891 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's perfectly acceptable to have degree of separation between the gameplay's presentation of reality and the cutscenes' presentation of reality, as long as both are tonally and thematically consistent. What's fun to play isn't always fun to watch and vice versa. We can't have visually engaging and dramatic cutscenes where combatants are taking minutes to kill each other, so the cutscenes speed everything up. It also doesn't make a lot of sense that some dude and three of his pals can just steamroll through every monster, bandit camp, ancient ruin, and legendary curse they come across, so the narrative just sweeps it under the rug. Cinematics and game mechanics are both just representations of reality, not the reality itself.

On which reality should the character base his decisions?

If an NPC has me at knifepoint, should I be terrified of the instant lethality of cutscene knives, or should I scoff at the woeful inadequacy of gameplay knives?

This, I agree, is the sort of dissonance that should be kept to a minimum.

[RoboticWater]

On which reality should the character base his decisions?

If an NPC has me at knifepoint, should I be terrified of the instant lethality of cutscene knives, or should I scoff at the woeful inadequacy of gameplay knives?

This, I agree, is the sort of dissonance that should be kept to a minimum.

Generally, I opt for the reality of the cutscene, because gameplay mechanics are often looser interpretations of reality. I don't believe that I can actually carry around 100 health potions in my sack or that my mage can still stand after taking the brunt of a hurlock alpha's axe or that a bard's song (a non-magical attack) can somehow stun enemies or that the battle I just participated in consisted of my character kiting a carta gang leader around the room for 3 minutes. That doesn't really make sense to me, so I imagine that the real battle looks a lot more like a cutscene. My rouges aren't just getting a single sneak attack and spamming wierd abilities, they're dancing around the room, throwing tankards and upturning tables, my tanks aren't getting stabbed hundreds of times, they're glancing attacks off their shield and pummeling enemies before they get the chance, and my mages aren't starting wild fire tornadoes inside wooden buildings, they're weaving controlled spells that only hit the bad guys (or just guys if friendly fire is activated).

 

Sure, I could try to pretend that a reality which followed the gameplay rules of any game existed, but I don't think I could deal with the inconsistencies that would eventually arise. Even ignoring the cutscene problem, I just don't see how certain story premises could exist in a world where people can apparently take multiple axe swings to their body, have those wounds combust, and still walk away fine.

 

So should you be worried about being held at knifepoint? Of course, because that can only perceptibly happen during a cutscene, and cutscene logic states that knives are dangerous. However, if you wanted to have the scenario occur during gameplay, you could pretend that a rouge that gets you down to low health has subdued you at knifepoint if it pleases you.

 

This doesn't explain inconsistencies like the kinetic barrier problem, but that's just general negligence on BioWare's part. Ideally, that stuff would improve.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Generally, I opt for the reality of the cutscene, because gameplay mechanics are often looser interpretations of reality. I don't believe that I can actually carry around 100 health potions in my sack or that my mage can still stand after taking the brunt of a hurlock alpha's axe or that a bard's song (a non-magical attack) can somehow stun enemies or that the battle I just participated in consisted of my character kiting a carta gang leader around the room for 3 minutes. That doesn't really make sense to me, so I imagine that the real battle looks a lot more like a cutscene. My rouges aren't just getting a single sneak attack and spamming wierd abilities, they're dancing around the room, throwing tankards and upturning tables, my tanks aren't getting stabbed hundreds of times, they're glancing attacks off their shield and pummeling enemies before they get the chance, and my mages aren't starting wild fire tornadoes inside wooden buildings, they're weaving controlled spells that only hit the bad guys (or just guys if friendly fire is activated).

Sure, I could try to pretend that a reality which followed the gameplay rules of any game existed, but I don't think I could deal with the inconsistencies that would eventually arise. Even ignoring the cutscene problem, I just don't see how certain story premises could exist in a world where people can apparently take multiple axe swings to their body, have those wounds combust, and still walk away fine.

So should you be worried about being held at knifepoint? Of course, because that can only perceptibly happen during a cutscene, and cutscene logic states that knives are dangerous. However, if you wanted to have the scenario occur during gameplay, you could pretend that a rouge that gets you down to low health has subdued you at knifepoint if it pleases you.

This doesn't explain inconsistencies like the kinetic barrier problem, but that's just general negligence on BioWare's part. Ideally, that stuff would improve.

