1230 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

RageGT wrote...
And I like Mass Effect for what it is but I hate seeing the Mass Effectization of Dragon Age which is supposed to be "The Spiritual Successor of Baldur's Gate" while DA2 promises to be nothing of the sort but Shepard with a sword.

Can we at least avoid this sort of preposterous overstatement? I know everybody likes to do this sort of thing, but it really gets in the way of a serious discussion.

[17thknight]

AlanC9 wrote...

Bio's job is to make DA2 as good as they can, not to satisfy every last DAO player by giving them more of the same.

Actually their job is to make a profit. They do this by selling games. They do not sell games when people dislike what they have made. If they don't sell to fans of the original DA:O then who, exactly, are they supposed to be selling to? 

[Davasar]

asaiasai wrote...

That for me is the cruxt of the issue. To be honest i am spoiled to the point that to jump into any game and be strapped to static character with little or no ability to customize the appearance of the character is becomming more and more a giant turn off concerning a game. In Saints Row 2 and DAO i was able to play a character of my design and this had no effect on either story except for minor dialog changes concerning he/she. The ability to create a custom character is an option that i am becomming more and more attached to. When i bought my GTX 480 a few weeks ago a Just Cause 2 down load from Steam was a free perk for buying the card. I installed the game played for a few hours and while the game looks good, plays well, and seems it could be entertaining, i can not get past the fact that i am playing someone else's character. Rico belongs to the developer not me and it seems a simple thing often overlooked to allow the player to create a character of thier own design. 

Now we get to the heart of the issue. I am not so sure if Mr. Gaider understands the real point of contention. See the issue i have will the ME series is that while Shepard is customizable, who Shepard is, is not. So while i get to customize my Shepard's appearance, i can not create my Shepard's personality. Shepard's personality is already provided and the player is given very little ability to decide who they want thier Shepard to be. The MAJOR difference between DAO and the ME series is that the warden is MY warden. By providing me the ability to interject my personality into the warden, by proxy this allows me to interject myself into the world. This for me is the MOST IMPORTANT idea that i feel needs to be preserved in DA2. I could care less if i get to play my warden again in DA2, I could care less if the decisions my warden made were cannonized in DA2 since the game will not involve the wardens at all.

What i will have a problem with is the lack of the perception of freedom that was the IMHO greatest thing about DAO. I was not provided any story but that which i created. I am not interested in playing ME in the DAO world. I am not interested in playing Mr. Gaider's "Hawke". I am not interested in playing a linear campaign similar to the ME series. I could care less about dialog wheels, dynamic combat, graphics quality, voice overs, or any other distractions used to cover up the fact that this character is already provided by the writer with a laundry list faults and flaws. I can say whole heartedly that I want the depth of character that I had in DAO, but I do not want Mr. Gaider to provide it, all i want is the opportunity to as my character and I journey through the world to develop my character as we progress. I want a smorgasboard of opportunities to define who we are at the moment, gay straight, mean nice, compassionate ambivilent, and the ability to decide what i want my character to be, this is what true immersion in a game world is. 

I am really interested only in whether you folks at Bioware have stayed true to this idea. How you designed the GUI is of little importance to me. The nigling details are of little consequence to me if this is the "spiritual successor" part that you are reffering to. So Mr. Gaider if you are willing to say that you have remained true to this idea, i am willing to say sold to the man named Asai.

Asai 

See underlined and Bold text. 

[oenis]

RageGT wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
Why judge it by ME? Because the dialogue wheel will look similar? Because there'll be a voice? What do those things have to do with the storyline? A lot of people are saying DA2 = ME, but that doesn't make it true. They might share a couple of characteristics, but that doesn't make them the same game.

But those shared couple of characteristics are exactly what I would never want to see in Dragon Age... perhaps in ME3, sure, but never in Dragon Age.

They are big characteristics as well ... Having 2 VO's will take budget from other actors. Lots of dialogue from party members made DAO great, IMO. Me2 had 1/2 the dialogue of DAO, just sayin'.

[DeadInHell]

Davasar wrote...

