375 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

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.

That's not exactly apples and apples. You should be comparing DA2's companion scenes to DAI's companion scenes. You couldn't even talk to your party members outside companion scenes in DA2, remember.

[Addictress]

That's not exactly apples and apples. You should be comparing DA2's companion scenes to DAI's companion scenes. You couldn't even talk to your party members outside companion scenes in DA2, remember.

Hm? I compared the first flirt scene with Anders to the first flirt scene with Solas.

And yes, in both DA2 and DAI they didn't have companion convos in between major companion scenes which I enjoyed in Origins

[CronoDragoon]

Hm? I compared the first flirt scene with Anders to the first flirt scene with Solas.

And yes, in both DA2 and DAI they didn't have companion convos in between major companion scenes which I enjoyed in Origins

DAI did.

[Addictress]

DAI did.

What? Where?

When I clicked on my companions while walking around a region they would say something but it wasn't a convo.

Like it was definitely nice they at least said something but it wasn't a conversation.

I remember two or three times when there was an option for the Inquisitor to also say something return, for instance when Cassandra was looking for the missing seekers.

[Addictress]

The lack of exploration convos doesn't really bother me tho

I mainly just want whatever convos we do have to be shot seriously.

[CronoDragoon]

What? Where?

When I clicked on my companions while walking around a region they would say something but it wasn't a convo.

Like it was definitely nice they at least said something but it wasn't a conversation.

I remember two or three times when there was an option for the Inquisitor to also say something return, for instance when Cassandra was looking for the missing seekers.

Not when outside of Haven/Skyhold, no, but you could go talk to them when you were at the base.

[Addictress]

Not when outside of Haven/Skyhold, no, but you could go talk to them when you were at the base.

Oh, I considered those companion convos. Like the same as if u went to Merrill's house

[Darvins]

Nope, much to my disappointment. They're going to keep innovating until their real fanbase decides they can't be bothered with BioWare games anymore, and instead replace said fanbase with a Call of Duty like fanbase that willingly spends £45 every year for dog shite.

 

As someone who has had every single Bioware Game I think, except the Sonic games, I can say, that I am not sure what you mean by 'Real Fanbase' I've enjoyed every Bioware game, and have found them on the whole to get better each time. I don't want them to look back and try and replicate older games, and their flaws, but to keep pushing forwards. To learn from what didn't work and to push what did forwards.

 

For games that look back on older styles, we have smaller devs, such as Beamdog, who can give us that taste of nostalgia, but from one of the big three RPG companies in the world? I want something more than trying to replicate a decade ago. Am I a real fan, nope, because there are no real fans, there are fans, and anyone trying to claim they can define what makes someone a real fan or not is full of it.

[Al Foley]

As someone who has had every single Bioware Game I think, except the Sonic games, I can say, that I am not sure what you mean by 'Real Fanbase' I've enjoyed every Bioware game, and have found them on the whole to get better each time. I don't want them to look back and try and replicate older games, and their flaws, but to keep pushing forwards. To learn from what didn't work and to push what did forwards.

 

For games that look back on older styles, we have smaller devs, such as Beamdog, who can give us that taste of nostalgia, but from one of the big three RPG companies in the world? I want something more than trying to replicate a decade ago. Am I a real fan, nope, because there are no real fans, there are fans, and anyone trying to claim they can define what makes someone a real fan or not is full of it.

Well said. 

[CronoDragoon]

Oh, I considered those companion convos. Like the same as if u went to Merrill's house

Well if you go to Merrill's house you get a scene with hand-crafted animation, etc. So something like this:



DA2 introduced this type of companion scene which it got from the ME series. Origins notably doesn't have any scenes like this.

Then Inquisition has convos with your companions that aren't "scenes" per se, just dialogues:



which is what Origins' convos were. So to me Inquisition has pretty much all the companion content of both Origins and DA2. As you note, the difference is that Origins' convos had the shot-reverse-shot style while Inquisition's were over-the-shoulder.

