit or simply trolling.

 

 

 

I mean, this is the same guy that said that MEA will take notes from DAI when Bioware clearly confirmed that MEA will be its own game and not be like DAI.

[Pasquale1234]

But you're arguing against the Dev's story.

I think the argument to which you are referring is an argument FOR role-play.

I can think of a lot of different ways different Shepards might have reacted to the fall of Thessia. Some players have expressed views indicating they felt the asari got what they deserved. Some are pretty unhappy about Shepard's behavior in those scenes.
 

Ultimately,
We make decisions within the Dev's story but the story is already written. You weren't given the choice of reaction because you didn't write it.

This is a perfect example of the devs defining the character, and leaving very little room for the player to create and play a character of their choosing.
 

We can't change that. Therefore the CS exists to emphasize the protag's emotional state (among other things) that the Dev wants to convey at that time. (Like it or not.)
It's always going to be the Dev's story.
We are not the of author, we are the player.
We ARE watching a story unfold on our screens, while we make small decisions within said story.
The decisions exist because we were provided that option but that does not make us the creator of the story.
CS's are provided by the creator to illustrate something they want us to understand about their story, characters, setting, etc etc that gameplay can not provide.

You're describing a choose-your-own-adventure scenario with a pre-defined protagonist.

That is not a role-playing game.

[Elhanan]

Personally do not mind the intro and conclusion cut-scenes in ME3 even as lengthy as they may be, as they are restricted outside of actual gameplay. And cut-scenes for the Main story and quests can enhance storytelling, but should not interfere with gameplay either (personally loathe the interrupts).

But lengthy cut-scenes added to secondary and minor quests are not required, and a possible waste of zots. What I prefer are the scenes such as solving the small issue with the refugee returning merchandise w/o a receipt, aiding a researcher find a better medi-gel for water dwellers, etc. Films are not needed to convey angst and emotion, as it can be heard in their voices; the snark in their banter.

As for DAI, I prefer the option to walk away from minor quest givers. This was also of tremendous aid in SWTOR, as final answers are then locked for that character. In ME3, overheard banter could leave Journal entries; also had a few apparent bugs initially, though fixed by the time I actually played.

[AlanC9]

But you're arguing against the Dev's story.
Ultimately,
We make decisions within the Dev's story but the story is already written. You weren't given the choice of reaction because you didn't write it.
We can't change that. Therefore the CS exists to emphasize the protag's emotional state (among other things) that the Dev wants to convey at that time. (Like it or not.)
It's always going to be the Dev's story.
We are not the of author, we are the player.
We ARE watching a story unfold on our screens, while we make small decisions within said story.
The decisions exist because we were provided that option but that does not make us the creator of the story.
CS's are provided by the creator to illustrate something they want us to understand about their story, characters, setting, etc etc that gameplay can not provide.

Even if we grant all of this, it doesn't necessarily follow that writing stories which require specific emotional states from the PC is a good idea.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Even if we grant all of this, it doesn't necessarily follow that writing stories which require specific emotional states from the PC is a good idea.

 

Except when the player has made the choices that led to emotional state that the character is experiencing. 

[Pasquale1234]

Except when the player has made the choices that led to emotional state that the character is experiencing.

In order to predict (assume) what that emotional state would be, the writers have to assume motives, intent, and a lot of other things about the character. Things that might be completely out-of-character for some players.

[ZombiePopper]

I'm actually referring to RPG's as well.
(Pretty much any story driven game.) And this is just it^, in order for a dev to include every possible reaction, emotion, intention, etc etc from every gamer is unrealistic. Which is in essence what you're asking.

A Set protag or not is irrelevant.
We play within parameters set by the dev.
Does anyone [I]really[I] think they do anything so different from every other player?
For example,
Cure Genophage or not, we all made one choice or the other.
I'm sure there are odd people out there that wanted their Shep to feel happy and perform cartwheels after killing Mordin. But how well does that fit within the story?
(Not to mention its excessive to think BW would include it.)
You can head cannon all you like, that's fine and normal IMO.
But there are times in the game that require a fixed response to keep the story/character cohesive. Enter the cutscene.
Sure,
It would be remarkable if we, as the gamer, were actually able to create the story as we play, but that's not realistic.
(Stare at a blank screen and make-up a story?)
And I understand and for the most part, agree that at times we [i]should[i] be able to control our protag's reaction to events.
Some Dev's pull this off better than others obviously.
Of course all of this is academic since it has not to do with side quests directly so I'm off topic again.