However; with all the smoke and mirrors going on, whether intended or not the question still remains.

Why?

DOA was extremely successful. Commercially and critically so and among gamers as well.

So why change the basic fundamentals that made the game so successful and risk driving away the audience you had targeted for this product...?

Unless you purposefully did not want to target that audience anymore. It's simple. Improve the existing feaures of the current game, add some new stuff and stories, etc...

This GUARENTEES you keep that base audience you built.

You start making base changes, and you alienate them because you are not making the game for that audience anymore.

This simple logic is what has so many people mad (even if they did not articulate it well), they feel they are not being targeted as an audience anymore despite their loyalty to Bioware.

Just thought I would explain it to those who dont understand or just use argument ad hominem (abusive) of "whining" about people voicing their opinion.

Though I agree that changing the formula for such a successful game is pretty baffling taken at face value, the why is pretty evident, is it not? Or are people reverting to a rhetorical "why??" as a platform for berating the developers? Not to accuse, you do seem to be on the rational side of discussion.

It seems apparent to me that the changes have come about so that Bioware can better tell the story without having to make the concessions that would be necessary in order to allow a greater range of races and backgrounds to be able to play the main role.

The more diversity you allow in your character creation the less control you have over your narrative. The way i see it, any game that gives you full range over your character to such an extent that the developers imbue them with no personality of their own whatsoever and you go into the world as "the Marked one" or "the wanderer" or "hey, you" or whatever they choose to call you, is severely limited in what it can do compared to a game such as Mass Effect where I feel that they were able to tell a much more engaging story by balancing character customization and player choice with on-screen personification (as opposed to in-head personification).

They are trying to give the game a strong central personality, which is something that DA lacked. The more hardcore roleplayers will probably never warm up to that idea, and I can't really expect them to. But I expect if Bioware handles it as well as they have in the past I will be happy with the outcome. I say that as diehard a fan of Mass Effect, which I know not all DA players are. But I had no problem connecting with and feeling that Shephard was my character. I hope that I can say the same of Hawke many months from now.

[Dolcrist]

Davasar wrote...

However; with all the smoke and mirrors going on, whether intended or not the question still remains.

Why?

DOA was extremely successful. Commercially and critically so and among gamers as well.

So why change the basic fundamentals that made the game so successful and risk driving away the audience you had targeted for this product...?

Unless you purposefully did not want to target that audience anymore. It's simple. Improve the existing feaures of the current game, add some new stuff and stories, etc...

This GUARENTEES you keep that base audience you built.

You start making base changes, and you alienate them because you are not making the game for that audience anymore.

This simple logic is what has so many people mad (even if they did not articulate it well), they feel they are not being targeted as an audience anymore despite their loyalty to Bioware.

Just thought I would explain it to those who dont understand or just use argument ad hominem (abusive) of "whining" about people voicing their opinion.

I suppose answers will vary with what one considers the fundamental greatness of DA:O. For me, it was the world-crafting. I appreciated the lore and all the minute, borderline irrelevent details written in the seams. The origins were, to me at least, specific to the Grey Warden and never meant to be some redefinition of future RPGs' opening hours. That view is one which dawned on me as I encountered the other origins - those who could've become the Warden, had Duncan not been in Highever: the dwarf commoner who starves in the Carta, the Dalish-turned-Shriek, the dead Aeducan kinslayer. It was a peculiar thing and unique to the story being told.

Pre-Awakening, I fully expected a sequel to address the surviving Warden (which would turn the Sacrifice crowd off). Once the expansion came out expectation turned to hope which turned to resignation. DA2 would need a new hero, and with the Blight gone there would be no narrative demand for it to be a Warden. Without that common enemy - the Blight - there's little reason for sometimes-bitter races to band together. This is of course my perspective, but I assume the writers then decided between a broader choice of character (race) or a more pointed narrative. I suppose it would be tougher to hand-wave a human population's acceptance of, say, an elvish "hero" or leader or whatever notoriety Hawke gains without the Warden mythology. Again, just my take.

