769 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

I acknowledge your expertise when it comes to the production of traditional media, but in this case I don't think it's analogous.

In your example, if the scene gets cut then you derive no benefit from having filmed it. You would have been better off not to have filmed it.

But in the game, the scene never gets cut. It does get used, so there was never any option not to include it. The only difference is in whether a given player sees it (the vast majority of players will), and the devs derive no benefit from me experiencing their content. That's like saying I've somehow disadvantaged them if I buy the game but don't play it.

Your argument would apply just as well to branching content, where there might be whole areas or questlines that go unseen by some players. Are you arguing against those, too?

 

But a lot of content is cut despite being worked on, which adds to that sunk cost that is described above. Scenes and assets do get cut. All the time, actually. 

 

Mass Effect 2 for example had cut planets, emails, achievements, and dialogue between squadmates. The remnants found in the game code hint at a lot more being there as well.

 

So a lot of that are scenes or assets that have gone to waste. In that sense it is a cut, not branching content that players may not see in a given playthrough. That is not a problem.

 

Remember, for example, how in Dragon Age: Origins characters were going to have more origins, or how Shale was cut content repurposed as DLC as well. Removing parts of the game is a common thing, and it costs a lot of time and money for that process, a process we rarely see in the end unless we data-mine game files.

[Pasquale1234]

That's not the same at all. Not everyone will see all content in a game -

Which was pretty much my point.
 

in fact, most people won't see an ending (and some people buy games without playing them!). There's a difference between choosing to invest resources to polish the early part of a game that everyone will see (the rationale in the post you're responding to) and simply just not having an ending (the interpretive position you're taking here).

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my post, or the post to which I responded.

[In Exile]

Which was pretty much my point.


I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my post, or the post to which I responded.

The point is that people not seeing all content is a meaningless truism. It's not an argument in favour of a toggle - it's an argument against it, because it illustrates a further layer of fragmentation in the market.

As far as I can see the point you wanted to make was that it's not an an answer to a request for a toggle to say that not everyone will see the content. But that's completely missing the point. Since not everyone will want or see all content, developers have to be very judicious with how they spend resources. Having twice the cost for the same feature is not judicious.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But a lot of content is cut despite being worked on, which adds to that sunk cost that is described above. Scenes and assets do get cut. All the time, actually.

Mass Effect 2 for example had cut planets, emails, achievements, and dialogue between squadmates. The remnants found in the game code hint at a lot more being there as well.

So a lot of that are scenes or assets that have gone to waste. In that sense it is a cut, not branching content that players may not see in a given playthrough. That is not a problem.

Remember, for example, how in Dragon Age: Origins characters were going to have more origins, or how Shale was cut content repurposed as DLC as well. Removing parts of the game is a common thing, and it costs a lot of time and money for that process, a process we rarely see in the end unless we data-mine game files.

I don't dispute that this happens.

I question whether a player opting out of content counts.

[In Exile]

I don't dispute that this happens.

I question whether a player opting out of content counts.

Of course it counts. A player "opts out" of content by not replaying or playing to the end - development must consider this in allocating resources.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As far as I can see the point you wanted to make was that it's not an an answer to a request for a toggle to say that not everyone will see the content. But that's completely missing the point. Since not everyone will want or see all content, developers have to be very judicious with how they spend resources. Having twice the cost for the same feature is not judicious.

It's not twice the cost. It's a mute button.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Of course it counts. A player "opts out" of content by not replaying or playing to the end - development must consider this in allocating resources.

But there's no option not to include it. The cost of the voice is only wasted if there was an opportunity somewhere not to spend it.

[In Exile]

It's not twice the cost. It's a mute button.

You already have that - it's a default hardware feature. You're obviously asking for more. ME1 already has a mute button.

Developers can't add in an unpolished feature simply because a small subset of the fan base will be happy with it. Other fans will be angered by the mere fact of an unpolished feature.

[In Exile]

But there's no option not to include it. The cost of the voice is only wasted if there was an opportunity somewhere not to spend it.

