Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1818
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 15:08:58 GMT
But FO4 is still good enough because while they may be simplistic "cutscenes" it is still better than what DAI did which really disconnected people from their character. At least in FO4 you saw a zoomed in picture of your avatar talking and you see their emotions, reactions, concerns etc as well as those of the person you are talking to. In DAI, I often felt like some bystander sitting back watching 2 people talk. This is an argument I've really never understood. Unless you live in a world surrounded by mirrors or video cameras, people don't generally watch themselves react. IRL, you know what you think and how you feel, but most of us don't go around watching ourselves. If you're role-playing a character, you should know how they think and what they're feeling at any given time - seeing them react on-screen might accurately represent your role-play, but there's always a risk that it won't - and when it doesn't, a major disconnect happens. To this day, the DA PC I feel most connected with is the warden. A lot of people complained about the warden's lack of reaction, but that never bothered me - probably because I generally ignored the warden's presence on-screen and instead focused on the rest of the scene. That's more immersive to me, because it mirrors real life. If I'm talking with someone, I'm usually looking at them, wherever I am, I'm looking at the environment. And to this day, a lot of people still want to play their wardens again. Then came DA2's Hawke and a huge loss of control of the character. Hawke was Hawke whether (mostly) diplomatic, snarky, or aggressive. Certainly, some people appreciate the character, but plenty of people don't, and Hawke has always felt like an NPC to me. Despite multiple attempts, I never did find a way to role-play DA2. Ultimately it just became this thing where I take an NPC through a series of events, make choices, and see where the branching narrative takes me. So they tried to find a balance and created the Inquisitor, a character that many people complained is too bland. What they haven't done yet is what I feel is the simplest solution that could solve most of the issues around inappropriate PC reactions - and that is to switch to first person camera for conversations. You'd still always have the possibility that the VA doesn't quite align with what you expected when you made your selection, but you'd never have to watch the character you're supposed to be role-playing doing things that are out of character. BTW - despite being a huge Fallout fan, I've yet to buy/play FO4 - mostly because they inserted an unwanted voice track and cinematics. |
|
inherit
3439
0
9,664
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
8,054
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Sept 13, 2017 15:29:12 GMT
My point is that Bio didn't avoid doing this stuff because they couldn't. They didn't think it was desirable to do it. Similarly, they dropped day/night cycles after NWN, because they didn't think that simulating the world was useful. The argument that they're behind the curve was made over a decade ago. Naybe that argument is finally true? Maybe features that were old hat in 2000 are essential today? I don't know. But I do know that the argument was nonsense the first time around. Not really related to this discussion, but I should point out that the newest Zelda (while having its flaws) is the latest example of the evolution in open world games. The way they take the open world formula forward is why people love that game. From controlled world to what some are calling the "engaged world", the future of open world games are engaged worlds and Bioware can't even manage the controlled world formula (large worlds where you travel from small mission to mission.) Bioware have no chance, zero, nada, of ever being successful within this genre, and they really should just give up now. Whatever ideas they have about open world game, those ideas are probably 10 years or so "behind the times" *shrugs* EDIT: I really do think the best thing for Bioware is to give up the open world idea. It's really just not their thing. Could you define the terms here? I'm not interested enough in the Zelda franchise to follow this, but I suppose I'll need to learn the language. |
|
inherit
2550
0
1,958
majesticjazz
2,015
January 2017
majesticjazz
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by majesticjazz on Sept 13, 2017 15:32:18 GMT
But FO4 is still good enough because while they may be simplistic "cutscenes" it is still better than what DAI did which really disconnected people from their character. At least in FO4 you saw a zoomed in picture of your avatar talking and you see their emotions, reactions, concerns etc as well as those of the person you are talking to. In DAI, I often felt like some bystander sitting back watching 2 people talk. This is an argument I've really never understood. Unless you live in a world surrounded by mirrors or video cameras, people don't generally watch themselves react. IRL, you know what you think and how you feel, but most of us don't go around watching ourselves. If you're role-playing a character, you should know how they think and what they're feeling at any given time - seeing them react