375 réponses à ce sujet

[Andraste_Reborn]

BioWare are about as likely to make another game exactly like Dragon Age: Origins as they are to make another game exactly like Baldur's Gate 2, which is to say, it will never happen. They have never been a company to stick with one way of doing things just because some people liked the last thing they made. (Or the thing before that, or the thing before that ...)

 

It is somewhat more likely that another company will some day make a 'spiritual successor' to Origins, in the way that Pillars of Eternity is a spiritual successor to the Infinity Engine games. That doesn't guarantee that people nostalgic for Origins will actually like it, of course - the internet certainly has plenty of Old Skool cRPG fans raging about how awful Pillars is and how Obsidian should never have changed the game mechanics used circa. 1998.

[pdusen]

No. And good riddance.

And people, stop referring to Shot-reverse-shot as cinematic. It's not. You're being dishonest every time you do it.

[midnight tea]

No. And good riddance.

And people, stop referring to Shot-reverse-shot as cinematic. It's not. You're being dishonest every time you do it.

 

I have a feeling that quite a few people genuinely can't tell a difference...

[Nefla]

No, sadly the era of that style of game(my favorite BTW) is over. I can only hope one day some indie companies start making the same kinds of games as DA:O, KotOR, Jade Empire, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and so on the way they've been doing for oldschool isometric RPGs.

[Nefla]

I have a feeling that quite a few people genuinely can't tell a difference...

Mislabeling and semantics aside, many people (myself included obviously) would much rather have a simple shot-reverse-shot where you can see the face and emotion/facial expression of the person you're talking to (as well as your own character's) than the extremely zoomed out conversations for the DA:I sidequests. More cinematic conversations would of course be awesome but even shot-reverse-shot is about a thousand times better than two ants standing there expressionless and still with dialogue being played over the top.

[CoM Solaufein]

No. The Evil Empire is well entrenched into Bioware now. The employees of yesterday are gone or going.

[pdusen]

Mislabeling and semantics aside, many people (myself included obviously) would much rather have a simple shot-reverse-shot where you can see the face and emotion/facial expression of the person you're talking to (as well as your own character's) than the extremely zoomed out conversations for the DA:I sidequests. More cinematic conversations would of course be awesome but even shot-reverse-shot is about a thousand times better than two ants standing there expressionless and still with dialogue being played over the top.

 

That's fine, but call it what it is, not some other name that makes it sound better than it really is.

[Wavebend]

This is stupid. Origins had a console version and the game was good for both platforms, just PC cry babies can't see that.

Funny enough, the thread's title is exactly what the fanbase moaned when Origins was out. Hypocrisy.

 

Lol.

[sjsharp2011]

Exactly. Without knowing what "Origins style" means to the OP, we can't talk sensibly about this.

Though some things, like an unvoiced protagonist, are never coming back. I doubt slow combat's coming back either.

yeah as good as Origins is I prefer the voiced protagonist and faster combat not to mention the graphics of DAI over Origins. The olnly thing for me that is better in DAO than DAI is probably story and the interface. Aside from these 2 things for me DAI has it beat.

[CronoDragoon]

That's fine, but call it what it is, not some other name that makes it sound better than it really is.

Until now, I didn't actually know what it was called.

[Elhanan]

Would not mind seeing a return to the writing of the language and AI seen in DAO. However, am well pleased with the pacing of combat, exploration, Jumping, and greater customization of equipment seen in DAI.

Now if they would do much the same for the character, and allow for greater Player choices and variety, that would be tremendous.

[pdusen]

Until now, I didn't actually know what it was called.

Sorry, didn't intend to single you out. Most of the forum insists on calling those conversations "cinematic" and it drives me crazy.

[midnight tea]

Mislabeling and semantics aside, many people (myself included obviously) would much rather have a simple shot-reverse-shot where you can see the face and emotion/facial expression of the person you're talking to (as well as your own character's) than the extremely zoomed out conversations for the DA:I sidequests. More cinematic conversations would of course be awesome but even shot-reverse-shot is about a thousand times better than two ants standing there expressionless and still with dialogue being played over the top.