Edit;
And of course,
Let us not forget the one thing a cutscene will always perform better than gameplay (yes, always.).
Dem feels.
There have been several games that actually choked me up, but remove the CS and do it with gameplay and it has nowhere near the same impact.
Let's take W3 for example, Elhanan I know you're going to be lost on this one so I apologize.
And slight W3 spoiler ahead!

But,
After Geralt spent all that time trying to find Ciri, he finally gets to her....as she lies lifeless and cold.
Talk about dem feels sheesh!
Now remove the cutscene and perform the same scene with gameplay...yeah, epic fail.
it has nowhere near the same impact.

This applies to side quests also, there have been many that generate an emotional response with a CS. But use gameplay and it fails to generate any response other than "okay next mission."

[Pasquale1234]

I'm actually referring to RPG's as well.

How many have you played? Ever played one with no cutscenes at all? Or one with a first-person view, where you don't see much of your character?
 

And this is just it^, in order for a dev to include every possible reaction, emotion, intent, etc etc from every gamer is nonsense. Which is in essence what you're asking.

Not at all - just the opposite, in fact. I don't want or need to see my character's every emotion play out on screen. I just want to not be prevented from playing the character I have designed - and too much autodialogue, too many cutscenes often get in the way. Of course, I also prefer text over voiced for the PC.
 

A Set protag or not is irrelevant.

You seem to be confusing set protag with one that is entirely dev defined.
 

Does anyone [i]really[i] think they do anything so different from every other player?
For example,
Cure Genophage or not, we all made one choice or the other.

But that choice may have been made from entirely different motives, expectations, and emotional context.
 

You can head cannon all you like, that's fine and normal IMO.

The more my character yacks and emotes on-screen, the less I have to say about her internal state, thoughts, feelings, etc.
 

It would be remarkable if we, as the gamer, were actually able to create the story as we play, but that's not realistic.

A good RPG allows the player to assemble a narrative from a toolbox of component parts.
 

Edit;
And of course,
Let us not forget the one thing a cutscene will always perform better than gameplay (yes, always.).
Dem feels.
There have been several games that actually choked me up, but remove the CS and do it with gameplay and it has nowhere near the same impact.

Novels don't have cutscenes, yet have great capacity to invoke Dem feels.

You don't seem to want to invest any effort in defining or role-playing a unique character, but to simply plod through a pre-designed entertainment experience.

[Statichands]

What do you think guys? Imo bioware should opt for less cinematic convos in ME:A, helps with immersion.

 

No way. The cutscenes are one of the reasons why the Mass Effect games are so immersive. Games like Skyrim are great but did you actually care about the characters and the story? 

[AlanC9]

Except when the player has made the choices that led to emotional state that the character is experiencing.

Agreed. It's the cases where there aren't any choices that cause problems.

[ZombiePopper]

How many have you played? Ever played one with no cutscenes at all? Or one with a first-person view, where you don't see much of your character?

I have played many, enough that I wouldn't want to put a number on it . I remember when there were no such thing as CS's.
I typically had no emotional response because my character didn't emote. Or very little response.
Edit;
Are you referring to that outdated "non-interactive, non-responsive, wandering, reluctant hero" circa FO style protag? Yeah it's way outdated. And I didn't care about the characters within the story like I do with modern gaming. Case in point, ME1-3 I cared about the characters within the story, DAI on the other hand I could care less about them. Literally, BW could release a DLC tomm that kills every last character in DAI, and I'd be completely fine with that. Don't misunderstand, DAI was an "ok" game, but I just didn't care about the characters. Similar to my opinion on the majority of FPS characters. The only exception being Metro.

Not at all - just the opposite, in fact. I don't want or need to see my character's every emotion play out on screen. I just want to not be prevented from playing the character I have designed - and too much autodialogue, too many cutscenes often get in the way. Of course, I also prefer text over voiced for the PC.

Wheres the line? What do you expect the dev to provide or rather not provide? No character response at all?

You seem to be confusing set protag with one that is entirely dev defined.