on-screen might accurately represent your role-play, but there's always a risk that it won't - and when it doesn't, a major disconnect happens. To this day, the DA PC I feel most connected with is the warden. A lot of people complained about the warden's lack of reaction, but that never bothered me - probably because I generally ignored the warden's presence on-screen and instead focused on the rest of the scene. That's more immersive to me, because it mirrors real life. If I'm talking with someone, I'm usually looking at them, wherever I am, I'm looking at the environment. And to this day, a lot of people still want to play their wardens again. Then came DA2's Hawke and a huge loss of control of the character. Hawke was Hawke whether (mostly) diplomatic, snarky, or aggressive. Certainly, some people appreciate the character, but plenty of people don't, and Hawke has always felt like an NPC to me. Despite multiple attempts, I never did find a way to role-play DA2. Ultimately it just became this thing where I take an NPC through a series of events, make choices, and see where the branching narrative takes me. So they tried to find a balance and created the Inquisitor, a character that many people complained is too bland. What they haven't done yet is what I feel is the simplest solution that could solve most of the issues around inappropriate PC reactions - and that is to switch to first person camera for conversations. You'd still always have the possibility that the VA doesn't quite align with what you expected when you made your selection, but you'd never have to watch the character you're supposed to be role-playing doing things that are out of character. BTW - despite being a huge Fallout fan, I've yet to buy/play FO4 - mostly because they inserted an unwanted voice track and cinematics. Well im afraid that you may be in the minority. Not that your view is good or bad, but just not a popular one in today's games. I do not have solid numbers to back this up, but a common complaint against DAI was the lack of cutscenes. Yes, the critical path was minority cutscenes but all the sidequest (which was most of the games content) was not. I would also like to note that in DAI's "ambient" conversations, it wasnt just the IQ's face that you couldnt see but also the person that you werr talking to. I spend a majority of the conversation trying to play with the camera so I could get that ideal view rather than being pulled into the talk. Again, not being able to close up see the facial expressions of both talking characters really was something that took me out of the experience. Sort of like just standing to the side and watching 2 people talk. This was problemsome in talks were a lot of emotion was conveyed but I couldnt see due to the camera angle. MEA sort of had this problem at times as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1818
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 15:48:03 GMT
My point is that Bio didn't avoid doing this stuff because they couldn't. They didn't think it was desirable to do it. Similarly, they dropped day/night cycles after NWN, because they didn't think that simulating the world was useful. The argument that they're behind the curve was made over a decade ago. Naybe that argument is finally true? Maybe features that were old hat in 2000 are essential today? I don't know. But I do know that the argument was nonsense the first time around. Not really related to this discussion, but I should point out that the newest Zelda (while having its flaws) is the latest example of the evolution in open world games. The way they take the open world formula forward is why people love that game. From controlled world to what some are calling the "engaged world", the future of open world games are engaged worlds and Bioware can't even manage the controlled world formula (large worlds where you travel from small mission to mission.) Bioware have no chance, zero, nada, of ever being successful within this genre, and they really should just give up now. Whatever ideas they have about open world game, those ideas are probably 10 years or so "behind the times" *shrugs* EDIT: I really do think the best thing for Bioware is to give up the open world idea. It's really just not their thing. BioWare has always had some open world elements in their games, they've just been on smaller maps. Arrive in Ostagar, explore, collect loot and resources, overhear conversations and/or talk to NPCs to learn more about what's going on there, accept and do sidequests, trade with the merchant. Ditto Lothering, Redcliffe, Ostagar, Brecilian Forest, etc. DA2 had largely the same structure, though the maps were much more limited and content was sliced into 3 separate Acts. DAI just made the maps a whole lot bigger and added the War Table and power mechanics. ME was similar - explore area, loot, talk to NPCs, do sidequests, trade with merchant, hack terminals. ME also had a lot of planetary exploration where you could discover other quests. ME2 was much more linear and did away with loot inventory, but still had hubs with NPCs, sidequests, and merchants (Citadel, Omega, Illium, Tuchanka). ME3 had but one hub in the Citadel, with multiple merchants, many NPCs (including members of your crew), and loads of sidequests there. With very few exceptions (ME2's collector quests being the most egregious), you could choose when to do the next major step to advance the central plotline. Neither DA nor ME have ever been sandbox games, but they've always been open world. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1818