Tabletop RPG rules were usually abstractions. A combat round didn't just consist of you swining your sword once and either hitting or missing. In the old AD&D rules, for example, a combat round was a minute long, and was assumed to contain numerous feints and parries and changes of position; the mechanical roll-to-hit merely represented the one genuine opening to inflict damage in that minute.

So I don't need the combat mechanics to exactly match the in-game reality, but I do need the combat mechanics to be wholly consistent with the in-game reality.the cutscenes and combat can differ, but they should not directly contradict each other.

[RoboticWater]

Tabletop RPG rules were usually abstractions. A combat round didn't just consist of you swining your sword once and either hitting or missing. In the old AD&D rules, for example, a combat round was a minute long, and was assumed to contain numerous feints and parries and changes of position; the mechanical roll-to-hit merely represented the one genuine opening to inflict damage in that minute.

So I don't need the combat mechanics to exactly match the in-game reality, but I do need the combat mechanics to be wholly consistent with the in-game reality.the cutscenes and combat can differ, but they should not directly contradict each other.

But do they directly contradict each other? If we're talking about archers that force you to flee at Ostagar, then I wouldn't call that contradiction at all. I tend to believe that combat encounters are exaggerated: we're not actually fighting through legions of enemies that are conveniently parsed out into waves. The real scenario involved less combatants fighting much quicker battles (much like the cutscenes depict), but even if we don't want to believe that abstraction, then I'm still not willing to call that particular scene contradictory. It's not outside the realm of possibility that the darkspawn would eventually overwhelm us in the tower, nor is it completely unbelievable that these archers get off some lucky shots; the cutscene just speeds us along to the foregone conclusion.

 

Even the kinetic barrier issue I brought up is more negligence than outright contradiction. Ultimately, BioWare just want to create a narrative situation (i.e. being held at gunpoint), so as long as the cutscene tonally conveys the gravity of that situation, I can ignore some slip-ups. It'd be fairly easy for an enemy to throw out a quick overload blast or take down your shields in some other contrived fashion, but BioWare didn't do that. Yes, ideally these sorts of inconsistencies should be reconciled, but if we're being held at gunpoint and we're not given a "[Just punch that guy in the face, you have a shield, dummy; he can't hurt you]" option, the situation is fairly clear and we're given adequate information to make roleplaying decisions.

[straykat]

I'd like to think Jack actually fought like her cutscenes.. because they gimped her gameplay powers. She looks like a very agile vanguard in her scenes. ME2 gameplay in general seemed to go to extremes to keep things light. Like it was designed like an MMO, overly worried about balance issues or something. Biotics are never really done justice, as far as gameplay goes.

 

Speaking of, I should probably use the console to alleviate some of this if I can. Now that I'm playing the PC version.

[Laughing_Man]

Speaking of, I should probably use the console to alleviate some of this if I can. Now that I'm playing the PC version.

 

There's not really a lot that you can do about it as far as I remember, Mass Effect games in general are rather hostile to modding.

[straykat]

That sucks. I haven't gotten around to it... still playing ME1. Not many mods for that either. But at least everyone got a wide selection of powers.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I'd like to think Jack actually fought like her cutscenes.. because they gimped her gameplay powers. She looks like a very agile vanguard in her scenes. ME2 gameplay in general seemed to go to extremes to keep things light. Like it was designed like an MMO, overly worried about balance issues or something. Biotics are never really done justice, as far as gameplay goes.

 

Speaking of, I should probably use the console to alleviate some of this if I can. Now that I'm playing the PC version.

Agreed. About Jack's powers. I remember writing about that before. I said something like I wished biotic powers (of the PC and NPCs) to be just as deadly as gun fire. The only way (without using the debug console) to come near that is to lower the difficulty and that's too bad.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But do they directly contradict each other? If we're talking about archers that force you to flee at Ostagar, then I wouldn't call that contradiction at all. I tend to believe that combat encounters are exaggerated: we're not actually fighting through legions of enemies that are conveniently parsed out into waves. The real scenario involved less combatants fighting much quicker battles (much like the cutscenes depict), but even if we don't want to believe that abstraction, then I'm still not willing to call that particular scene contradictory. It's not outside the realm of possibility that the darkspawn would eventually overwhelm us in the tower, nor is it completely unbelievable that these archers get off some lucky shots; the cutscene just speeds us along to the foregone conclusion.

The combat abstraction is working backward, then.