 

I wasn't even arguing that. Thing is, those shot reverse shots usually don't have facial expressions, they merely talk and, at best, make some broad, vague gestures. Which is exactly why it's somewhat baffling that there are people who can't tell the difference between a cinematic and a countershot. 

[Addictress]

Sorry, didn't intend to single you out. Most of the forum insists on calling those conversations "cinematic" and it drives me crazy.

No, cinematics is right. When we say cinematic, we're not using the term as an applauding adjective. We're using the term in its technical sense. Like, the cinematics of the game. Not in the sense that, when compared to movie shots they look cinematic by comparison.

[Addictress]

I wasn't even arguing that. Thing is, those shot reverse shots usually don't have facial expressions, they merely talk and, at best, make some broad, vague gestures. Which is exactly why it's somewhat baffling that there are people who can't tell the difference between a cinematic and a countershot.

Countershots...are cinematics. They could be crappy cinematics, or whatever, still cinematics. And yes we need them. They are much better than as she said, two ants standing in the center of the screen while their dialogue is muffled by the ambient atmosphere. Which worked fine in Skyrim, an ambient experience, but not a Bioware game whose main advantage is story and character.

[Abyss108]

Whats so great about a close up shot of an emotionless face that's you've seen a hundred times previously in the game?

 

I'll never understand why people care about this. 

[Addictress]

Whats so great about a close up shot of an emotionless face that's you've seen a hundred times previously in the game?

I'll never understand why people care about this.

Every NPC quest that didn't have them fell flat and seemed completely meaningless and I didn't care about them at all.

Again, countershots aren't amazing but they're better than what we got.

[CronoDragoon]

Whats so great about a close up shot of an emotionless face that's you've seen a hundred times previously in the game?
 
I'll never understand why people care about this. 

Faces are really important to people. It's a way to distinguish them from someone else; ie make them memorable. I remember what Wade from DAO looks like. I don't remember what Fairbanks looks like. That difference can affect how invested someone is in the quest, and how fondly they remember the quest. There's a reason why a lot of older RPGs (such as Baldur's Gate 2, Chrono Cross, etc) show face portraits along with the dialogue box.

It's why novels bother to describe facial features in characters; so that when they act or speak the reader can make a sort of mental picture of what's happening. It's part of how characters come alive, it's part of what gives them personality and makes the participant interested.

[Abyss108]

Hmm, all the Origins quests felt equally flat to me. I didn't remember any of them.

[CronoDragoon]

Hmm, all the Origins quests felt equally flat to me. I didn't remember any of them.

Really? Not even Wade's Emporium? Come on now!
 
https://www.youtube....h?v=UtV1_9OUoyk

And what about Dagna? Hell people liked her so much she came back in Inquisition!

[Addictress]

Hmm, all the Origins quests felt equally flat to me. I didn't remember any of them.

Yeah any of those collectable npc quests would suffer the same in Origins but I remember some key ones in Origins. Like that dwarf son who became a lunatic in the deep roads and we had to tell his mom something. That had closeups.

[Abyss108]

Really? Not even Wade's Emporium? Come on now!
 
https://www.youtube....h?v=UtV1_9OUoyk

And what about Dagna? Hell people liked her so much she came back in Inquisition!

 

Dagna is the one side character I have a vague recollection of. None of the others. And thats because Dagna was interesting, not because I got a close-up of her face when she spoke.

 

Yeah any of those collectable npc quests would suffer the same in Origins but I remember some key ones in Origins. Like that dwarf son who became a lunatic in the deep roads and we had to tell his mom something. That had closeups.

 

Nope, no recollection of that.

[midnight tea]

Countershots...are cinematics. They could be crappy cinematics, or whatever, still cinematics. And yes we need them. They are much better than as she said, two ants standing in the center of the screen while their dialogue is muffled by the ambient atmosphere. Which worked fine in Skyrim, an ambient experience, but not a Bioware game whose main advantage is story and character.

 

No, they're not. You're going to have to name an entire game "a cinematic" if you're just going to call a camera closeup one. And yes - camera zooming slightly to focus on two people talking to one another would be a cinematic too under your definition.