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 16:08:24 GMT
This is an argument I've really never understood. Unless you live in a world surrounded by mirrors or video cameras, people don't generally watch themselves react. IRL, you know what you think and how you feel, but most of us don't go around watching ourselves. If you're role-playing a character, you should know how they think and what they're feeling at any given time - seeing them react on-screen might accurately represent your role-play, but there's always a risk that it won't - and when it doesn't, a major disconnect happens. To this day, the DA PC I feel most connected with is the warden. A lot of people complained about the warden's lack of reaction, but that never bothered me - probably because I generally ignored the warden's presence on-screen and instead focused on the rest of the scene. That's more immersive to me, because it mirrors real life. If I'm talking with someone, I'm usually looking at them, wherever I am, I'm looking at the environment. And to this day, a lot of people still want to play their wardens again. Then came DA2's Hawke and a huge loss of control of the character. Hawke was Hawke whether (mostly) diplomatic, snarky, or aggressive. Certainly, some people appreciate the character, but plenty of people don't, and Hawke has always felt like an NPC to me. Despite multiple attempts, I never did find a way to role-play DA2. Ultimately it just became this thing where I take an NPC through a series of events, make choices, and see where the branching narrative takes me. So they tried to find a balance and created the Inquisitor, a character that many people complained is too bland. What they haven't done yet is what I feel is the simplest solution that could solve most of the issues around inappropriate PC reactions - and that is to switch to first person camera for conversations. You'd still always have the possibility that the VA doesn't quite align with what you expected when you made your selection, but you'd never have to watch the character you're supposed to be role-playing doing things that are out of character. BTW - despite being a huge Fallout fan, I've yet to buy/play FO4 - mostly because they inserted an unwanted voice track and cinematics. Well im afraid that you may be in the minority. Not that your view is good or bad, but just not a popular one in today's games. I do not have solid numbers to back this up, but a common complaint against DAI was the lack of cutscenes. Yes, the critical path was minority cutscenes but all the sidequest (which was most of the games content) was not. I'm very aware of the litany of complaints. I also know that the only people you hear from are those with complaints. People who are happy with the way a thing was done don't usually go around talking about it. My suggestion to shift to first person camera for most cutscenes would solve this. You'd be able to watch the NPC's face as you're speaking to them, and there would be no disconnects if your character reacts in a way that might be out of character. I also think it would be much more immersive, as it would put you squarely in the scene, and you could see the NPC's expression change as your character speaks and acts (instead of the typical switching back and forth to focus on the speaker). They could (fairly easily, I think) establish 3 different vantage points to accommodate the different races - a high eye-level view for qunari, a low one for dwarves, and medium for human and elf PCs. That would also add a great quality to the immersion imho. |
|
inherit
7535
0
2,066
abaris
2,013
April 2017
abaris
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by abaris on Sept 13, 2017 16:23:57 GMT
My suggestion to shift to first person camera for most cutscenes would solve this. You'd be able to watch the NPC's face as you're speaking to them, and there would be no disconnects if your character reacts in a way that might be out of character. I also think it would be much more immersive, as it would put you squarely in the scene, and you could see the NPC's expression change as your character speaks and acts (instead of the typical switching back and forth to focus on the speaker). Seeing as I am a first person hater and always play in 3rd person, this would ruin it for me and would be less immersive. You see, there are many opinions on the matter and what works for one won't work for others. I also have to say that cutscenes are last on my list as far as complaints in Bioware games go. I'm pretty content with things are right now in that department. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1818
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 16:53:37 GMT