[midnight tea]

Hm? I compared the first flirt scene with Anders to the first flirt scene with Solas.

 

Um ... The very first flirt scene with Solas is the one where Lavellan declares that she'll protect him from the Chantry and that scene was entirely a cinematic. And people in general, Solavellan fans included, generally seem to find that scene endearing and effective thanks to the subtle play of emotions of both characters faces.

 

...Are you sure you remember things right?

 

The whole "indomitable focus/muscles/grace" flirt is not even a second flirt, because it depends entirely on when you discuss things with him. It's at the end of long, expository discussion, not the crux of it as well. It's supposed to just casually fly out of them, to everyone's surprise, so it's entirely appropriate for it to be constructed the way it was.

[Addictress]

Well said.

Al, Al. I get it. Really.

I love Mass Effect 3. When people complain about it, I get rly mad. I'm like, "you're just stuck in your old ways. I marathoned the ME trilogy for the first time in 2012 thus I didn't he to wait in between games and viewed the trilogy as one whole experience, and I don't see anything wrong with ME3"

likewise, I played DAO and DA2 in the same year and didn't have to wait between DAO and DA2 so my expectations weren't incubating in between.

However I did in fact for the first time have to wait for DAI. I often thought perhaps this was why I felt differently about DAI.

But ...I don't think so

[Addictress]

Um ... The very first flirt scene with Solas is the one where Lavellan declares that she'll protect him from the Chantry and that scene was entirely a cinematic. And people in general, Solavellan fans included, generally seem to find that scene endearing and effective thanks to the subtle play of emotions of both characters faces.

...Are you sure you remember things right?

The whole "indomitable focus/muscles/grace" flirt is not even a second flirt, because it depends entirely on when you discuss things with him. It's at the end of long, expository discussion, not the crux of it as well. It's supposed to just casually fly out of them, to everyone's surprise, so it's entirely appropriate for it to be constructed the way it was.

You are right, I forgot. But yah

I was trying to think of zoomed-out convos to compare. But actually I don't have anything against the Solas scenes....for obvious reasons....how about the mayor of crestwood? Or the hunter in the hinterlands who needed ram meat.

[CronoDragoon]

Following a game closely will absolutely impact your experience with it, but not necessarily in a negative way. To be honest, following Inquisition closely probably caused me to like the final product more, because I was well-prepared going in for it to be more of an unguided exploration type of game, which is something I typically don't enjoy.

[Addictress]

I got confused because the movie I spent the past three weeks editing put the flirts in a different order

[midnight tea]

You are right, I forgot. But yah

I was trying to think of zoomed-out convos to compare. But actually I don't have anything against the Solas scenes....for obvious reasons....how about the mayor of crestwood? Or the hunter in the hinterlands who needed ram meat.

 

What about hunter in the Hinterlands who needs ram meat? Why specifically him has to have a cutscene, despite being featured in a small fetch-quest that is part of bigger side-quest hub?

 

And we do get a cinematic with the mayor of Crestwood - his judgment scene. And I find it unnecessary for him to have cinematic scenes prior to that, since his tale is pretty much told through entire length quest, plus some additional exploration. Despite quite a lot of people bemoaning DAI for apparently "telling and not showing us" (even though I'm pretty sure quite a few of them don't understand what the whole idea's about), the mayor of Crestwood scene is actually a really good example of showing us what happened, without many expository bricks into our faces.

[Addictress]

What about hunter in the Hinterlands who needs ram meat? Why specifically him has to have a cutscene, despite being featured in a small fetch-quest that is part of bigger side-quest hub?

And we do get a cinematic with the mayor of Crestwood - his judgment scene. And I find it unnecessary for him to have cinematic scenes prior to that, since his tale is pretty much told through entire length quest, plus some additional exploration. Despite quite a lot of people bemoaning DAI for apparently "telling and not showing us" (even though I'm pretty sure quite a few of them don't understand what the whole idea's about), the mayor of Crestwood scene is actually a really good example of showing us what happened, without many expository bricks into our faces.

