1279 réponses à ce sujet

[SirOccam]

Hey, the thread is back.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Not if you don't play on the other. Then it has no bearing on it.

True, but it looks very much like the other is all there's going to be for a while.

I don't understand. Are we still talking about consoles vs. PC?

But if there's no underlying conceptual problem with the braking system, then they can just install it correctly and it can work brilliantly.

Absolutely.  But we have no evidence of that.  Every example we've yet seen of the system fails.

For every example of a misleading paraphrase in Mass Effect, there's an alternative they could have chosen that would have been fine. And the system itself would not have to be changed.

And every time, they didn't choose it.

Mass Effect isn't one data point.  There are thousands of data points scattered throughout that one game.

It was the same team, with the same tendencies. There's nothing to suggest they knew the best way to do it but were somehow forced to make misleading paraphrases because of something inherent in the system. In keeping with the theme of automobile analogies...if I crash my car 100 times, it doesn't mean cars are inherently unsafe, it just means I'm a bad driver.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

I don't see this as meaning your input isn't special. But by the same token, you're not a co-author.

Yes I am.  The story that is ultimately told by an RPG is a collaboration of the game's design and the game's player.

And each time a player plays the game, a new story is written.  A new collaboration each time.

I don't know what else to say except I strongly disagree. If you want to think of each playthrough as a separate story, that's one thing, and in that case you're conceptually right, but what I'm saying is the story of Dragon Age is not changed by any player's participation any more than reading a Choose Your Own Adventure book is co-writing that book. It allows for variation, but it never loses that authorial control of the storyline.

Roleplaying is an individual pursuit (in a single-player game, anyway), and what you get from that is just for you. Dragon Age remains unchanged.

But I don't necessarily think more freedom always means a better game. Look at Fable. There is an enormous amount of freedom there, but the main area where I feel it suffers is the lack of narrative drive. And that narrative drive, I feel, is nearly antithetical to the concept of freedom. For example, you have the freedom to marry and raise a family with almost anyone you wish, but there is no storyline there. They don't have a unique personality, and you'll never learn anything interesting about them or have any kind of compelling, emotional experience. You could make up a story in your head, but what's the point of that? It's like buying a novel only to find huge sections of blank sheets of paper. I don't dislike the Fable games (in fact I am a huge fan), but they will never match up to what Dragon Age has offered thus far in terms of emotional investment.

Because Fable features only flat characters.  It has nothing to do with the amount of freedom offered to the player; it's that Fable contains effectively no writing.

Yes, but what I'm saying is they can't have both (or at the very least I've never seen any game have both the degree of freedom Fable gives you and the depth of character that Dragon Age: Origins gives you). The more depth you give the characters, the less room there is for the player to fill in those blanks himself. Hell, isn't that your exact argument for why you don't want a voiced protagonist?

Modifié par SirOccam, 22 septembre 2010 - 04:39 .

[SirOccam]

Amioran wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They haven't really told us which we're getting in DA2.  They have said we'll get to decide how Hawke feels about things, or how Shepard was more constrained because he was a preset character, and that suggests Hawke isn't a pregenerated character.  The design goal appears to be to make Hawke as much our character as the Warden was.

No, it is different. Hawke already exists as a character. It already represents a character. You just direct his/her course. This is the CRUCIAL difference. In the case of the warden the character interprets you, in the case of Hawke you interpret him/her. Hawke already contains his/her character within him/herself. A total different point of start and a total different way to handle the situation and to interact with the same. It is not a case if "warden" is a title while Hawke is actually a name.

By that same reasoning, Cousland, Tabris, Brosca, Amell, Mahariel, and Aeducan are pre-generated characters too, no? Do we know anything more about Hawke than we know about the Wardens?

Modifié par SirOccam, 22 septembre 2010 - 04:38 .