My suggestion to shift to first person camera for most cutscenes would solve this. You'd be able to watch the NPC's face as you're speaking to them, and there would be no disconnects if your character reacts in a way that might be out of character. I also think it would be much more immersive, as it would put you squarely in the scene, and you could see the NPC's expression change as your character speaks and acts (instead of the typical switching back and forth to focus on the speaker). Seeing as I am a first person hater and always play in 3rd person, this would ruin it for me and would be less immersive. You see, there are many opinions on the matter and what works for one won't work for others. I also have to say that cutscenes are last on my list as far as complaints in Bioware games go. I'm pretty content with things are right now in that department. I understand that people have preferences between first and third person in gaming. But I'm not suggesting that the entire game be presented in first person, only that cutscenes use a first person camera instead of... whatever they learned in filmmaking school. As it is, they're presenting these parts of videogames as if they were shooting film, and I think a different approach could be hugely beneficial to the medium. If you want to talk about immersion, I feel like I'm constantly shifting between playing a game and watching a film as it is done today. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
9339
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 17:18:09 GMT
Seeing as I am a first person hater and always play in 3rd person, this would ruin it for me and would be less immersive. You see, there are many opinions on the matter and what works for one won't work for others. I also have to say that cutscenes are last on my list as far as complaints in Bioware games go. I'm pretty content with things are right now in that department. I understand that people have preferences between first and third person in gaming. But I'm not suggesting that the entire game be presented in first person, only that cutscenes use a first person camera instead of... whatever they learned in filmmaking school. As it is, they're presenting these parts of videogames as if they were shooting film, and I think a different approach could be hugely beneficial to the medium. If you want to talk about immersion, I feel like I'm constantly shifting between playing a game and watching a film as it is done today. I think some more variations in the camera angles during cut scenes would be a great improvement to the game. More important to me though would be that the NPCs are given more natural stances and movements during conversation. For example, Major Domo Bell-Scott pacing around like a caged lion and waving his hands with not particular connection to what he was saying did not add anything to my immersion... it detracted from it. Similarly, having NPCs constantly fiddle with their omni-tools regardless of what they were saying had the same effect; and having them just stand their slowly "pulsing" in an unnatural (hunched-over) stance was no better. While I'm not a fan of TW3 in general, giving their NPCs natural stances and movements is something they did very well; and Bioware has a lot yet to learn in this area. Making the NPCs move naturally is just something that Bioware has never done really well. |
|
inherit
7535
0
2,066
abaris
2,013
April 2017
abaris
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by abaris on Sept 13, 2017 17:35:32 GMT
If you want to talk about immersion, I feel like I'm constantly shifting between playing a game and watching a film as it is done today. Yeah, I like it that way. I wouldn't want them to switch to FP and stick to what they learned at film school. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1818
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 17:47:35 GMT
I understand that people have preferences between first and third person in gaming. But I'm not suggesting that the entire game be presented in first person, only that cutscenes use a first person camera instead of... whatever they learned in filmmaking school. As it is, they're presenting these parts of videogames as if they were shooting film, and I think a different approach could be hugely beneficial to the medium. If you want to talk about immersion, I feel like I'm constantly shifting between playing a game and watching a film as it is done today. I think some more variations in the camera angles during cut scenes would be a great improvement to the game. More important to me though would be that the NPCs are given more natural stances and movements during conversation. For example, Major Domo Bell-Scott pacing around like a caged lion and waving his hands with not particular connection to what he was saying did not add anything to my immersion... it detracted from it. Similarly, having NPCs constantly fiddle with their omni-tools regardless of what they were saying had the same effect; and having them just stand their slowly "pulsing" in an unnatural (hunched-over) stance was no better. While I'm not a fan of TW3 in general, giving their NPCs natural stances and movements is something they did very well; and Bioware has a lot yet to learn in this area. Making the NPCs move naturally is just something that Bioware has never done really well. Keeping the focus on the character(s) with whom the PC is interacting could help a lot with this, I think. Instead of running through some generic animation script, they could show the character reacting to whatever the PC is saying. As it is, they do the filmmaker thing, and constantly switch back and forth to always focus the camera on the speaker. I think it would be vastly more immersive, and keep me in the character I'm playing and in the game instead of feeling like I'm watching a film (and watching my character act in a film). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