Systems-wise, I've heard the combat engine is largely untouched (for PC at least). I'll wait for further confirmation on that before passing judgment, but I expect some degree of improvement on it and things like itemization. As for the VO/Wheel issues: I give David Gaider and the fine writers of DA:O the benefit of a doubt here - I hope the voice talent is up to snuff (Is Jennifer Hale available?). 

If the narrative decision was made at the potential expense of a portion of customers, I'd certainly like to think it's because the writing crew is passionate about this tale and that's some consolation. If future press releases depict a game too far from its roots (lore, character-driven dialog, tactical pause-turn combat), then I'll be disappointed. But for now, it's a cautious bit of optimism that the writers have something up their sleeves. That, and my less-than-healthy curiosity... :innocent:

Modifié par Dolcrist, 12 juillet 2010 - 06:29 .

[DeadInHell]

Davasar wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

That for me is the cruxt of the issue. To be honest i am spoiled to the point that to jump into any game and be strapped to static character with little or no ability to customize the appearance of the character is becomming more and more a giant turn off concerning a game. In Saints Row 2 and DAO i was able to play a character of my design and this had no effect on either story except for minor dialog changes concerning he/she. The ability to create a custom character is an option that i am becomming more and more attached to. When i bought my GTX 480 a few weeks ago a Just Cause 2 down load from Steam was a free perk for buying the card. I installed the game played for a few hours and while the game looks good, plays well, and seems it could be entertaining, i can not get past the fact that i am playing someone else's character. Rico belongs to the developer not me and it seems a simple thing often overlooked to allow the player to create a character of thier own design. 

Now we get to the heart of the issue. I am not so sure if Mr. Gaider understands the real point of contention. See the issue i have will the ME series is that while Shepard is customizable, who Shepard is, is not. So while i get to customize my Shepard's appearance, i can not create my Shepard's personality. Shepard's personality is already provided and the player is given very little ability to decide who they want thier Shepard to be. The MAJOR difference between DAO and the ME series is that the warden is MY warden. By providing me the ability to interject my personality into the warden, by proxy this allows me to interject myself into the world. This for me is the MOST IMPORTANT idea that i feel needs to be preserved in DA2. I could care less if i get to play my warden again in DA2, I could care less if the decisions my warden made were cannonized in DA2 since the game will not involve the wardens at all.

What i will have a problem with is the lack of the perception of freedom that was the IMHO greatest thing about DAO. I was not provided any story but that which i created. I am not interested in playing ME in the DAO world. I am not interested in playing Mr. Gaider's "Hawke". I am not interested in playing a linear campaign similar to the ME series. I could care less about dialog wheels, dynamic combat, graphics quality, voice overs, or any other distractions used to cover up the fact that this character is already provided by the writer with a laundry list faults and flaws. I can say whole heartedly that I want the depth of character that I had in DAO, but I do not want Mr. Gaider to provide it, all i want is the opportunity to as my character and I journey through the world to develop my character as we progress. I want a smorgasboard of opportunities to define who we are at the moment, gay straight, mean nice, compassionate ambivilent, and the ability to decide what i want my character to be, this is what true immersion in a game world is. 

I am really interested only in whether you folks at Bioware have stayed true to this idea. How you designed the GUI is of little importance to me. The nigling details are of little consequence to me if this is the "spiritual successor" part that you are reffering to. So Mr. Gaider if you are willing to say that you have remained true to this idea, i am willing to say sold to the man named Asai.

Asai 

See underlined and Bold text. 

I fail to see how adding voice to responses means that Shepard's personality is supplied while the Warden's is not.

In either case, your only course of action in any situation in either game is one that has been laid out by the developers. Unless you're roleplaying D&D with friends, you will always be limited to taking actions that the developer has supplied for you.

[LPPrince]

Side note-



I love when people mean to say DAO but say DOA, because I instantly read it as if they were referring to Dead or Alive.

[oenis]

People are just saying the same things over again



"I like 1st person narrative, DA2 should be the same as DAO!"



"I like 3rd person narrative. Y'all are just crying."



Seriously, we get you like 3rd person. Other people (like me) like 1st person. DAO appealed to the 1st person-ers, ME to the 3rd person-ers.