[Monica83]

bsbcaer wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

If i read the answer i can better control them... simple

This is an honest question:  Did you play the game in English or were you able to play the game in italian?  I think the language that you play the game in can make a difference.  If I were playing the game in French (which is passable) rather than English (my mother tongue), then I would prefer to have a more fleshed out choice for which piece of dialogue Im going to choose.  Playing the game in my mother tongue, however, I have no problem with paraphrasing done well (which I trust the writers to do)

I own the subtitled italian version of DAO dialogues are in english.Paraphrasing works great if you have a premaded character with is personality.. I already writed why.. I don't want to repeat myself its boring and silly for others read the same things lol.. This is another reason because  a VO character its not a great improvment for me.. I have subtitles but voices are in english..In the Witcher we had a VO character too but i have it completely traslated in italian... But its not the problem with traslation mistakes.. Im able to understeand english too maybe i have some problem to write it but i can understeand english well.. The problem is with paraphrases system you have only a general line of what your character are going to say.. So in a game where are you to create your character its a bit silly tou can't control the used words.. This is why i prefear the old style...

For other aspect of dragon age: I like the new design nothing to say about that..

I don't like the new class system maybe in gameplay factor can be explained those choice but not so well in roleplay factor.. And i think in a RPG the roleplay must be the best important thing.. Roleplay must come first and later gameplay..And this because if that don't happen and all ill streamlized you have an half title not a full title..

My taste on rpg?:
Baldur's gate
Baldur's gate 2
Icewind dale
Icewind dale 2
Planescape torment
Neverwinter Nights..
The elder scroll morrowind..
The witcher: Nice combination of action and rpg

Rpg i don't like?:
Mass effect2 (for me its not a true rpg but a shooter with a great story and some rpg elements)
The elder scroll:Oblivion (streamlized as hell)
Jrpg in general.. (to much static)
Fallout 3: (funny but far for perfect many nosense things like the ability to make explode people even if you use a pistol or..the revolver follower that appear sometimes)

Titles for me NOT rpg:
Diablo series
Sacred series
Fable series

Modifié par Monica83, 22 septembre 2010 - 04:46 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Generally the bloody mess perk is a staple of the Fallout games and is there for a sort of dark humor.

[Amioran]

SirOccam wrote...

By that same reasoning, Cousland, Tabris, Brosca, Amell, Mahariel, and Aeducan are pre-generated characters too, no? Do we know anything more about Hawke than we know about the Wardens?

It doesn't make difference how much you know about one or the other. The warden is a character built upon an avatar created by yourself (so it is intrinsically you, or what you want yourself to be), Hawke is an already premade character on his/her own. The others you refer to were obviously pre-generated characters, but what does they have to do with the role of the warden? The warden was obviously not a pre-generated character on his/her own, just a role upon whom to build your avatar, and you interpreted him/her, not Aeducan or the others.

Modifié par Amioran, 22 septembre 2010 - 11:51 .

[SirOccam]

Amioran wrote...

The warden is a character built upon an avatar created by yourself (so it is intrinsically you, or what you want yourself to be), Hawke is an already premade character on his/her own. The others you refer to were obviously pre-generated characters, but what does they have to do with the role of the warden? The warden was obviously not a pre-generated character on his/her own, just a role upon whom to build your avatar, and you interpreted him/her, not Aeducan or the others.

I'm still not seeing the difference here. You decide as much about Hawke as you do about each of the Origins characters. You decide appearance, you decide a first name, you decide a gender, and then during the game you decide how he or she reacts to things. Once you've chosen an Origin, the rest is exactly the same as Hawke, except of course that the different games have different plots.

I also don't understand this assertion that Wardens are meant to be avatars. I certainly never played mine that way, and even if that was the intent, what characteristics define it as such? What led you to make that declaration? And what's preventing someone from playing their Hawke as an avatar? I am simply not seeing it. It seems like a totally arbitrary decree you've just made.

[Amioran]

SirOccam wrote...

I'm still not seeing the difference here. You decide as much about Hawke as you do about each of the Origins characters. You decide appearance, you decide a first name, you decide a gender, and then during the game you decide how he or she reacts to things. Once you've chosen an Origin, the rest is exactly the same as Hawke, except of course that the different games have different plots.

The difference is both philosophical/psychological as practical. Actually it is a little subtle but it still exists. It is the difference for example of an actor interpreting his/her version of Otello, and an actor taking a role as a background to interpret him/herself (or a particular aspect) in the same. Apart the philosophical and psicological different subtetlies (that also if important are less evident) the difference resides on the point that in the former case a character having external characteristics (as a voice in the case of a game) works well because you shouldn't consider that character as yourself (or your idealized version of you or whatever), but a character of whom you direct the course of action. The fact that you consider yourself or not in the role of the Warden doesn't change that s/he can assume that role, while Hawke cannot (or shouldn't).