 

Cinematics are far more than that - if you pay attention to actual cinematics in DAO or DAI, you see the difference right away. The camera behaves differently, the environment becomes a stage - if you use cine-tools you'll note that they even use different lighting (completely out of nowhere) just to make faces or entire scene look better. The characters use far more specific and detailed gestures, to say nothing of way more nuanced expressions. It's not *just* a zoom in; the whole thing is designed, rather than automatic.

 

And really, I get why people would perhaps like to get closer to two people talking - I'm familiar with the language of the film and cadre to know that the closer we are to a character, the more intimate the scene becomes. Thing is, many of these talks we do in DAI are supposed to be very casual or expository - with some exceptions they aren't even supposed to be that intimate, or convey information that is supposed to feel more important than those bits they've made an effort to create cinematic for.

 

 

In fact, I find it rather jarring to see a counter shot where, say, characters are supposed to flirt, but they express nothing through their faces or body languages. Far more than bit more distance between camera and them - at least that distance helps to somewhat mask the fact that the characters just stare blankly at one another.

[Addictress]

No, they're not. You're going to have to name an entire game "a cinematic" if you're just going to call a camera closeup one. And yes - camera zooming slightly to focus on two people talking to one another would be a cinematic too under your definition.

Cinematics are far more than that - if you pay attention to actual cinematics in DAO or DAI, you see the difference right away. The camera behaves differently, the environment becomes a stage - if you use cine-tools you'll note that they even use different lighting (completely out of nowhere) just to make faces or entire scene look better. The characters use far more specific and detailed gestures, to say nothing of way more nuanced expressions. It's not *just* a zoom in; the whole thing is designed, rather than automatic.

And really, I get why people would perhaps like to get closer to two people talking - I'm familiar with the language of the film and cadre to know that the closer we are to a character, the more intimate the scene becomes. Thing is, many of these talks we do in DAI are supposed to be very casual or expository - with some exceptions they aren't even supposed to be that intimate, or convey information that is supposed to feel more important than those bits they've made an effort to create cinematic for.


In fact, I find it rather jarring to see a counter shot where, say, characters are supposed to flirt, but they express nothing through their faces or body languages. Far more than bit more distance between camera and them - at least that distance helps to somewhat mask the fact that the characters just stare blankly at one another.

So it's the animation fault. They didn't animate anything. No gestures, expressions.

Watch when Hawke says to Anders "that explains your whole tortured sexy look" and then Anders makes gestures and animatedly replies "I have to look in a mirror more often" with his eyebrow raised.

Inquisitor says to Solas "so you think I'm graceful" and she's stiffly standing with the exact same position and her arms are to her sides. Solas makes a slight body movement with the routine hand wave.

That scene would've meant infinity times more if we had a closeup of the faces.

[Addictress]

No, they're not. You're going to have to name an entire game "a cinematic" if you're just going to call a camera closeup one. And yes - camera zooming slightly to focus on two people talking to one another would be a cinematic too under your definition.

Cinematics are far more than that - if you pay attention to actual cinematics in DAO or DAI, you see the difference right away. The camera behaves differently, the environment becomes a stage - if you use cine-tools you'll note that they even use different lighting (completely out of nowhere) just to make faces or entire scene look better. The characters use far more specific and detailed gestures, to say nothing of way more nuanced expressions. It's not *just* a zoom in; the whole thing is designed, rather than automatic.

And really, I get why people would perhaps like to get closer to two people talking - I'm familiar with the language of the film and cadre to know that the closer we are to a character, the more intimate the scene becomes. Thing is, many of these talks we do in DAI are supposed to be very casual or expository - with some exceptions they aren't even supposed to be that intimate, or convey information that is supposed to feel more important than those bits they've made an effort to create cinematic for.


In fact, I find it rather jarring to see a counter shot where, say, characters are supposed to flirt, but they express nothing through their faces or body languages. Far more than bit more distance between camera and them - at least that distance helps to somewhat mask the fact that the characters just stare blankly at one another.

It's not jarring, a counter shot, even when the expression within it is blank, by itself is a tool that conveys that there are still two parties to a convo and the other party has heard and recognized whatever was just said.

I'm not an artist or anything but this is something they bring up in any film 101.