And now the 1st person-ers are upset their favourite narrative perspective is being replaced.

[FieryDove]

17thknight wrote...

Actually their job is to make a profit. They do this by selling games. They do not sell games when people dislike what they have made. If they don't sell to fans of the original DA:O then who, exactly, are they supposed to be selling to? 

Is this a multiple choice question?

1. ME fans?
2. EA sports fans?
3. Too much talking not enough killing/splosiuns fans?
4. RPG/DA fans....Naw can't be this.

Not related but...
I really do think the suggestion to shut the forum down until they are ready to release some more real info is a good idea for all.

[SirOccam]

RageGT wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
Why judge it by ME? Because the dialogue wheel will look similar? Because there'll be a voice? What do those things have to do with the storyline? A lot of people are saying DA2 = ME, but that doesn't make it true. They might share a couple of characteristics, but that doesn't make them the same game.

But those shared couple of characteristics are exactly what I would never want to see in Dragon Age... perhaps in ME3, sure, but never in Dragon Age.

Well, there's only so many times we can say "wait and see."

There are things I wasn't thrilled about either, but there's really no telling until we see the game or at least get a lot more facts. All we can do is avoid getting in this negative mindset of "we're going to hate it until proven otherwise." That's not helpful for anyone, especially yourselves. The longer you stay that way, the harder it will be to get out of that mindset. It's human psychology.

It's just that a lot of people are using "DA2 = ME" as a foundation, when really it's just another baseless assumption. Things that were in ME do not necessarily reflect the entirety of the game. There are a lot of potential reasons why you didn't, for example, like having Shepard voiced. It could have been the actors; maybe they didn't do it for you. Maybe it was the writing; maybe the written part didn't match up to the spoken well enough or maybe you just didn't like the options you were given to say period. Maybe it was not enough choices. More likely, it was a complex combination of factors. But all of those things are specific to ME, and again I have to point out that the DA team is entirely different. Different writers, different designers, different actors, different everything. Let them show us what they can do.

Modifié par SirOccam, 12 juillet 2010 - 06:56 .

[Pocketgb]

17thknight wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Bio's job is to make DA2 as good as they can, not to satisfy every last DAO player by giving them more of the same.

Actually their job is to make a profit. They do this by selling games. They do not sell games when people dislike what they have made. If they don't sell to fans of the original DA:O then who, exactly, are they supposed to be selling to? 

To which I say, once again, not all fans of DA:O were fans of it for the exact same reasons, and you cannot directly pinpoint what made it 'successful'.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 12 juillet 2010 - 07:13 .

[thenemesis77]

Davasar wrote...

However; with all the smoke and mirrors going on, whether intended or not the question still remains.

Why?

DOA was extremely successful. Commercially and critically so and among gamers as well.

So why change the basic fundamentals that made the game so successful and risk driving away the audience you had targeted for this product...?

Unless you purposefully did not want to target that audience anymore. It's simple. Improve the existing feaures of the current game, add some new stuff and stories, etc...

This GUARENTEES you keep that base audience you built.

You start making base changes, and you alienate them because you are not making the game for that audience anymore.

This simple logic is what has so many people mad (even if they did not articulate it well), they feel they are not being targeted as an audience anymore despite their loyalty to Bioware.

Just thought I would explain it to those who dont understand or just use argument ad hominem (abusive) of "whining" about people voicing their opinion.

what this guy said...sums it up.

[SmokePants]

We've had decades of transparent, pane-o-glass player characters in RPG's. If nothing else, it's a stale idea. IF nothing else. The fact is, there are plenty of problems with the system that people don't realize because it's so established and they've been so indoctrinated into it. Not the least of which being that your "character" is a transparent pane-o-glass standing in sharp relief to all the animated, fully-realized characters inhabiting the world around him. Compared to them, your character appears to be half-baked.

After all, you fight in third person -- you look just like every other character in battle. You explore in third person -- point your character where you want him to go and he goes. Why does dialogue have to be the sole exception to parity and symmetry? Answer: it doesn't.