9339
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 17:50:57 GMT
If you want to talk about immersion, I feel like I'm constantly shifting between playing a game and watching a film as it is done today. Yeah, I like it that way. I wouldn't want them to switch to FP and stick to what they learned at film school. A lot, if not most, movies switch camera angles to include conversation views that are at least somewhat first person... so it can be done quite naturally and without impacting negatively on immersion. It probably takes a lot of bytes to program such things... so the game developers just usually scrimp out on it. TW3 switched it up and, for the most part handled the changes in camera angles during cutscenes quite well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
9339
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 17:51:50 GMT
I think some more variations in the camera angles during cut scenes would be a great improvement to the game. More important to me though would be that the NPCs are given more natural stances and movements during conversation. For example, Major Domo Bell-Scott pacing around like a caged lion and waving his hands with not particular connection to what he was saying did not add anything to my immersion... it detracted from it. Similarly, having NPCs constantly fiddle with their omni-tools regardless of what they were saying had the same effect; and having them just stand their slowly "pulsing" in an unnatural (hunched-over) stance was no better. While I'm not a fan of TW3 in general, giving their NPCs natural stances and movements is something they did very well; and Bioware has a lot yet to learn in this area. Making the NPCs move naturally is just something that Bioware has never done really well. Keeping the focus on the character(s) with whom the PC is interacting could help a lot with this, I think. Instead of running through some generic animation script, they could show the character reacting to whatever the PC is saying. As it is, they do the filmmaker thing, and constantly switch back and forth to always focus the camera on the speaker. I think it would be vastly more immersive, and keep me in the character I'm playing and in the game instead of feeling like I'm watching a film (and watching my character act in a film). I agree. |
|
inherit
3439
0
9,664
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
8,054
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Sept 13, 2017 18:13:01 GMT
I get the feeling that breaking with cinematic conventions like that would alienate a lot of players, though I don't know how to test the hypothesis. If you do just a couple of convos that way it'll look like camera bugs rather than an artistic choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1818
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 18:20:03 GMT
I get the feeling that breaking with cinematic conventions like that would alienate a lot of players, though I don't know how to test the hypothesis. If you do just a couple of convos that way it'll look like camera bugs rather than an artistic choice. It's possible - but it should have been done that way all along imho. I know I harp on this quite a bit, but I want to feel like I'm playing a game, exist in that world, and have complete control of my character. First person camera in cutscenes is the best way I can think of to accomplish that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
9339
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 18:31:48 GMT
I get the feeling that breaking with cinematic conventions like that would alienate a lot of players, though I don't know how to test the hypothesis. If you do just a couple of convos that way it'll look like camera bugs rather than an artistic choice. Maybe, but a lot of those players are still married to the non-voiced PCs in RPGs... thinking they arbitrarily get more different choices out of that set up. I'm currently doing a playthrough of Oblivion (where I can choose between FP or TP) and honestly fail to see where the conversations offer any sort of wider variety of choice than I got in ME:A. Having the NPC react appropriately to the PC in ME games rather than just going through some nonsensical scripted motion, imho, would be a vast improvement that would come with FP cutscenes for conversations. As it is, the player does not control the PC during these conversation anyways as the PCs movement is locked. The camera also locks them off to one side... sometimes in such a way that it is impossible to pan far enough to see a third NPC who is also involved in the conversation and you can never pan far enough around to see how our PC is reacting... since you only get a profile view of the face at best. At worst, you happen to start the conversation from a bad angle (or with some sort of object in the way; and you wide up being unable to see the NPC you're talking with at all. |
|
inherit
7535
0
2,066
abaris
2,013
April 2017
abaris
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by abaris on Sept 13, 2017 18:34:14 GMT
