79 réponses à ce sujet

[RoboticWater]

Given the number of cinematic cutscenes involved, that expense would be very high.

Yes, but making a cutscene where you kill someone is an extra drop in the ocean compared to the work needed to handle the fallout.
 

Cinematic storytelling, as I mentioned in the post to which you are replying.

I'd describe that as just storytelling rather than "cinematic" storytelling.
 

Cinematic storytelling, that features a PC the player doesn't own / define, as I mentioned in the post to which you are replying.

Bioware designs their games around cinematic storytelling. They won't allow you to kill Jacob, Miranda, and TIM and run off with the SR-2, because they've programmed a different story they want to tell. They won't allow you to side with the mercs at Dantius Towers and kill Thane while protecting Nassana because it doesn't fit with the Shepard they've designed or the story they want to tell. You can't walk into Afterlife and open fire on its inhabitants, because that behavior would not suit the Shepard they've designed or the story they want to tell.

That these scenarios were part of a trilogy is not particularly relevant. Even within the confines of a single game, Bioware tends to make sure you solve the problems presented in way that they feel befits their character and story.

I'm actually quite sure that BioWare would love to let you define Shepard in the way that you want, but they simply can't for the most part. You can't run off with the Normandy in Mass Effect any more than you can become the Jarl of Whiterun in Skyrim because that would completely change the mechanics and progression of the game. You can't just kill a bunch of bar patrons for the same reason. Shepard can't be a complete psychopath because BioWare have burdened themselves with creating a universe that reacts to Shepard's behavior, and a psychopath Shepard couldn't get far in that universe. I think it's every RPG developer's dream to let the player do whatever they want while still providing a deep narrative, but of course, that's just a dream. I don't think it's fair to BioWare to claim that they deliberately restrict choice because it doesn't fit their story, because it's probably more accurate to say that they don't build in extra options because they simply can't handle them.
 
With the Dantius Towers mission, the problem isn't making a scene where you shoot Thane, it's designing the level such that people who choose to hunt Thane will have the same amount of gameplay as the people who choose to help him. I'll grant you that getting the option to kill Thane right before he kills Nasana (after you've fought through her mercs) could have been an option, but that seems more like an oversight than BioWare saying "Shepard would never do that." And again, it would be yet another potential loose end to tie up in a future installment.
 
So yes, Mass Effect isn't a simulation. This is well established, but the cinematic nature of Mass Effect, the production value, doesn't make evil choices impossible. 
You can blame BioWare for trying to tell a story, but I don't think "cinematic" makes a difference.
 
In fact, the Witcher 2, a game with an almost completely defined protagonist, has one of the most divergent RPG stories in recent memory because Geralt is such a consistently apathetic figure. His inner circle doesn't judge him for any of his actions and Geralt doesn't want power, so he can make big decisions without fear of messing up relationships while shouldering the brunt of the reactivity onto characters who are power mongers.

[Pasquale1234]

Yes, but making a cutscene where you kill someone is an extra drop in the ocean compared to the work needed to handle the fallout.

Uh-huh. The fallout that would require another crapton of cinematic storytelling content.
 

I'd describe that as just storytelling rather than "cinematic" storytelling.

Good for you. There are other, much cheaper ways to accomplish storytelling - thus the cinematic nature is more restrictive due not only to the need to show detailed emotional reactions but also the expense involved.
 

I'm actually quite sure that BioWare would love to let you define Shepard in the way that you want, but they simply can't for the most part.

Sorry, but I've yet to see Bioware designate you as their spokesperson.
 

You can't run off with the Normandy in Mass Effect any more than you can become the Jarl of Whiterun in Skyrim because that would completely change the mechanics and progression of the game.
<snip>
I don't think it's fair to BioWare to claim that they deliberately restrict choice because it doesn't fit their story,

But it's okay to claim that Bethesda restricts choice because it doesn't fit their story?
 

In fact, the Witcher 2, a game with an almost completely defined protagonist, has one of the most divergent RPG stories in recent memory because Geralt is such a consistently apathetic figure.

It's one of the many downsides of a game designed around cinematic storytelling, that features a PC the player doesn't own / define.

[capn233]

Eh, an actual failure ending to a game is a waste of time, outside the small "Critical Mission Failure" screen.

 

As far as the protagonist dying at the end while completing the mission, it doesn't necessarily make the story any better so I don't care if this is included.

[SKAR]

Eh, an actual failure ending to a game is a waste of time, outside the small "Critical Mission Failure" screen.

As far as the protagonist dying at the end while completing the mission, it doesn't necessarily make the story any better so I don't care if this is included.

It adds a risk and reward. Your choices have more meaning.

[RoboticWater]

Uh-huh. The fallout that would require another crapton of cinematic storytelling content.