I don't follow what you're saying here.

[Pasquale1234]

The point is that people not seeing all content is a meaningless truism.

I agree, and that was the crux of my response to JoltDealer.
 

It's not an argument in favour of a toggle - it's an argument against it, because it illustrates a further layer of fragmentation in the market.

There are already beau coup layers of fragmentation inherent in all of the options provided.

In the case of muting the protagonist's voice, the only difference is that a player might not be listening to the VO recorded for the PC. The actual dialogue content would still be present.

Some people mute the background music, and some listen to their own music libraries when gaming.

[LinksOcarina]

I don't dispute that this happens.

I question whether a player opting out of content counts.

 

A player opting out of content is irrelevant though. 

[In Exile]

I agree, and that was the crux of my response to JoltDealer.


There are already beau coup layers of fragmentation inherent in all of the options provided.

In the case of muting the protagonist's voice, the only difference is that a player might not be listening to the VO recorded for the PC. The actual dialogue content would still be present.

Some people mute the background music, and some listen to their own music libraries when gaming.

Developers don't add broken features as a rule. Simply differentially muting the PCs voice isn't a feature. What happens with the animations? Does the scene go on without any sound at all expect for the paraphrase, a mute protagonist mantomining a reaction? Does the scene skip to the NPC talking? Dialogue now has actions - does the scene just stutter and skip to the next placement?

It's not as simple as just a mute button. This is actually unlike say POE where they could have given us the option to mute NPC in dialogue so that their own broken dialogue system worked.

I've already said in my reply to Sylvius - developers have to design these features well to include them in the commercial game. This is totally different from an optional mod with different expectations of quality and QA.

[Pasquale1234]

Developers don't add broken features as a rule. Simply differentially muting the PCs voice isn't a feature. What happens with the animations? Does the scene go on without any sound at all expect for the paraphrase, a mute protagonist mantomining a reaction? Does the scene skip to the NPC talking? Dialogue now has actions - does the scene just stutter and skip to the next placement?

It's not as simple as just a mute button. This is actually unlike say POE where they could have given us the option to mute NPC in dialogue so that their own broken dialogue system worked.

I've already said in my reply to Sylvius - developers have to design these features well to include them in the commercial game. This is totally different from an optional mod with different expectations of quality and QA.

Well - the solution I would prefer would put the PC in first person during dialogues, with full text, no PC animations, and NPC response immediately after selecting the PC's dialogue. That would be a fully developed feature, and at a non-trivial cost. But it isn't something I've requested in this thread.

What I believe StM is requesting is the ability to turn off the PC's voice with no other changes. I'm not sure why that would be much different than any of the other sound sliders.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You already have that - it's a default hardware feature. You're obviously asking for more. ME1 already has a mute button.

Developers can't add in an unpolished feature simply because a small subset of the fan base will be happy with it. Other fans will be angered by the mere fact of an unpolished feature.

A volume control isn't an unpolished feature. The game already has volume controls. We're allowed to turn off all the voices, or the music, or the sound effects individually. Are those upolished features?

[Sylvius the Mad]

A player opting out of content is irrelevant though.

That's what JoltDealer was talking about, and to what I was responding.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Developers don't add broken features as a rule. Simply differentially muting the PCs voice isn't a feature. What happens with the animations? Does the scene go on without any sound at all expect for the paraphrase, a mute protagonist mantomining a reaction?

Yes, just like if we mute all the voices, which is already an included feature.

This doesn't present anything that looks less polished than content we already get.

Does the scene skip to the NPC talking? Dialogue now has actions - does the scene just stutter and skip to the next placement?

No, it's just a mute. Like we already have.

And again, I can think of good reasons to have PC and NPC dialogue have separate volume controls. I sometimes find the NPC dialogue too quiet relative to the PC voice (often because the speaker is too far from the camera).

The separate volume controls we already have for music or sound effects might not be intended as an optional mute, but they can do that.