I know I harp on this quite a bit, but I want to feel like I'm playing a game, exist in that world, and have complete control of my character. First person camera in cutscenes is the best way I can think of to accomplish that. For you it is. I appreciate that. For me it isn't. And for others it may be a third option. |
|
inherit
2550
0
1,958
majesticjazz
2,015
January 2017
majesticjazz
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by majesticjazz on Sept 13, 2017 19:34:54 GMT
I'm very aware of the litany of complaints. I also know that the only people you hear from are those with complaints. People who are happy with the way a thing was done don't usually go around talking about it. I am sorry but that isnt how the industry works. A developer is not going to ignore something that people are complaining about simply because of some possibility that they may be in the minority and most people do not have such complaints. Especially with Bioware who has a history of over correcting on issues that people complain about. People though DAO combat was too out of date for a 2009 game, so in DA2 they take out all tactical stuff and make it "button mashing". People complain about the tight and repeat environments in DA2, so in DAI they blow everything up and make wide and open zones. It is said that Hinterlands is bigger than all of DAO combined. So for better or for worse, I expect Bioware to address their open world execution as well as dialog camera in DA4. I mean, don't expect them to just ignore it because most people they hear from are complainers as you suggest. If they ignore complaints, then what is it that they dont ignore? |
|
inherit
8885
0
Nov 25, 2024 22:05:34 GMT
7,568
river82
5,222
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Sept 13, 2017 22:31:03 GMT
Not really related to this discussion, but I should point out that the newest Zelda (while having its flaws) is the latest example of the evolution in open world games. The way they take the open world formula forward is why people love that game. From controlled world to what some are calling the "engaged world", the future of open world games are engaged worlds and Bioware can't even manage the controlled world formula (large worlds where you travel from small mission to mission.) Bioware have no chance, zero, nada, of ever being successful within this genre, and they really should just give up now. Whatever ideas they have about open world game, those ideas are probably 10 years or so "behind the times" *shrugs* EDIT: I really do think the best thing for Bioware is to give up the open world idea. It's really just not their thing. Could you define the terms here? I'm not interested enough in the Zelda franchise to follow this, but I suppose I'll need to learn the language. It's not really set language, just what people are calling it. Controlled worlds are open world games where people's experiences are fairly ... controlled. There are hundreds of missions for people to do and players will go from place to place to place doing those missions. In these worlds people's experiences won't differ very much from everyone elses. Engaged worlds are open world games where the world itself is the game, not the missions, and it emphasises freedom for the player. Here players experiences can differentiate remarkably from everybody elses experience. Everybody was sharing Zelda pictures and stories online because it was very much THEIR playthrough which was different to everybody else's playthrough. Nearly everything in the game is optional and the player plays the game however they want to. It's a little hard to explain xD |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1818
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 23:06:05 GMT
I'm very aware of the litany of complaints. I also know that the only people you hear from are those with complaints. People who are happy with the way a thing was done don't usually go around talking about it. I am sorry but that isnt how the industry works. A developer is not going to ignore something that people are complaining about simply because of some possibility that they may be in the minority and most people do not have such complaints. Especially with Bioware who has a history of over correcting on issues that people complain about. I'm very well aware that developers pay attention to complaints. My response was in reference to your assertions about minority / majority - since you don't have any sort of mathematically valid statistics to draw from, you ought not be making such claims. Not true. People complained that DAO combat was too slow (e.g., the warden shuffle), so they sped it up a lot. They did not remove the "tactical stuff" in DA2 - they enhanced it with more options and slots that players could program. They also added cross-class combos as another tactical option. Yes, people complained mightily about DA2's repetitive environments. Though I've certainly noticed their tendency to overcorrect, I'm quite skeptical of the notion that DAI's huge maps were solely a result of complaints about repetitive environments. For as long as they've been in business, BioWare has constantly tried to tweak and improve. |
|
inherit
8885
0
Nov 25, 2024 22:05:34 GMT
7,568
river82
5,222
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Sept 13, 2017 23:20:11 GMT