I also don't understand this assertion that Wardens are meant to be avatars. I certainly never played mine that way, and even if that was the intent, what characteristics define it as such? What led you to make that declaration? And what's preventing someone from playing their Hawke as an avatar? I am simply not seeing it. It seems like a totally arbitrary decree you've just made.

The difference again relates expressedly to some of the problems arising in this discussion. Namely on the fact that having Hawke with a set voice can cause problems. In the case of the Warden this can be true, since you can (naturally you can also not do it, as in your case, but it can happen) think the same as your avatar and have some sort of "possessing" feeling about the same as a thing that pertains to you. This in turns can make the character have a voice of his/her own not work well with what you think your avatar should sound.

In the case of Hawke, however, s/he should be taken as an already existing character of whom you determine the course. The characteristic that define one or the other is the existence or not of the character individuality in him/herself. In the case of the Warden the same was just a role, a character doesn't existed in itself. You created it yourself. The warden interpreted you (or whatever you thought him/her to be). In the case of Hawke s/he already exists and contains his/her characteristics within him/herself already from the start. You will not create him/her, she already exists. Hawke is a character already, not only a role at beginning.

The fact that you can after direct Hawke to change with your expectancies doesn't change the different point of starts of the two roles. The Warden is a background role that you take to experience yourself or an interpretation of your expectancies, certain aspects etc., Hawke is instead already a character role in him/herself, which you can direct and interpret.

[SirOccam]

Amioran wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

I'm still not seeing the difference here. You decide as much about Hawke as you do about each of the Origins characters. You decide appearance, you decide a first name, you decide a gender, and then during the game you decide how he or she reacts to things. Once you've chosen an Origin, the rest is exactly the same as Hawke, except of course that the different games have different plots.

The difference is both philosophical/psychological as practical. Actually it is a little subtle but it still exists. It is the difference for example of an actor interpreting his/her version of Otello, and an actor taking a role as a background to interpret him/herself (or a particular aspect) in the same. Apart the philosophical and psicological different subtetlies (that also if important are less evident) the difference resides on the point that in the former case a character having external characteristics (as a voice in the case of a game) works well because you shouldn't consider that character as yourself (or your idealized version of you or whatever), but a character of whom you direct the course of action. The fact that you consider yourself or not in the role of the Warden doesn't change that s/he can assume that role, while Hawke cannot (or shouldn't).

I get the difference between an avatar and a character; I mean the difference between Hawke and a Warden. So I guess it all just comes down to the voice? Being voiced means Hawke can't be treated as an avatar, but the voiceless Wardens can?

Two problems I have with that:
1. The Wardens did have a voice. They just didn't use it very often. If they hired several voice actors for Hawke, and let us choose from 5-6 possibilities, would it change anything in your opinion?

2. I don't think hearing the lines spoken is that big of a deal. You know how on TV or in movies, when the audience is meant to hear a character's thoughts, you hear that character speaking? Well people don't really think like that, in complete sentences and tone and whatnot, unless the voice itself is part of what the person is thinking about. It's like those pictures of Professor Farnsworth with the caption "Good news everyone! I've just invented a machine that makes you read this in my voice!"

So when you chose a line in Origins, it's not like you actually heard yourself saying it (unless you actually said it out loud...which, I suppose...some people might do). Indeed, the fact that you're choosing lines they've supplied you and not simply coming up with your own should be a much bigger hinderance, voiced or not.

[SilentK]

Sounds like it will be a great game =) I really like the idea of a voiced character.

[Pritos]

So this thread is back. Cool. I Hate it.

[bobosuda]

Amioran wrote...

The difference again relates expressedly to some of the problems arising in this discussion. Namely on the fact that having Hawke with a set voice can cause problems. In the case of the Warden this can be true, since you can (naturally you can also not do it, as in your case, but it can happen) think the same as your avatar and have some sort of "possessing" feeling about the same as a thing that pertains to you. This in turns can make the character have a voice of his/her own not work well with what you think your avatar should sound.