It's not as simple as just a mute button. This is actually unlike say POE where they could have given us the option to mute NPC in dialogue so that their own broken dialogue system worked.

I've already said in my reply to Sylvius - developers have to design these features well to include them in the commercial game. This is totally different from an optional mod with different expectations of quality and QA.

Just the like the volume controls that are already there.

How was the PoE system broken?

[KaiserShep]

I imagine that one thing that would keep BioWare from ever bothering with this is that voiced lines can tend to be longer than can realistically fit on the dialogue selection menu. The Warden sure as nug dung was never going to give any big speeches or lecture anyone at length, or give the Exalted Council a little speech before deciding what to do with the Inquisition. I'd rather they not even bother to try cutting stuff like that up to cater to this, because it would just be a mess.

[AlanC9]

Well, they could just put up a paraphrase....

[In Exile]

Well - the solution I would prefer would put the PC in first person during dialogues, with full text, no PC animations, and NPC response immediately after selecting the PC's dialogue. That would be a fully developed feature, and at a non-trivial cost. But it isn't something I've requested in this thread.

What I believe StM is requesting is the ability to turn off the PC's voice with no other changes. I'm not sure why that would be much different than any of the other sound sliders.

It's not just not trivial cost - it's an entirely different design philosophy, because it's fundamentally at odds with how the scenes are designed. It's even at odds with how DAOs and KotORs scenes worked. In fact, it's even at odds with BG. I'd go so far as to say that really it's a departure from the entire family of cRPGs put out by Bioware (and Obsidian).

What Sylvius is asking for is not really a feature - it's a confusing toggle that's really very particular to him and doesn't clearly address his complaint -see my following post.

[In Exile]

A volume control isn't an unpolished feature. The game already has volume controls. We're allowed to turn off all the voices, or the music, or the sound effects individually. Are those upolished features?

No, but those are all intuitive features, and they're volume controls. You're not asking for a volume control - you're asking for a player specific toggle. And it doesn't address your complaint - you'll still have all the issues with the paraphrase, the actions of the character and animations will still be tied to a line, etc. It doesn't give you the silent PC experience that you want as far as I can tell. It's all going back to what you feel comfortable ignoring.

[In Exile]

Yes, just like if we mute all the voices, which is already an included feature.

This doesn't present anything that looks less polished than content we already get.
No, it's just a mute. Like we already have.

And again, I can think of good reasons to have PC and NPC dialogue have separate volume controls. I sometimes find the NPC dialogue too quiet relative to the PC voice (often because the speaker is too far from the camera).

The separate volume controls we already have for music or sound effects might not be intended as an optional mute, but they can do that.
Just the like the volume controls that are already there.

How was the PoE system broken?

See above re: volume.

POEs system was broken because the dialogue was written as if it was meant to be read as a novel, so:

"STOP!" said Garth, shoulders slumped and his tone filled with desperation. "That way is filled with monsters!"

But it had NPC VO, and they read their lines like a screenplay, so:

"STOP! That way is filled with monsters!"

Is what the VO said.

This created a confusing argle-bargle mess where the actual dialogue read out didn't match up with what was written. It was worse than the ME codex narrator that was slow - the stuff said out loud didnt match the actual text box. It was incredibly aversive.

The only way to fix it was to turn off voices completely. It was even stupider than the old BG way of having random lines read out loud and then others on silent.

[In Exile]

I imagine that one thing that would keep BioWare from ever bothering with this is that voiced lines can tend to be longer than can realistically fit on the dialogue selection menu. The Warden sure as nug dung was never going to give any big speeches or lecture anyone at length, or give the Exalted Council a little speech before deciding what to do with the Inquisition. I'd rather they not even bother to try cutting stuff like that up to cater to this, because it would just be a mess.

Silent PCs don't give speeches because it means everyone just stands. It's not really a speech - it's the player picking huge blocks of text. That works in a game like PST because you're not giving a dramatic speech so much as giving philosophical monologues. But in a supposedly dramatic moment? It's silly.