We've had precisely 3 games released using this novel technique. And one was a direct sequel to another, meaning there was less room for experimentation. How about you give them a chance to evolve the idea and see where it leads before taking the intellectually easy route, by being reflexively reductive and dismissive?

And remember that DAO was in development while Casey Hudson's team was still pioneering these techniques in the first Mass Effect. They didn't use it because it was simply unavailable to them; they weren't trying to be explicitly different. They were just doing what they knew how to do. Now the technology is fully available to them and they've jumped on it. Surprise surprise. I guess what's good for the goose is often good for the gander.

So, let's see. The Dragon Age team likes it. The Mass Effect Team likes it. The Old Republic team likes it. Some of the most impressive RPG pedigrees in the world over at Obsidian liked it. I'm sure even more like the idea, but are too intimidated by it -- after all, it is much harder to implement than the old way. Bioware must think it worth the extra effort. But I'm sure an endorsement from every major RPG designer on the planet wouldn't sway the opinions of most on this forum. Humility is in short supply.

Modifié par SmokePants, 12 juillet 2010 - 07:17 .

[DeadInHell]

SmokePants wrote...

We've had decades of transparent, pane-o-glass player characters in RPG's. If nothing else, it's a stale idea. IF nothing else. The fact is, there are plenty of problems with the system that people don't realize because it's so established and they've been so indoctrinated into it. Not the least of which being that your "character" is a transparent pane-o-glass standing in sharp relief to all the animated, fully-realized characters inhabiting the world around him. Compared to them, your character appears to be half-baked.

After all, you fight in third person -- you look just like every other character in battle. You explore in third person -- point your character where you want him to go and he goes. Why does dialogue have to be the sole exception to parity and symmetry? Answer: it doesn't.

We've had precisely 3 games released using this novel technique. And one was a direct sequel to another, meaning there was less room for experimentation. How about you give them a chance to evolve the idea and see where it leads before taking the intellectually easy route, by being reflexively reductive and dismissive?

And remember that DAO was in development while Casey Hudson's team was still pioneering these techniques in the first Mass Effect. They didn't use it because it was simply unavailable to them; they weren't trying to be explicitly different. They were just doing what they knew how to do. Now the technology is fully available to them and they've jumped on it. Surprise surprise. I guess what's good for the goose is often good for the gander.

So, let's see. The Dragon Age team likes it. The Mass Effect Team likes it. The Old Republic team likes it. Some of the most impressive RPG pedigrees in the world over at Obsidian liked it. I'm sure even more like the idea, but are too intimidated by it -- after all, it is much harder to implement than the old way. Bioware must think it worth the extra effort. But I'm sure an endorsement from every major RPG designer on the planet wouldn't sway the opinions of most on this forum.

Gonna go ahead and back this.

[Pocketgb]

SmokePants wrote...

We've had decades of transparent, pane-o-glass player characters in RPG's. If nothing else, it's a stale idea. IF nothing else. The fact is, there are plenty of problems with the system that people don't realize because it's so established and they've been so indoctrinated into it. Not the least of which being that your "character" is a transparent pane-o-glass standing in sharp relief to all the animated, fully-realized characters inhabiting the world around him. Compared to them, your character appears to be half-baked.

After all, you fight in third person -- you look just like every other character in battle. You explore in third person -- point your character where you want him to go and he goes. Why does dialogue have to be the sole exception to parity and symmetry? Answer: it doesn't.

We've had precisely 3 games released using this novel technique. And one was a direct sequel to another, meaning there was less room for experimentation. How about you give them a chance to evolve the idea and see where it leads before taking the intellectually easy route, by being reflexively reductive and dismissive?

And remember that DAO was in development while Casey Hudson's team was still pioneering these techniques in the first Mass Effect. They didn't use it because it was simply unavailable to them; they weren't trying to be explicitly different. They were just doing what they knew how to do. Now the technology is fully available to them and they've jumped on it. Surprise surprise. I guess what's good for the goose is often good for the gander.