In the case of Hawke, however, s/he should be taken as an already existing character of whom you determine the course. The characteristic that define one or the other is the existence or not of the character individuality in him/herself. In the case of the Warden the same was just a role, a character doesn't existed in itself. You created it yourself. The warden interpreted you (or whatever you thought him/her to be). In the case of Hawke s/he already exists and contains his/her characteristics within him/herself already from the start. You will not create him/her, she already exists. Hawke is a character already, not only a role at beginning.

The fact that you can after direct Hawke to change with your expectancies doesn't change the different point of starts of the two roles. The Warden is a background role that you take to experience yourself or an interpretation of your expectancies, certain aspects etc., Hawke is instead already a character role in him/herself, which you can direct and interpret.

I think you got a few crucial points in your argument wrong. Firstly, I don't get what you claim differenciates Hawke from the Warden, what's the difference between the two characters? Both have names that are not yours, unless you for some reason name the Warden after yourself, just because you can't change Hawke into something else, doesn't mean he is any less a "blank slate" than what the Warden is.

And the fact that Hawke has a VO doesn't make him less of a role that you assume, its not like you have complete control over what the Warden is saying anyway, you still have to choose from a list of responses, same as with Hawke, only this time, you'll hear him say it. Wouldn't you naturally imagine the Warden saying the stuff you chose anyway? You make all the decision, you decide what quests to do, you decide which companions to use, and how to respond to other people in the world. You can even decide how Hawke looks, and even though you can't change his appearence into another race as with the Warden, that doesn't really take away the role-playing aspect.

We know nothing of what Hawke is up to, except for the fact that he somehow becomes really important during the game, but we already knew that of the Warden as well, right? Whenever we sit down to play an RPG we expect the character we are playing to achieve something, anything, of note during the game, so thats really no surprise. In the end, Hawke is just as much a blank slate as the Warden, and while you seem content on branding him an already predetermined character doesn't necessarily make it so. We haven't recieved any proof yet that anything except the last name and the race as far as Hawke goes is nailed down before you start playing, everything else is still up to you. How is that different than what the Warden was?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amioran wrote...

No, it is different. Hawke already exists as a character. It already represents a character. You just direct his/her course. This is the CRUCIAL difference. In the case of the warden the character interprets you, in the case of Hawke you interpret him/her.

Find me a dev citation and I'll take this claim seriously.

I've been paying close attention to learn this very thing, and it hasn't been revealed yet.  Yes, the sort of design you describe was used in BioWare's only other games with a voiced protagonist, but that doesn't mean that sort of design is necessary with a voiced protagonist.

We do have one piece of evidence that this is true.  David Gaider corrected me when I misunderstood what he'd said about Hawke being "a blank slate".  If he had no doubts that Hawke was indeed a blank slate, I don't think he would have bothered correcting me.

However, as I mentioned, the devs have also said that they are not deciding for us how Hawke feels about a wide variety of things (just as they didn't with the Warden, but ME did with Shepard), so that's a point in favour of the blank slate.

We just don't know yet.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

Hey, the thread is back.

Apparently it was put in some sort of safe-zone after a spam-bot got to it.

Evil Chris cleaned it up for us.

I don't understand. Are we still talking about consoles vs. PC?

Were we ever?  I thought we were talking about voiced protagonists and the ability to freely direct the PC's personality and delivery of lines.

At least one of us is horribly wrong.

It was the same team, with the same tendencies. There's nothing to suggest they knew the best way to do it but were somehow forced to make misleading paraphrases because of something inherent in the system. In keeping with the theme of automobile analogies...if I crash my car 100 times, it doesn't mean cars are inherently unsafe, it just means I'm a bad driver.

I'll accept that.  ME's failings do not, by any means, guarantee failings in DA2's.

I don't know what else to say except I strongly disagree. If you want to think of each playthrough as a separate story, that's one thing, and in that case you're conceptually right, but what I'm saying is the story of Dragon Age is not changed by any player's participation any more than reading a Choose Your Own Adventure book is co-writing that book. It allows for variation, but it never loses that authorial control of the storyline.