It would require a crapton of every kind of content. 
 

Good for you. There are other, much cheaper ways to accomplish storytelling - thus the cinematic nature is more restrictive due not only to the need to show detailed emotional reactions but also the expense involved.

I'm not talking about cutscenes and interactions, I'm just talking about content. A Shepard that massacres a bar couldn't have the same kind of journey as the canon Shepard at all. I doubt Joker would be willing to fly that Shepard around. That doesn't just mean characters give you different dialog; you just can't interact with certain characters at all. This might mean alternative characters, locations, progression, quests, etc.. That stuff is prohibitively expensive without the cinematics.

 

A cinematic game like DA:O could give you RP options because, in the end, your Warden goes off to the middle of nowhere so none of your former companions have any reason to discuss you, Leliana comes back to life, and all your political decisions have had essentially no effect. They couldn't have any effect because the premise of each subsequent game, not just some of its dialog and visuals, could not be founded on so many disparate choices.

 

Sorry, but I've yet to see Bioware designate you as their spokesperson.

Nor you, but I happen to know many developers. "Restricting player choice" isn't a phrase you'll likely hear without a good excuse. Developers like providing freedom because they know players like it.
 

But it's okay to claim that Bethesda restricts choice because it doesn't fit their story?

I never did. I said that Bethesda, like BioWare, restricted your options because they couldn't account for them. Becoming Jarl of Whiterun isn't something that they could program in, so they didn't let you do it.
 

It's one of the many downsides of a game designed around cinematic storytelling, that features a PC the player doesn't own / define.

Here you claim that a more defined protagonist restricts choice, but what I provided you was an example of a game that gives you great choice and consequence because of its defined protagonist.

[Pasquale1234]

It would require a crapton of every kind of content. 
 
I'm not talking about cutscenes and interactions, I'm just talking about content. A Shepard that massacres a bar couldn't have the same kind of journey as the canon Shepard at all.

Would that "journey" have anything to do with the storytelling they set out to do?

And by the way, in a cinematic storytelling game such as Bioware's, the cutscenes and interactions are a huge part of the content.
 

I never did. I said that Bethesda, like BioWare, restricted your options because they couldn't account for them. Becoming Jarl of Whiterun isn't something that they could program in, so they didn't let you do it.

Yet you seem to be accusing me of making statements about Bioware specifically that are not also true of most other game devs.
 

Here you claim that a more defined protagonist restricts choice, but what I provided you was an example of a game that gives you great choice and consequence because of its defined protagonist.

Actually, I said that the combination of the cinematic storytelling they set out to accomplish plus the type of character they want to present heavily influences the content offered.

And, as usual, I'm not sure whether you're actually trying to have a discussion with me or just using one of my posts as a platform to "educate" the masses. Either way, I stand by my initial generic statement.

[capn233]

It adds a risk and reward. Your choices have more meaning.

 

Not really.

[SKAR]

Not really.

Yes really

[RoboticWater]

Would that "journey" have anything to do with the storytelling they set out to do?

Are you annoyed at BioWare games for having a story at all or annoyed that these stories are told with cinematics? The vast majority of RPG (both cinematic or otherwise) have stories, often quite linear ones at that, and they can still have the player make evil choices and get an evil ending. Yeah, telling a story will always get in the way of freedom. I don't see where cinematic comes into that.
 

And by the way, in a cinematic storytelling game such as Bioware's, the cutscenes and interactions are a huge part of the content.

It's a large amount of content, but not as large as making a whole new level or a whole new character or a whole new plot. That's my point: if being evil was as easy as a few cutscenes, then BioWare would let you be evil. 

 

If you want to shove consequence under the "cinematic" umbrella, then fine, but I don't think that's correct usage of the term. More importantly, I would think that maximizing consequence is what we want. The problem is, when we have sequels, those consequences become harder and harder to work with, regardless of the production value.

 

Yet you seem to be accusing me of making statements about Bioware specifically that are not also true of most other game devs.

I don't think it's fair to accuse any developer of casting aside player choice specifically because it would interfere with their story and nothing else.

It just seemed to me like you were painting BioWare as a developer that didn't care, and that given the time and energy, they wouldn't even bother providing the player with more choices because it would somehow conflict with their artistic vision. With infinite time and resources, any player choice can be accounted for. There could be alternate routes, premature failure states, and guaranteed deaths that tie every inch the player takes back into the story BioWare are trying to tell, but it takes effort. Effort that I'm sure a developer would spend if it had the chance.

It's not a point I'm particularly ardent about, so I'll drop it if you want me to.
 

Actually, I said that the combination of the cinematic storytelling they set out to accomplish plus the type of character they want to present heavily influences the content offered.