And even ME1 broke the speeches up. Sadly ME2 went away from that in the SM. Can't recall if ME3 did it (only played that game once).

[iM3GTR]

This created a confusing argle-bargle mess where the actual dialogue read out didn't match up with what was written. It was worse than the ME codex narrator that was slow - the stuff said out loud didnt match the actual text box. It was incredibly aversive.

Hey! The codex voice was great. When proof-reading my history essay about Stalin's use of terror in the 30s, I heard all the words in his voice and it was glorious!

Oh wait, you were talking about the tempo. Never mind.

[JoltDealer]

I acknowledge your expertise when it comes to the production of traditional media, but in this case I don't think it's analogous.

In your example, if the scene gets cut then you derive no benefit from having filmed it. You would have been better off not to have filmed it.

But in the game, the scene never gets cut. It does get used, so there was never any option not to include it. The only difference is in whether a given player sees it (the vast majority of players will), and the devs derive no benefit from me experiencing their content. That's like saying I've somehow disadvantaged them if I buy the game but don't play it.

Your argument would apply just as well to branching content, where there might be whole areas or questlines that go unseen by some players. Are you arguing against those, too?
Your post is clear and informative. I just don't think it applies to content you don't have the option not to produce.

 

I never said traditional media.  If I must be specific, I studied the production of all modern forms of media.  Radio, television, film, web content, and, yes, video games was also included.  The only two fields that I haven't worked in too extensively are radio and video games, but I do have experience with both.  It's just there are more jobs available for the other fields in my area.

 

You don't seem to be grasping what I'm saying.  Spending resources on what might be heard by some, as opposed to what will be heard by all, and the fact that 2/3 of the recorded dialogue is a huge chunk.  Yes, branching storylines and side quests means that some content may go unseen by some, but the majority of resources should always be spent on things the consumer will see.  Regardless of how you play Mass Effect 1, you will always go to Therum, Noveria, Feros, the Citadel, Virmire, and Ilos.  As a result, the places you are guaranteed to see look far more intricate, detailed, and higher quality than the locales you had the option of not visiting at all.  In fact, most side missions reuse assets because it's more efficient.

 

However, you are right.  I am thinking about this in a way that is far too traditional, because, at least in regards to video game voice over, there's a lot being left up to chance at any given time and that is pretty illogical.  To have the majority of resources spent on things that may not be heard isn't all that smart, but it's a given in video games with branching paths and dialogue.  I mean, there is dialogue that is only accessible if you are female with a certain background.  I still don't see the toggle as being a good idea, but I'll concede your point.

 

That being said, going with a silent protag with voice DLC that comes later, still seems to be the best idea for solving these budgeting issues.

[Sylvius the Mad]

No, but those are all intuitive features, and they're volume controls. You're not asking for a volume control - you're asking for a player specific toggle. And it doesn't address your complaint - you'll still have all the issues with the paraphrase, the actions of the character and animations will still be tied to a line, etc. It doesn't give you the silent PC experience that you want as far as I can tell. It's all going back to what you feel comfortable ignoring.

Why bother chasing a unicorn?  I can't have all the features I want, so I'm asking for a small low-cost feature which will improve the game for me.

 

Will it make it as good as DAO was?  That's the wrong question.  It's irrelevant.  It's a red herring.  The question is how we can make the voiced protagonist BioWare uses better, and a way we can do that is by adding a volume control.

 

And I am asking for a volume control.  A volume control is exactly what I'm requesting.  One thing someone could do with a volume control is turn the volume to zero, but having a mute toggle rather than a mute toggle is both harder to sell (because it would produce a seemingly less polished result) and would be a less powerful tool for the players (a mute toggle is either on or off - a volume control has settings in between).

 

I'm asking for the volume control.  Yes, I would use it as a mute, but that doesn't mean I'd prefer the mute.  The mute is the lesser feature.  A volume control would be better (and probably cheaper).