And I see and RPG as fundamentally unlike a Choose Your Own Adventure book.  In CYOA, all you can do is select a path through pre-written text.  Nothing you do adds anything to the narrative; you're working like a marble sculptor where you take away stone to reveal the statue, but you never add anything.

RPGs have so much more implicit content available to be resolved by the player that they allow a far more collaborative approach to gameplay.

Roleplaying is an individual pursuit (in a single-player game, anyway), and what you get from that is just for you. Dragon Age remains unchanged.

Dragon Age does remain unchanged, but as you say, it's an individual pursuit.  What I get from it that's just for me is the entire point of playing the game.

Yes, but what I'm saying is they can't have both (or at the very least I've never seen any game have both the degree of freedom Fable gives you and the depth of character that Dragon Age: Origins gives you).

I see no reason why the characters can't be just as deep.  I just think it would make the game too expensive to produce without sacrificing something else (I'd suggest all the fancy visuals and voice-acting).

Greater player freedom does probabaly mean the characters in the game won't be as reactive to the things going on around them, but they can still be deep, fully-realised characters.

And there's a way around that.  Have the player freedom happen outside the towns.  Give the main plot a smaller scope so it doesn't affect everyone in the world so profoundly that they need to talk about to remain believable.  Make the main quest an individual challenge rather than a world-spanning epic challenge.

As Stan Woo so often points out, no design choice is made in isolation.  All of these problems you foresee can be dealt with by changing other features.

The more depth you give the characters, the less room there is for the player to fill in those blanks himself. Hell, isn't that your exact argument for why you don't want a voiced protagonist?

That is my pargument against a voiced protagonist, but I don't think it applies to NPCs.

I wouldn't mind it applying to party members, though, as I view them as PCs.  I play them.  They're player characters.  I've never understood why I'm able to control them in combat, and out of combat, but not in conversation.  That's a fundamental disconnect I just don't get.

[kartupelis]

seems alright to me. i dont see anything here that could disappoint. all the things I disliked are being addressed, and something is probably going to be thrown in the trash bin, but i am sure that bioware wouldnt go that far to discard something that made the original great. i know that bioware is not going to screw this up. When i first played mass effect, I was simply stunned how fantastic it was. the voice acting, the rpg + shooter elements, and that epic story made it the number 1 game for me, until mass effect 2 came out. and again i was blown away. it was everything i loved about mass effect 1 made better and the bad and boring bits were gone. so I recently decided to install mass effect 1 and start a new playthourgh, but it felt a bit crude and a tad lame, because i knew that i already had mass effect 2 and it is better in practically every way. and i am 100% sure that bioware will do the same thing with dragon age 2- make the original feel obsolete and dull in comparison. well, at least to me. there will always be complainers who resist change, who will say that the old ways are best. that is human nature. some people cant comprehend that change is a good, not a bad thing. not in all matters ofcourse, but if the changes are being made by a developer like bioware, and if the changes are made in their franchise, there is a very small chance that something will go wrong.

Modifié par kartupelis, 22 septembre 2010 - 05:50 .

[Amioran]

bobosuda wrote...

I think you got a few crucial points in your argument wrong. Firstly, I don't get what you claim differenciates Hawke from the Warden, what's the difference between the two characters? Both have names that are not yours, unless you for some reason name the Warden after yourself, just because you can't change Hawke into something else, doesn't mean he is any less a "blank slate" than what the Warden is.

I make some crucial points wrong?
You just started and you didn't get anything about what I said. The "warden" is a role, not a name. You create him/her, you define him/her as you want to, it is not already made, it is not already existent in itself. Bioware never referred to the warden as character as they do with Hawke. Interpreting a character it is not the same thing as having a role and playing the same as an avatar.

And the fact that Hawke has a VO doesn't make him less of a role that you assume, its not like you have complete control over what the Warden is saying anyway, you still have to choose from a list of responses, same as with Hawke, only this time, you'll hear him say it.

Rearead what I wrote. I really don't want to repeat the same things all the times. It is obvious the difference (well, not really, but with a bit of thought then it is). If you cannot see it I suggest to try to understand it rereading what I wrote. Hawke is not a role, it is a character, as it is, for example, Geralt. The why of this (and the evidence) it is given by Bioware itself on how the interact with Hawke, differently on how they interacted with the warden.