Yes, and I've said that more defined protagonists don't need to negate choice. In terms of ending states, The Witcher proves that a defined protagonist can have a variety of endings both happy and sad where the player can view themselves in a number of moral lights.
 

And, as usual, I'm not sure whether you're actually trying to have a discussion with me or just using one of my posts as a platform to "educate" the masses. Either way, I stand by my initial generic statement.

I don't think that defined protagonists or cinematics completely negate player choice. You can have cinematic games like DA:O and Witcher that still allow for great amounts of player freedom. If we don't have more than one failure ending (even just more than one ending), then that isn't because BioWare is hell-bent on making a cinematic game.

My agenda, as it were, is to prove that removing Mass Effect's "cinematic" nature would not result in a game with vastly more choice. I don't want people to blame cinematics, VO, and production value for a problem that has more to do with something else.

If you consider any kind of story at all, reactivity, and direct sequels part of "cinematic," then fine. Yes, you are correct, those are the things restricting our choice. I'd argue that you're lumping too many terms together under one roof, but that's not the point. As long as we're on the same page about what specific things get in the way of player freedom and failure endings, then I'm done.

[SKAR]

Are you annoyed at BioWare games for having a story at all or annoyed that these stories are told with cinematics? The vast majority of RPG (both cinematic or otherwise) have stories, often quite linear ones at that, and they can still have the player make evil choices and get an evil ending. Yeah, telling a story will always get in the way of freedom. I don't see where cinematic comes into that.

It's a large amount of content, but not as large as making a whole new level or a whole new character or a whole new plot. That's my point: if being evil was as easy as a few cutscenes, then BioWare would let you be evil.

If you want to shove consequence under the "cinematic" umbrella, then fine, but I don't think that's correct usage of the term. More importantly, I would think that maximizing consequence is what we want. The problem is, when we have sequels, those consequences become harder and harder to work with, regardless of the production value.

I don't think it's fair to accuse any developer of casting aside player choice specifically because it would interfere with their story and nothing else.

It just seemed to me like you were painting BioWare as a developer that didn't care, and that given the time and energy, they wouldn't even bother providing the player with more choices because it would somehow conflict with their artistic vision. With infinite time and resources, any player choice can be accounted for. There could be alternate routes, premature failure states, and guaranteed deaths that tie every inch the player takes back into the story BioWare are trying to tell, but it takes effort.

It's not a point I'm particularly ardent about, so I'll drop it if you want me to.

Yes, and I've said that more defined protagonists don't need to negate choice. In terms of ending states, The Witcher proves that a defined protagonist can have a variety of endings both happy and sad where the player can view themselves in a number of moral lights.

I don't think that defined protagonists or cinematics completely negate player choice. You can have cinematic games like DA:O and Witcher that still allow for great amounts of player freedom. If we don't have more than one failure ending (even just more than one ending), then that isn't because BioWare is hell-bent on making a cinematic game.

My agenda, as it were, is to prove that removing Mass Effect's "cinematic" nature would not result in a game with vastly more choice. I don't want people to blame cinematics, VO, and production value for a problem that has more to do with something else.

If you consider any kind of story at all, reactivity, and direct sequels part of "cinematic," then fine. Yes, you are correct, those are the things restricting our choice. I'd argue that you're lumping too many terms together under one roof, but that's not the point. As long as we're on the same page about what specific things get in the way of player freedom and failure endings, then I'm done.

jeez man. You have a lot of time on your hands and stuff on your mind.

[RoboticWater]

jeez man. You have a lot of time on your hands and stuff on your mind.

If I'm not here, then I'm usually practicing my argumentative and typing skills elsewhere; I consider it a valuable skill to keep up. And like I said a while ago: all between deaths in Dark Souls. 

[Sartoz]

                                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

 I can see failure in degrees. Finding and colonizing an acceptable New Earth vs an excellent one... finding enough tech to survive instead of being the victor and superior. What I cannot see is our Pathfinder dying. If the story is written a la Shep, knocking off Shep simply won't do.

[Pasquale1234]

Are you annoyed at BioWare games for having a story at all or annoyed that these stories are told with cinematics?

Neither.

Are you annoyed about something?
 

I don't think it's fair to accuse any developer of casting aside player choice specifically because it would interfere with their story and nothing else.

Did someone attempt any such accusations?
 

It just seemed to me like you were painting BioWare as a developer that didn't care,

This is not the first time you've read voluminous additional content into a very brief statement and then proceeded to fill a graveyard with strawmen.

But carry on with your lecture, since that's your thing.

[Knight of Dane]

I don't. having failure endings is never satisfying because they are never a "proper" ending. Do away with them and add actual variables instead, also keeps bioware from writing themselves into plot holes they have to account for later.

[RoboticWater]

Neither.

Are you annoyed about something?