The point of the abstraction is to make the combat simple enough that we can play it. What you describe does the opposite, adding false (and unnecessary) complexity to the combat. Why? If that's the case, I'd much rather play the cutscene style of combat.

[RoboticWater]

The combat abstraction is working backward, then.

The point of the abstraction is to make the combat simple enough that we can play it. What you describe does the opposite, adding false (and unnecessary) complexity to the combat. Why? If that's the case, I'd much rather play the cutscene style of combat.

But making the combat more like the cutscenes would be less satisfying to play or vice versa. That's why they're different in the first place. People want tactical RPG combat that has encounters that last more than a minute. If players and enemies went down in a single blow like they do in cutscenes, then the game would play like a weird version of chess. I assume that players want their battles to last long so they can juggle multiple abilities per battle and use multi-phasic strategies rather than just running in with a single attack and hoping for the best.

 

If you want gameplay that's more like cutscenes, then play an action game.

 

Regardless, mechanical abstractions aren't meant to be just simplifications. The ultimate goal of a game is to be fun, so games can abstract their realities in any direction they please to make the final product enjoyable to play.

[straykat]

But making the combat more like the cutscenes would be less satisfying to play or vice versa. That's why they're different in the first place. People want tactical RPG combat that has encounters that last more than a minute. If players and enemies went down in a single blow like they do in cutscenes, then the game would play like a weird version of chess. I assume that players want their battles to last long so they can juggle multiple abilities per battle and use multi-phasic strategies rather than just running in with a single attack and hoping for the best.

 

If you want gameplay that's more like cutscenes, then play an action game.

 

Regardless, mechanical abstractions aren't meant to be just simplifications. The ultimate goal of a game is to be fun, so games can abstract their realities in any direction they please to make the final product enjoyable to play.

 

It's more action game than RPG, as it is. Might as well do it even better now.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But making the combat more like the cutscenes would be less satisfying to play or vice versa. That's why they're different in the first place. People want tactical RPG combat that has encounters that last more than a minute. If players and enemies went down in a single blow like they do in cutscenes, then the game would play like a weird version of chess. I assume that players want their battles to last long so they can juggle multiple abilities per battle and use multi-phasic strategies rather than just running in with a single attack and hoping for the best.

If you want gameplay that's more like cutscenes, then play an action game.

Regardless, mechanical abstractions aren't meant to be just simplifications. The ultimate goal of a game is to be fun, so games can abstract their realities in any direction they please to make the final product enjoyable to play.

The dissonance makes the game less fun.

And yes, I prefer the more complicated combat, but we hardly get that anymore. In ME we basically do have action combat (though we thankfully can still pause it). DAI's combat is quite shallow.

I'd like more traditional RPG combat with deeper mechanics, but I also don't see why cutscenes can't conform to that. I also don't see why we would want cutscenes at all, when we could just have all these events be the result of actual gameplay.

Look at Virmire. Why did we have to consign one of Kaidan and Ashley to death is dialogue? I think that would have worked better if our gameplay determined which we saved, and it would be even better if it was possible to lose both of them (particularly if you tried to save both).

[Cyonan]

The dissonance makes the game less fun.

And yes, I prefer the more complicated combat, but we hardly get that anymore. In ME we basically do have action combat (though we thankfully can still pause it). DAI's combat is quite shallow.

I'd like more traditional RPG combat with deeper mechanics, but I also don't see why cutscenes can't conform to that. I also don't see why we would want cutscenes at all, when we could just have all these events be the result of actual gameplay.

Look at Virmire. Why did we have to consign one of Kaidan and Ashley to death is dialogue? I think that would have worked better if our gameplay determined which we saved, and it would be even better if it was possible to lose both of them (particularly if you tried to save both).

 

If everything was determined by gameplay mechanics then I would have just solo'd the entire Reaper fleet by exploiting Nova's damage immunity in Mass Effect 3.

 

Imbalances in the gameplay and the fact that developers wont foresee every exploit the player does will ultimately ruin things. Even in Baldur's Gate I didn't actually fear anything, because I knew CC spam + Ring of Free Action/Spiders Bane would beat basically anything I encountered.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If everything was determined by gameplay mechanics then I would have just solo'd the entire Reaper fleet by exploiting Nova's damage immunity in Mass Effect 3.

And that would be awesome.