Wouldn't you naturally imagine the Warden saying the stuff you chose anyway? You make all the decision, you decide what quests to do, you decide which companions to use, and how to respond to other people in the world. You can even decide how Hawke looks, and even though you can't change his appearence into another race as with the Warden, that doesn't really take away the role-playing aspect.

Sure, you can assume Hawke "you". But that can happen with everything and everyone. You can also assume yourself to be the reincarnation of Jim Morrison, would that mean that it is so? Hell, there are even people that think they are somebody else in their bodies, who am I to differ?

We know nothing of what Hawke is up to, except for the fact that he somehow becomes really important during the game, but we already knew that of the Warden as well, right?

Again, what we know or what we don't know doesn't have ANYTHING to do with a character vs. a role model, at all. I already made the example referred to teathre and assuming a role vs. interpreting a character. Another more practical would be that having Hawke a preset model would make the most sense, while for the Warden it will not. The motive why Bioware don't do it it is obvious. People complaining about it.

Let's assume people would be able to polymorph. If that was possible in teathre an actor interpreting Otello would polymorph in the suggested appareance given by Shakespeare for the same. For a role used to interpret some aspect of the same actor, however, there could not be a suggested appearance and the actor would not polymorph at all or do that at his/her own will to what s/he wants to transmit to the public. This to speak about practical questions that are more easy to understand.

Hawke, already contains a character within him/herself. You don't create the same as you do with the Warden. That the Warden is a role that you assume (or that you can assume) it is evident for all the game and also the story (and dialogue) almost suggest you to follow that route. The same way people refer to you it is evidence that the warden it is a representation of a character and not a character in itself.

In the end, Hawke is just as much a blank slate as the Warden, and while you seem content on branding him an already predetermined character doesn't necessarily make it so. We haven't recieved any proof yet that anything except the last name and the race as far as Hawke goes is nailed down before you start playing, everything else is still up to you. How is that different than what the Warden was?

How they refer to him/her is evidence enough (they speak of an individual, not of a role). The reference to the type of story behind him/her from the beginning of the same it is evidence enough. The reference of Garric relating of a *character* it is evident enough. If for example you relate of a king you relate of a role that can assume whatever character (that it is not existent in itself, immediately), if you however relate of Aeducan (or anyone else), then you are relating of a character (already existent in itself, from beginning), not a role. All of those typically declare a character already pre-existent, and not only a role as in the case of the warden. They are intrinsical evidences, but they are still there. 

I already said that the difference can be subtle. People have written books (not on the pow of games, but still the focal points are the same) on the argument, so it is not simple to explain not to understand the difference in little words. And it can also be that my property of the english language is not enough in this case to do it.

Modifié par Amioran, 22 septembre 2010 - 07:25 .

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Find me a dev citation and I'll take this claim seriously.

It is evident. But anyway to anybody his own. That you take me seriously or not doesn't make much difference, that you need reassurance of an obvious thing neither. I suppose you will know the truth in time, whatever that it is, or whatever you think it is.

[The Masked Rog]

Bioware gave surnames to your Wardens. Predefined surname. People of talk of their Couslands, their Aeducans, etc. Difference is there were 6 surnames in Origins and now there's only one.

[Wishpig]

errant_knight wrote...

axa89 wrote...

@errant_knight
I thought that because there are plenty of positive points in the article and senteces like "The less it's what I liked about Origins, the greater the excitement from reviewers" suggest you don't know where the journalist was coming from.

Uh, no. It means that the things the reviewer found to be exciting improvements, I didn't, and yet he is clearly excited. That is undeniable. And further, that he is not the first reviewer to also be excited by things that I find unappealing. Perhaps I overstated the case in the name of snappy rhetoric, but that doesn't change the fact that while both you and the reviewer found the things in the article to be positives, not everyone must do so, or have it be seen that they lack comprehension/reading skills.

DA2 is a double edged sword. Bioware is attacking head on many of the complaints. For example,  many complained about boreing combat (especially on the consoles) and many complained about what they saw as a generic looking fantasy world. Bioware is attacking such complaints in a very extreme manner, like totally redoing Dragon Age visuals. This extreme direction will turn off some people but hopefully attract more than the franchise loses.