Not particularly. I just want to discuss specific aspects of "cinematic" and how they relate to divergent content.
 

Did someone attempt any such accusations?

"Bioware tends to make sure you solve the problems presented in way that they feel befits their character and story." Is that an accusation? No. Accuse was too strong a word for the occasion. However, the way your argument was worded, I took it to mean that you though BioWare built their game from the ground up to be intentionally restrictive rather than building their game to support freedom and eventually running into design restrictions. I consider it an unfair negative assumption about BioWare to assume the former.
 
If that's not how you feel, the great. I apologize for being so hostile. I just get defensive when it comes to the intentions of developers. It's too often that I hear these people are lazy, incompetent, and apathetic, so I usually assume the worst.
 

This is not the first time you've read voluminous additional content into a very brief statement and then proceeded to fill a graveyard with strawmen.

I disagree that "cinematic" content inherently "doesn't allow you to be evil," but rather that it was down to continuity and reactivity. If those two things fall under your definition of cinematic, then cool, we're on the same page. I think your definition is too broad, but we're on the same page. But please, keep claiming to have whatever moral high ground you seem to have willed into existence and not addressing my points.
 

But carry on with your lecture, since that's your thing.

Look, we can stop any time. Like I said, I wouldn't get much practice writing prose if I didn't do this, so I latch onto whatever I can get.

[Pasquale1234]

@RoboticWater - As a longtime software engineer myself, I've never suggested that Bioware developers are "lazy, incompetent, and apathetic" and rather resent it when I see other people make such remarks. I also rather resent it when you attempt to put such words in my mouth - which you've done on multiple occasions.

And that's why I asked whether you were actually trying to have a discussion with me or merely using my post as some sort of entry platform into this thread to deliver whatever prose it is you wanted to type. I admit I haven't read all of the content you've typed here, because very little of it had anything to do with anything I've said or believe.

In any case, if you enjoy writing so much, you might want to consider blogging.

Another thing you might want to consider is replying only to what another poster actually said. If you've additional things to discuss, you can separate that content from your reply to another's post.

[SKAR]

If I'm not here, then I'm usually practicing my argumentative and typing skills elsewhere; I consider it a valuable skill to keep up. And like I said a while ago: all between deaths in Dark Souls.

Good man.

[Monk]

Regardless of how they construct the endings, or when they actually become fatal, i hope they do some kind of flash-back sequence to give us a sense of what we did to trigger them. It's not that i won't do it over again, especially if it doesn't end the game, but it would provide a nice sense of cause and effect.

 

Take Wrex potential demise. I really didn't know what to do to stop it until i searched through wikis and forums. Maybe it's just a failure on my own part in understanding what was needed but i feel it would have helped some with a flash-back.

[In Exile]

Agreed. Inquisition was the perfect time to play an evil tyrant, considering how much political and military power the inquisitor had by the middle of the game. I was very disappointed they didn't let us go down this route. Would've added alot to the replay value to the game.

It's just unworkable. You need to design an entire game around it. It's such a demanding concept. I really can't think of an RPG where this is possible.

[Really Sad Panther]

Why stop at just one, depending on who you ask, the last one had three failure endings.

[Laughing_Man]

It's just unworkable. You need to design an entire game around it. It's such a demanding concept. I really can't think of an RPG where this is possible.

 

Are you talking about evil protagonist? It was certainly done in the past. KOTOR games are an example.

 

It's certainly possible to make branching choices etc. I imagine that the main consideration is fan interest, they are not going to make an "evil path"

if only 15% of the player base is going to play it (a shame, but hardly a surprise).

 

The EA influenced pivot from "core" crowd to a more "casual" crowd, makes such possibilities even less likely.

[Laughing_Man]

OP: I fail to see what's the fascination with failure. Hawke was the harbinger of failure most of the time, that didn't make DA:2 great.

 

I want the ending to be well made and not rushed, I don't want to see plot holes that a dreadnought can charge through them due to their sheer mind-bending size.

 

I want them to think any "artistic" idea through, and not just slap it together and serve on a tray of speculations.

 

I want them to understand that what makes an ending impressive, enjoyable, and memorable is not whether it is good or bad (although that has *some* influence), but rather the closure it provides, the implications for both present and future, and how it meshes with the story as it was told and the universe as it was portrayed.

[Mdizzletr0n]

I want fails in general. In the way that some lost combat scenarios don't just end in game over. The story would continue but with an altered path.

And failure from gameplay, not forced a loss for story reasons.

[Tactical striga]

Well in Fallout 1, you were able to just be a complete evil dude and even side with the master at the end of the game.

[SKAR]

Failure ending like ME2 is one thing. Ending where you become bad guy. There's no future in that ending if you're the hero. It just ends in that one game.