So, let's see. The Dragon Age team likes it. The Mass Effect Team likes it. The Old Republic team likes it. Some of the most impressive RPG pedigrees in the world over at Obsidian liked it. I'm sure even more like the idea, but are too intimidated by it -- after all, it is much harder to implement than the old way. Bioware must think it worth the extra effort. But I'm sure an endorsement from every major RPG designer on the planet wouldn't sway the opinions of most on this forum.

Since it seems the only way to get people to actually notice things on these forums, I'm going to quote this whole thing for emphasis as well.

[Jestina]

Because you are supposed to breath life into those characters. That's what RPG is. I don't want to follow some writers story about a character in game versions. If I want to do that, i'll just pick up some REH or Tolkien.

[17thknight]

SmokePants wrote...


So, let's see. The Dragon Age team likes it. The Mass Effect Team likes it. The Old Republic team likes it. Some of the most impressive RPG pedigrees in the world over at Obsidian liked it. I'm sure even more like the idea, but are too intimidated by it -- after all, it is much harder to implement than the old way. Bioware must think it worth the extra effort. But I'm sure an endorsement from every major RPG designer on the planet wouldn't sway the opinions of most on this forum. Humility is in short supply.

And we, the actual players, like it...IN MASS EFFECT. We don't want it in this game. If we wanted to play that type of story, with those types of characters, then we would be playing Mass Effect 1 and 2 over again. We aren't. Instead we are playing Dragon Age because we enjuoy roleplaying. We like to become our characters.

Do you even remember what this game was sold as? "Spiritual Successor to Baldur's Gate." "Hearkening back to old-school RPG's".

That is what we wanted, that is what we got, and that is what we loved. We don't want to be thrust in the shoes of another generic protagonist that we don't care about in the least. We don't want to be forced to play as someone else's idea of our character.

I want to play MY character. I don't want to play "Shepard the mean." or "Shepard the nice". Over. And over. And over. I wany to live my story, not someone else's. That is what Dragon Age gave us. Our own story. It immersed you in it. Mass Effect, as wonderful as it is, is NEVER your story and it is never meant to be. It's Shepard's story and, at best, you are along for the ride.

That isn't what anyone wants out of the "Spiritual Successor to Baldur's Gate". If we wanted to play Mass Effect with swords, then maybe they should have billed DA:O as the spiritual successor to Mass Effect.

Modifié par 17thknight, 12 juillet 2010 - 07:28 .

[SirOccam]

Jestina wrote...

Because you are supposed to breath life into those characters. That's what RPG is. I don't want to follow some writers story about a character in game versions. If I want to do that, i'll just pick up some REH or Tolkien.

How do you know that "some writer" is going to make all your decisions for you? Why on Earth would they do that? Like you said, that's what an RPG is.

[Pocketgb]

17thknight wrote...

And we, the actual players, like it...IN MASS EFFECT. We don't want it in this game...

A person against change is just as entitled as someone advocating change.

[angelgaidin]

Jestina wrote...

Because you are supposed to breath life into those characters. That's what RPG is. I don't want to follow some writers story about a character in game versions. If I want to do that, i'll just pick up some REH or Tolkien.

You do realize that what you just described "follow(ing) some writers [sic] story about a character" is exactly what you did in DA:O, right?  In fact, that's exactly what you do in any video game.  Ever.

[17thknight]

Pocketgb wrote...

A person against change is just as entitled as someone advocating change.

You are, in fact, entitled to be completely wrong.

angelgaidin wrote...

Jestina wrote...

Because
you are supposed to breath life into those characters. That's what RPG
is. I don't want to follow some writers story about a character in game
versions. If I want to do that, i'll just pick up some REH or
Tolkien.

You do realize that what you just described
"follow(ing) some writers [sic] story about a character" is exactly what
you did in DA:O, right?  In fact, that's exactly what you do in any
video game.  Ever.

That's grossly mistating what DA:O
was, and what it was supposed to feel like.

DA:O was meant to immerse the player in their own story.
And it did.
Mass Effect tells Shepard's story, not yours. You just
watch.