Imbalances in the gameplay and the fact that developers wont foresee every exploit the player does will ultimately ruin things. Even in Baldur's Gate I didn't actually fear anything, because I knew CC spam + Ring of Free Action/Spiders Bane would beat basically anything I encountered.

That's a reason to use refined versions the same mechanics across multiple games so you can use the previous games as playtests.

I also maintain that the players breaking the game isn't a bad thing.

[rocklikeafool]

And that would be awesome.
That's a reason to use refined versions the same mechanics across multiple games so you can use the previous games as playtests.

I also maintain that the players breaking the game isn't a bad thing.

I maintain that players breaking the game is bad storytelling.

[capn233]

Hmmm.  I would wonder how the Reapers managed to beat everybody for billions of years if one guy could solo them with just Nova.

[KirkyX]

Hmmm.  I would wonder how the Reapers managed to beat everybody for billions of years if one guy could solo them with just Nova.

I still haven't figured out why the darkspawn were such a big deal when one elven rogue could solo murder everything from a genlock to the archdemon, generally without taking a single hit 'cause her dex stat was so high and she had like, four separate stunlock abilities for mages.

 

The Hero of Ferelden knew how to stab, and stab well.

 

(Note: yeah, yeah, I know Nightmare's not so easy. Still possible to rogue-solo, though.)

[Cyonan]

And that would be awesome.

 

It would cause plot holes like what Capn mentioned. If Nova allowed a single person to solo the entire Reaper fleet how did they manage to take down countless civilizations? Nova is just biotics, which previous civilizations have possessed.

 

That's a reason to use refined versions the same mechanics across multiple games so you can use the previous games as playtests.

I also maintain that the players breaking the game isn't a bad thing.

 

Then the imbalances from the first game would carry over, and you've been opposed to certain balance changes in past discussions with me which would further hamstring the ability to tell a coherent story with good gameplay that improves across multiple iterations.

 

The problem with that approach is you can't fix certain bad design choices. The only way to fix the bad gunplay of Mass Effect 1 was to rework some of the mechanics of the game.

 

Players breaking the combat gameplay isn't as bad but should generally be avoided. Players breaking the story so that there are too many plot holes because a single development team couldn't foresee every possible thing a player might exploit is a bad thing.

[capn233]

I still haven't figured out why the darkspawn were such a big deal when one elven rogue could solo murder everything from a genlock to the archdemon, generally without taking a single hit 'cause her dex stat was so high and she had like, four separate stunlock abilities for mages.

 

The Hero of Ferelden knew how to stab, and stab well.

 

(Note: yeah, yeah, I know Nightmare's not so easy. Still possible to rogue-solo, though.)

 

Heh.

 

An even better question is why fight the blight when you can become a millionaire making potent lyrium potions?  Just retire some place sunny.

[TevinterSupremacist]

I want it to be a good rpg, not an flashy action/shooter mix with minimum choices that are for the most part unrelated to detailed character building.

 

It's going to be a flashy action/shooter mix with minimum choices that are for the most part unrelated to detailed character building.

[Pearl (rip bioware)]

I'd like to think Jack actually fought like her cutscenes.. because they gimped her gameplay powers. She looks like a very agile vanguard in her scenes. ME2 gameplay in general seemed to go to extremes to keep things light. Like it was designed like an MMO, overly worried about balance issues or something. Biotics are never really done justice, as far as gameplay goes.
 
Speaking of, I should probably use the console to alleviate some of this if I can. Now that I'm playing the PC version.

It's because if Jack were as potent in gameplay as she were in cutscenes, every combat encounter that the player could conceivably bring her to would have to be balanced around the possibility of her being there.

[capn233]

It's because if Jack were as potent in gameplay as she were in cutscenes, every combat encounter that the player could conceivably bring her to would have to be balanced around the possibility of her being there.

 

What about Jacob?  He totally lifted up a mech that one time.

[Pearl (rip bioware)]

What about Jacob?  He totally lifted up a mech that one time.

People brought Jacob on missions? Like, on purpose?

[capn233]

People brought Jacob on missions? Like, on purpose?

 

Just imagine if he was as powerful as in cutscenes though.

[straykat]

It's because if Jack were as potent in gameplay as she were in cutscenes, every combat encounter that the player could conceivably bring her to would have to be balanced around the possibility of her being there.

 

Technically, I want all Biotics to be as good as cutscenes (and/or the novels). So you could say I want the whole system thought over again.