Frankly, all I care about is story. If the story and the world really sucks me in they can make ogres look like giant bunny rabbits or they could make combat like god of war. As long as gameplay is at least OK and the story is great I'll be happy.

[foodstuffs]

Amioran, I've yet to see you cite facts, and I've tried to look for them.



An argument, even written and replicable, is nothing more than an argument. Arguments are opinions. You can use facts to support your opinion, but that does not make your opinion into fact, no matter how well supported. An opinion that is declared fact by the general population is still nothing more than an opinion.



Art is not simply taste, however, the quality of art is subjective to one's taste. Just because millions of people declare the Mona Lisa a masterpiece, that does not mean it is factually of high quality. Quality is subjective to opinion/taste.

[Bryy_Miller]

Amioran wrote...

bobosuda wrote...

I think you got a few crucial points in your argument wrong. Firstly, I don't get what you claim differenciates Hawke from the Warden, what's the difference between the two characters? Both have names that are not yours, unless you for some reason name the Warden after yourself, just because you can't change Hawke into something else, doesn't mean he is any less a "blank slate" than what the Warden is.

I make some crucial points wrong?
You just started and you didn't get anything about what I said. The "warden" is a role, not a name. You create him/her, you define him/her as you want to, it is not already made, it is not already existent in itself. Bioware never referred to the warden as character as they do with Hawke. Interpreting a character it is not the same thing as having a role and playing the same as an avatar.

And the fact that Hawke has a VO doesn't make him less of a role that you assume, its not like you have complete control over what the Warden is saying anyway, you still have to choose from a list of responses, same as with Hawke, only this time, you'll hear him say it.

Rearead what I wrote. I really don't want to repeat the same things all the times. It is obvious the difference (well, not really, but with a bit of thought then it is). If you cannot see it I suggest to try to understand it rereading what I wrote. Hawke is not a role, it is a character, as it is, for example, Geralt. The why of this (and the evidence) it is given by Bioware itself on how the interact with Hawke, differently on how they interacted with the warden.

Wouldn't you naturally imagine the Warden saying the stuff you chose anyway? You make all the decision, you decide what quests to do, you decide which companions to use, and how to respond to other people in the world. You can even decide how Hawke looks, and even though you can't change his appearence into another race as with the Warden, that doesn't really take away the role-playing aspect.

Sure, you can assume Hawke "you". But that can happen with everything and everyone. You can also assume yourself to be the reincarnation of Jim Morrison, would that mean that it is so? Hell, there are even people that think they are somebody else in their bodies, who am I to differ?

We know nothing of what Hawke is up to, except for the fact that he somehow becomes really important during the game, but we already knew that of the Warden as well, right?

Again, what we know or what we don't know doesn't have ANYTHING to do with a character vs. a role model, at all. I already made the example referred to teathre and assuming a role vs. interpreting a character. Another more practical would be that having Hawke a preset model would make the most sense, while for the Warden it will not. The motive why Bioware don't do it it is obvious. People complaining about it.

Let's assume people would be able to polymorph. If that was possible in teathre an actor interpreting Otello would polymorph in the suggested appareance given by Shakespeare for the same. For a role used to interpret some aspect of the same actor, however, there could not be a suggested appearance and the actor would not polymorph at all or do that at his/her own will to what s/he wants to transmit to the public. This to speak about practical questions that are more easy to understand.

Hawke, already contains a character within him/herself. You don't create the same as you do with the Warden. That the Warden is a role that you assume (or that you can assume) it is evident for all the game and also the story (and dialogue) almost suggest you to follow that route. The same way people refer to you it is evidence that the warden it is a representation of a character and not a character in itself.

In the end, Hawke is just as much a blank slate as the Warden, and while you seem content on branding him an already predetermined character doesn't necessarily make it so. We haven't recieved any proof yet that anything except the last name and the race as far as Hawke goes is nailed down before you start playing, everything else is still up to you. How is that different than what the Warden was?