Hell, half the time you don't even know what Shepard is
going to say or do, you just pick the choice in the upper right or lower
left so that you can progress your paragon or renegade meters the right
way

Modifié par 17thknight, 12 juillet 2010 - 07:31 .

[asaiasai]

BeLikeHan wrote...

Davasar wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

That for me is the cruxt of the issue. To be honest i am spoiled to the point that to jump into any game and be strapped to static character with little or no ability to customize the appearance of the character is becomming more and more a giant turn off concerning a game. In Saints Row 2 and DAO i was able to play a character of my design and this had no effect on either story except for minor dialog changes concerning he/she. The ability to create a custom character is an option that i am becomming more and more attached to. When i bought my GTX 480 a few weeks ago a Just Cause 2 down load from Steam was a free perk for buying the card. I installed the game played for a few hours and while the game looks good, plays well, and seems it could be entertaining, i can not get past the fact that i am playing someone else's character. Rico belongs to the developer not me and it seems a simple thing often overlooked to allow the player to create a character of thier own design. 

Now we get to the heart of the issue. I am not so sure if Mr. Gaider understands the real point of contention. See the issue i have will the ME series is that while Shepard is customizable, who Shepard is, is not. So while i get to customize my Shepard's appearance, i can not create my Shepard's personality. Shepard's personality is already provided and the player is given very little ability to decide who they want thier Shepard to be. The MAJOR difference between DAO and the ME series is that the warden is MY warden. By providing me the ability to interject my personality into the warden, by proxy this allows me to interject myself into the world. This for me is the MOST IMPORTANT idea that i feel needs to be preserved in DA2. I could care less if i get to play my warden again in DA2, I could care less if the decisions my warden made were cannonized in DA2 since the game will not involve the wardens at all.

What i will have a problem with is the lack of the perception of freedom that was the IMHO greatest thing about DAO. I was not provided any story but that which i created. I am not interested in playing ME in the DAO world. I am not interested in playing Mr. Gaider's "Hawke". I am not interested in playing a linear campaign similar to the ME series. I could care less about dialog wheels, dynamic combat, graphics quality, voice overs, or any other distractions used to cover up the fact that this character is already provided by the writer with a laundry list faults and flaws. I can say whole heartedly that I want the depth of character that I had in DAO, but I do not want Mr. Gaider to provide it, all i want is the opportunity to as my character and I journey through the world to develop my character as we progress. I want a smorgasboard of opportunities to define who we are at the moment, gay straight, mean nice, compassionate ambivilent, and the ability to decide what i want my character to be, this is what true immersion in a game world is. 

I am really interested only in whether you folks at Bioware have stayed true to this idea. How you designed the GUI is of little importance to me. The nigling details are of little consequence to me if this is the "spiritual successor" part that you are reffering to. So Mr. Gaider if you are willing to say that you have remained true to this idea, i am willing to say sold to the man named Asai.

Asai 

See underlined and Bold text. 

I fail to see how adding voice to responses means that Shepard's personality is supplied while the Warden's is not.

In either case, your only course of action in any situation in either game is one that has been laid out by the developers. Unless you're roleplaying D&D with friends, you will always be limited to taking actions that the developer has supplied for you.

You missed the point, see my highlighted portions. The only real answer i am looking for is will my character be the same as anybodies else's. It is a simple question, will not give anything away concerning plot or story. I will also look upon silence as an affirmative of my suspicions. I am not going to get upset, angry or name call but it is the ONLY question i care about having an answer for. For me this perception of freedom is what seperates DAO from 99.9% of the titles on the market including the Mass Effect series. Character customization goes much deeper that just red hair or blue eyes, it goes to the very heart and soul of the character, the ability of the player to put themselves in the world as a whole. You can not do that with Shepard, but you can as i have done 19 times so far in DAO.

Asai

[NKKKK]

We don't want it in this game

No, YOU don't want this game.

[Pocketgb]

17thknight wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

A person against change is just as entitled as someone advocating change.

You are, in fact, entitled to be completely wrong.

As are you.

The fact that this little 'argument' will get no where proves what I was saying.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 12 juillet 2010 - 07:30 .