I'm actually saying it doesnt matter. Obviously, a completely defined character is going to allow virtually no player input. But we're still in the Dev's story and their parameters.

But that choice may have been made from entirely different motives, expectations, and emotional context.

Very true, but again where do you draw the line? How do expect the dev to include all the players motives?

The more my character yacks and emotes on-screen, the less I have to say about her internal state, thoughts, feelings, etc.

A good RPG allows the player to assemble a narrative from a toolbox of component parts.

if I'm understanding you correctly(?) you're saying you want to internalize your characters emotions without any input from the dev?

Novels don't have cutscenes, yet have great capacity to invoke Dem feels.

Apples and oranges.
If I want non-interactive media I'll read a book or watch a flick. For interactive media I go with gaming. Gaming is a form of story telling, yes. The Dev's are telling us a story with slight input from us.

You don't seem to want to invest any effort in defining or role-playing a unique character, but to simply plod through a pre-designed entertainment experience.

Gaming is a pre-designed media. It was pre-designed prior to launch.
Our input is not that unique, as you seem to think it is.

Edit;
But as I said in an earlier post,
I think the only solution is a toggle.
You guys can turn off all the CS's and never watch another, again (at least for that game). And you can pretend your character is doing X for Y reason.
And those of us that want CS's can have them.
Everybody wins.

[Elhanan]

No way. The cutscenes are one of the reasons why the Mass Effect games are so immersive. Games like Skyrim are great but did you actually care about the characters and the story?

Yes, and in some cases, the Journals and book entries were more memorable. Frostflow Lighthouse is one of my fave quests, and the story is told via Journal entries.

[Pasquale1234]

I typically had no emotional response because my character didn't emote. Or very little response.

Then I would suggest you weren't really putting yourself in your character's shoes.
 

Very true, but again where do you draw the line? How do expect the dev to include all the players motives?

I don't. I only ask that they avoid actively preventing me from playing in-character. I don't need to see my character behave on-screen in order to know what she thinks and how she feels.
 

if I'm understanding you correctly(?) you're saying you want to internalize your characters emotions without any input from the dev?

I certainly don't want them dictating how she feels about events, NPCs, issues, etc.
 

Apples and oranges.
If I want non-interactive media I'll read a book or watch a flick. For interactive media I go with gaming. Gaming is a form of story telling, yes. The Dev's are telling us a story with slight input from us.

That depends on the player's approach. I'm going to give you an example to attempt to explain a form of role-play that I suspect you've not experienced.

One of my favorite, most memorable DAO playthroughs was a dwarf commoner rogue. She was very uncomfortable with authority, rarely looked anyone in the eye, hated politics, and preferred subterfuge to direct confrontation. Though she grudgingly accepted her role as leader of the group, she was never comfortable in that position, and was usually noncommittal when required to answer for the group. She liked to use traps and poisons, and was a thief - the mechanics - including lack of OOC VA - supported all of this.

I won't bore you with the details of which quests she undertook, when, and why, but I will tell you she never made it to the landsmeet. Once she'd secured a future for her sister and mother in Orzammar, she bailed on the Warden gig and ran off to join the Legion of the Dead.

Her story was not the same as my Human Noble (an expert politician, groomed for leadership) Warden's story, which was not the same as my Elven Mage's story which was not the same as... do you see what I'm getting at here?

The devs provided a story structure and loads of sidequests, but it was ultimately up to me to assemble those pieces into what ultimately became the various stories of the characters I played.

[Linkenski]

Simply means more side quest=more content. Look at all th side quest avaible in DAI and it was possible but complety removing cinematic convos. I think the trade off is worth it, why waste resource on content youre likely to forgot about in an hour anyway. No one plays games for side quests.

 

What do you think guys? Imo bioware should opt for less cinematic convos in ME:A, helps with immersion.

By making the game twice as long as it needs to be and leaving you with a bad taste in your mouth for spending so much time doing **** you can't even remember? Sure, the trade-off was *totally* worth it >_>

 

I'd rather have a 15-hour game with a handful of memorable sidequests and a great main story with cinematics to make all the long talking sessions seem engaging than having to zone out while I listen to the audio in my headphones or stare at the subtitles until I completely unfocus from the still image behind them of characters just standing in place and doing the same 5 hand-gestures and stretching their arms over and over.