The telling not showing is mostly the war table. But also, it would've been nice for the intro to come from him, not Scout Harding. Or at least, we have this huge expository intro from Scout Harding instead of that expository time being utilized via the locals.

The previous games had collection quests too, but that said, the hunter and ram meat quest was just blah and shouldn't have even existed.

[correctamundo]

What about hunter in the Hinterlands who needs ram meat? Why specifically him has to have a cutscene, despite being featured in a small fetch-quest that is part of bigger side-quest hub?

 

And we do get a cinematic with the mayor of Crestwood - his judgment scene. And I find it unnecessary for him to have cinematic scenes prior to that, since his tale is pretty much told through entire length quest, plus some additional exploration. Despite quite a lot of people bemoaning DAI for apparently "telling and not showing us" (even though I'm pretty sure quite a few of them don't understand what the whole idea's about), the mayor of Crestwood scene is actually a really good example of showing us what happened, without many expository bricks into our faces.

 

Quite a lot people who bemoan DAI sidequests lacking "cineamtics" ignore the fact that all the big ones start with a cinematic convo with scout Harding, usually have some cinematic in the middle and in many cases end with a cinematic judgement and possibly execution.

[Addictress]

Quite a lot people who bemoan DAI sidequests lacking "cineamtics" ignore the fact that all the big ones start with a cinematic convo with scout Harding, usually have some cinematic in the middle and in many cases end with a cinematic judgement and possibly execution.

Well that's a problem, my intro is scout Harding, not the subject of the quest . Also scout Harding is generally introducing a whole region, not specific side quests. So it feels disconnected

[midnight tea]

The telling not showing is mostly the war table. But also, it would've been nice for the intro to come from him, not Scout Harding. Or at least, we have this huge expository intro from Scout Harding instead of that expository time being utilized via the locals.

The previous games had collection quests too, but that said, the hunter and ram meat quest was just blah and shouldn't have even existed.

 

The war table isn't a purely expository device therefore no - I wouldn't call it "telling, not showing". In fact I'd say that the war table actually does a lot of showing through gameplay alone - as it's expected of people in Inquisitor's position, they make a lot of decisions with their advisers and through delegating their forces, diplomats and agents. We're clearly shown this, rather than told, basically every time we enter the room.

 

It also clearly shows the reach of the Inquisition (the scope of the map - actually, now that I think about it, this is a superb example of SHOWING rather than telling), the activity of our forces and fleshes out or opens quite a few quests, including adding new cinematics or dialogue options - for example, Dagna won't be shown presenting the rune that will help destroy Samson's armor unless you don't unlock it through completing some war table missions.

 

Same way her quest later to reconcile with her family isn't just pure telling. Telling would be "Dagna misses her family and intends to contact them. We failed/succeeded". Instead quite a lot of emotions is shown through the ways the mission itself and her reaction was written.

 

Uh... as you see, the whole thing isn't as simple. Same way I wouldn't call many codex entries as "telling not showing", despite seeing quite a few people confusing them as doing so, to my eternal frustration. The fact that a thing tells us something through written or spoken words doesn't yet constitute "telling, not showing" - the 'show, don't tell' principle exists in literary works too. It's all HOW things are written/told, rather than being written/told.

[midnight tea]

Well that's a problem, my intro is scout Harding, not the subject of the quest . Also scout Harding is generally introducing a whole region, not specific side quests. So it feels disconnected

 

How does it feel disconnected? Usually her scenes contain details pertaining the main objetcive for the zone (for example: she points out the existence of dwarven ruins in Hissing Wastes, informs us of our men disappearing in Storm Coast, or of them being captured by the Avvar in Fallow Mire).

[Addictress]

The war table isn't a purely expository device therefore no - I wouldn't call it "telling, not showing". In fact I'd say that the war table actually does a lot of showing through gameplay alone - as it's expected of people in Inquisitor's position, they make a lot of decisions with their advisers and through delegating their forces, diplomats and agents. We're clearly shown this, rather than told, basically every time we enter the room.