People though DAO combat was too out of date for a 2009 game, so in DA2 they take out all tactical stuff and make it "button mashing". People complained that DAO combat was too slow (e.g., the warden shuffle), so they sped it up a lot. They did not remove the "tactical stuff" in DA2 - they enhanced it with more options and slots that players could program. They also added cross-class combos as another tactical option. When people say they removed tactical combat in number 2, they really mean the strategic aspect to combat (like positioning which was completely destroyed by the wave combat.) |
|
inherit
8885
0
Nov 25, 2024 22:05:34 GMT
7,568
river82
5,222
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Sept 13, 2017 23:23:17 GMT
In chess you can have lightning fast tactical play, but also a quite slow strategic positioning exchange. It seems to me that in their bid to quicken up the combat in DA:2 they removed quite a bit of the slow strategic aspect of combat  |
|
inherit
3439
0
9,664
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
8,054
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Sept 13, 2017 23:37:25 GMT
I didn't see that myself. Then again, I prefer not to pause in DA:O in the first place, so I suppose I wouldn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1818
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 23:39:52 GMT
People complained that DAO combat was too slow (e.g., the warden shuffle), so they sped it up a lot. They did not remove the "tactical stuff" in DA2 - they enhanced it with more options and slots that players could program. They also added cross-class combos as another tactical option. When people say they removed tactical combat in number 2, they really mean the strategic aspect to combat (like positioning which was completely destroyed by the wave combat.) I'll take that as saying what you mean by tactical combat - others can speak for themselves. The strategic (per how I define it) aspects really haven't changed much - you still select and enhance gear, potions, companions as always. Tactical positioning did change somewhat due to the wave mechanic, but each individual battle has always been unique in the way enemies spawn in. Blow by blow tactics were enhanced from DAO -> DA2 - by the enhanced options available for programming and the addition of cross-class combos. In chess you can have lightning fast tactical play, but also a quite slow strategic positioning exchange. It seems to me that in their bid to quicken up the combat in DA:2 they removed quite a bit of the slow strategic aspect of combat You could still pause, switch controlled character, assign actions to each character, etc. I would occasionally micro-manage, but most of the time I just set up the programming and let 'em rip. |
|
inherit
8885
0
Nov 25, 2024 22:05:34 GMT
7,568
river82
5,222
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Sept 13, 2017 23:45:41 GMT
When people say they removed tactical combat in number 2, they really mean the strategic aspect to combat (like positioning which was completely destroyed by the wave combat.) I'll take that as saying what you mean by tactical combat - others can speak for themselves. They can, but keep in mind that Baldur's Gate was originally designed as an RTS game, and the infinity engine itself was originally an engine made for Real Time Strategy games. It was later modified for RPGs but has always been known for allowing a unique strategic aspect to RPG combat. Bioware's roots are in a unique form of strategic combat, the words strategy and tactics are often interchanged and misused (strategy involves the overall goals of combat and plans that last the entire battle, tactics involve small scale moves designed for short term goals,) and lastly talking about Bioware and they're unique form of "tactical combat" doesn't exactly make sense. Also the wave mechanic is the devil  (although they half fixed it in the DLCs if I recall correctly.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1818
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 23:52:19 GMT
I'll take that as saying what you mean by tactical combat - others can speak for themselves. They can, but keep in mind that Baldur's Gate was originally designed as an RTS game, and the infinity engine itself was originally an engine made for Real Time Strategy games. It was later modified for RPGs but has always been known for allowing a unique strategic aspect to RPG combat. Bioware's roots are in a unique form of strategic combat, the words strategy and tactics are often interchanged and misused (strategy involves the overall goals of combat and plans that last the entire battle, tactics involve small scale moves designed for short term goals,) and lastly talking about Bioware and they're unique form of "tactical combat" doesn't exactly make sense.Also the wave mechanic is the devil (although they half fixed it in the DLCs if I recall correctly.) Yeah, it seems that we agree on the difference between strategy and tactics (as I'd already mentioned in the post to which you responded). This discussion has mostly been about DA combat - I loved the logical tactical programming available in DAO and enhanced in DA2, and was bummed when they removed it in DAI. Even so, DA allows you to control any member of the party and orchestrate co-ordinated efforts if you choose to play it that way. |
|
(although they half fixed it in the DLCs if I recall correctly.)