 

DA:I was a masterclass in how to present great visuals and atmosphere and occasionally writing with painfully bland game-design.

[Elhanan]

By making the game twice as long as it needs to be and leaving you with a bad taste in your mouth for spending so much time doing **** you can't even remember? Sure, the trade-off was *totally* worth it >_>
 
I'd rather have a 15-hour game with a handful of memorable sidequests and a great main story with cinematics to make all the long talking sessions seem engaging than having to zone out while I listen to the audio in my headphones or stare at the subtitles until I completely unfocus from the still image behind them of characters just standing in place and doing the same 5 hand-gestures and stretching their arms over and over.
 
DA:I was a masterclass in how to present great visuals and atmosphere and occasionally writing with painfully bland game-design.

And one still has the option to do so; skip all but the Main story. However, as one that utilizes sub-titles anyway, and has currently spent 1100+ hrs in gameplay, I have found it better for me to explore and discover more rather than less in the way of content.

Cut-scenes are not required for a memorable experience. See Books....

[Keitaro57]

I hate real-time cinematics : you must turn the camera in all direction to see what is happening. Most of the time, the action is out of the screen and when it is an NPC that is talking to you he is glued on his place and has his neck half-brocken to keep you in sight while he says what he need.

 

If they are no cinematics, you have to zoom on the face of the NPC to see what he looks like, can't see clearly if he is furious or not, sometimes even don't hear everything he says because some others people around keep talking (even your own party members sometimes). Nope, I prefer cutscenes.

[ZombiePopper]

Then I would suggest you weren't really putting yourself in your character's shoes.


I don't. I only ask that they avoid actively preventing me from playing in-character. I don't need to see my character behave on-screen in order to know what she thinks and how she feels.


I certainly don't want them dictating how she feels about events, NPCs, issues, etc.


That depends on the player's approach. I'm going to give you an example to attempt to explain a form of role-play that I suspect you've not experienced.

One of my favorite, most memorable DAO playthroughs was a dwarf commoner rogue. She was very uncomfortable with authority, rarely looked anyone in the eye, hated politics, and preferred subterfuge to direct confrontation. Though she grudgingly accepted her role as leader of the group, she was never comfortable in that position, and was usually noncommittal when required to answer for the group. She liked to use traps and poisons, and was a thief - the mechanics - including lack of OOC VA - supported all of this.

I won't bore you with the details of which quests she undertook, when, and why, but I will tell you she never made it to the landsmeet. Once she'd secured a future for her sister and mother in Orzammar, she bailed on the Warden gig and ran off to join the Legion of the Dead.

Her story was not the same as my Human Noble (an expert politician, groomed for leadership) Warden's story, which was not the same as my Elven Mage's story which was not the same as... do you see what I'm getting at here?

The devs provided a story structure and loads of sidequests, but it was ultimately up to me to assemble those pieces into what ultimately became the various stories of the characters I played.

Ah okay,
I'm starting to pick-up what you're putting down.
I'll admit that you're right,
I do not go that deep into my RP'ing. I guess I'm more...superficial? Lack of a better word. But it really depends on the game for me.

My last DAI PT,
my Lavellan hated humans for their persecution of his people. (Normal) The only reason he took the Inqy position was to help his clan and place them in a position of power (which he did). And he secretly hoped to build a big enough military force, eventually (with Brialla's assistance of course) to start controlling humans and do as much damage as he could to humans. (Imprison, seize property, humiliate, etc.) The fact he had humans in the inquisition made him giggle with glee. He was very vindictive. In fact, the only reason he hooked up with Cass was to break her heart. He hated Cullen and kept him on the sauce, etc etc. He was an evil bastard. It was funny, I always felt for elves but that guy needed to be assassinated I actually ended up hating my protag.
That's about as deep as I get. The motivation and intent.

Anywho,
Do CS's actually prevent you from RP'ing the way you want?????

I was actually looking at it like; "we're both playing the same game"

I use a CC to create my protag; shaved head, short beard, 6'2", 250lbs, green eyes.

And you use a CC to create your protag; medium length red hair, 5'6", 120lbs, brown eyes, make up.

And we STILL end up with a similar ending.
"How different could it be?"

But yeah,
you get dEEp in to your RP'ing . So while we're playing the same game, it's almost different for you. Do you get that elaborate for every PT????