It also clearly shows the reach of the Inquisition (the scope of the map - actually, now that I think about it, this is actually a superb example of SHOWING rather than telling), the activity of our forces and fleshes out or opens quite a few quests, including adding new cinematics or dialogue options - for example, Dagna won't be shown presenting the rune that will help destroy Samson's armor unless you don't unlock it through completing some war table missions.

Same way her quest later to reconcile with her family isn't just pure telling. Telling would be "Dagna misses her family and intends to contact them. We failed/succeeded". Instead quite a lot of emotions is shown through the ways the mission itself and her reaction was written.

Uh... as you see, the whole thing isn't as simple. Same way I wouldn't call many codex entries as "telling not showing", despite seeing quite a few people confusing them as doing so, to my eternal frustration. The fact that a thing tells us something through written or spoken words doesn't yet constitute "telling, not showing" - the 'show, don't tell' principle exists in literary works too. It's all HOW things are written/told, rather than being written/told.

War Table tells, not shows, because both the set up, the doing, and the end result are all in literal dialogue boxes you read and click. They might have token impacts you see elsewhere, like in your rune example, but it's the most definitive example of telling not showing I can think of. They're stories, and subplots, not background lore information as would befit a codex.

[Addictress]

How does it feel disconnected? Usually her scenes contain details pertaining the main objetcive for the zone (for example: she points out the existence of dwarven ruins in Hissing Wastes, informs us of our men disappearing in Storm Coast, or of them being captured by the Avvar in Fallow Mire).

I wouldn't mind Scout Harding, but there is a great imbalance between the cut scenes afforded her and the cut scenes afforded the actual participants - the subjects - of the story at hand. It wouldn't been more effective, narratively, to have some kind of cut scenes portraying the plight of Crestwood, introducing the mayor, etc. The Hinterlands had some cut scenes, for instance, showing the mage and Templar fighting and Mother Giselle attending to refugees. Although it was still clouded by the fact there were dozens of fetch and collection quests in the wilderness distracting from that main story, and the fact we just kill the Templar and apostate strongholds without intros to those camps. In DA2 Mother Petrice introduced the zealots we killed by showing their motivations and thought processes in the Chantry when we saw Samus slain. Even when escorting the saarebas through the sewer, we encountered some anti-Fereldan bandits or whatever, and they introduced themselves in a cut scene, kind of conveying why they are attacking, who they are.

After multiple playthroughs, I am able to piece together the various letters we loot and the following party comments that were intended as a sort of intro to the fact were about to root out the apostate camp in the hinterlands, but it shouldn't take multiple playthroughs.

[robertthebard]

Oh how I remember the rage against Origins being the "Spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate".  How quickly we forget, here on the BSN, how much rage there was about how it wasn't.  Now, however, it's the "golden goose laying golden eggs" everywhere you look.  I remember the rage that DA 2 got, so much so that I didn't buy it until about a year after it's release, much to my chagrin, and yet, on these very boards, it's being held up, albeit only by some, as the second coming of Origins, after they played DA I, anyway.

 

The only thing I can think of that I'd want from Origins was also in DA 2, reliable PC controls with a KB/Mouse set up, instead of a console port.

[midnight tea]

War Table tells, not shows, because both the set up, the doing, and the end result are all in literal dialogue boxes you read and click. They might have token impacts you see elsewhere, like in your rune example, but it's the most definitive example of telling not showing I can think of. They're stories, and subplots, not background lore information as would befit a codex.

 

...You completely ignored what I just said   'Literal dialogue boxes' don't yet constitute telling, not showing. It's a matter of how, not what.

 

Also - many codex entries are actually in forms of letters, or stories, or poems that don't straightforwardly tell us background lore information. This is how they do "showing, rather than telling". It's the same with war table. And I'm not going to tell that war table is flawless, I'm just opposed to the idea that this is all about blatant exposition dump, plainly because it's not.