How they refer to him/her is evidence enough (they speak of an individual, not of a role). The reference to the type of story behind him/her from the beginning of the same it is evidence enough. The reference of Garric relating of a *character* it is evident enough. If for example you relate of a king you relate of a role that can assume whatever character (that it is not existent in itself, immediately), if you however relate of Aeducan (or anyone else), then you are relating of a character (already existent in itself, from beginning), not a role. All of those typically declare a character already pre-existent, and not only a role as in the case of the warden. They are intrinsical evidences, but they are still there. 

I already said that the difference can be subtle. People have written books (not on the pow of games, but still the focal points are the same) on the argument, so it is not simple to explain not to understand the difference in little words. And it can also be that my property of the english language is not enough in this case to do it.

Okay. I read all that, and I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. First, you go on to say that Hawke somehow interacts with people differently than the Warden does, then you go on a rant about how people are all different. Or something. You are taking this way too seriously.

[Amioran]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Bioware gave surnames to your Wardens. Predefined surname. People of talk of their Couslands, their Aeducans, etc. Difference is there were 6 surnames in Origins and now there's only one.

In the case of a role vs. a character if you take Adecuan as the house that's a role, if you take a specific member in itself that's a character. Same difference.

As for Hawke:
He has a mother, a father, a sister and a brother who live in Lothering. His father was an apostate mage and trained Bethany (and Hawke if he's a mage) in the art. His sister is an apostate mage.
This is all background, already existing. It defines a character already present in itself. The warden was created by yourself. It didn't have a background at priori, it didn't existed in itself, it was a role, the character came after, it wasn't present in the role itself.

What more can I say? The difference it is enough evident if you want to see it. The way Bioware is relating to Hawke is completely different on how they related to the warden, and this is obvious, since the former is already a character and the latter is a role from whom you create the character, your character.

Modifié par Amioran, 22 septembre 2010 - 08:12 .

[foodstuffs]

Origin characters have no background? 

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

SirOccam wrote...

Amioran wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

I'm still not seeing the difference here. You decide as much about Hawke as you do about each of the Origins characters. You decide appearance, you decide a first name, you decide a gender, and then during the game you decide how he or she reacts to things. Once you've chosen an Origin, the rest is exactly the same as Hawke, except of course that the different games have different plots.

The difference is both philosophical/psychological as practical. Actually it is a little subtle but it still exists. It is the difference for example of an actor interpreting his/her version of Otello, and an actor taking a role as a background to interpret him/herself (or a particular aspect) in the same. Apart the philosophical and psicological different subtetlies (that also if important are less evident) the difference resides on the point that in the former case a character having external characteristics (as a voice in the case of a game) works well because you shouldn't consider that character as yourself (or your idealized version of you or whatever), but a character of whom you direct the course of action. The fact that you consider yourself or not in the role of the Warden doesn't change that s/he can assume that role, while Hawke cannot (or shouldn't).

I get the difference between an avatar and a character; I mean the difference between Hawke and a Warden. So I guess it all just comes down to the voice? Being voiced means Hawke can't be treated as an avatar, but the voiceless Wardens can?

Two problems I have with that:
1. The Wardens did have a voice. They just didn't use it very often. If they hired several voice actors for Hawke, and let us choose from 5-6 possibilities, would it change anything in your opinion?

2. I don't think hearing the lines spoken is that big of a deal. You know how on TV or in movies, when the audience is meant to hear a character's thoughts, you hear that character speaking? Well people don't really think like that, in complete sentences and tone and whatnot, unless the voice itself is part of what the person is thinking about. It's like those pictures of Professor Farnsworth with the caption "Good news everyone! I've just invented a machine that makes you read this in my voice!"

So when you chose a line in Origins, it's not like you actually heard yourself saying it (unless you actually said it out loud...which, I suppose...some people might do). Indeed, the fact that you're choosing lines they've supplied you and not simply coming up with your own should be a much bigger hinderance, voiced or not.

1. Not really as the tone of the responses are already predetermined as others have stated already.

2. Its not so much as having VO is that much of a big deal if its done to such a intricate level that the player still feels like its themselves they're controlling and not some predetermined, prescripted character/linear story which quite frankly would be extremely difficult to pull off .

ME2 felt like a pretty linear experience, sure you had some sway in being either Paragon or Renegade but at the end the game still plays out exactly the same way. Taking into consideration the majority of ME2's side quest were essentially companion loyalty quests to begin with doesn't help much.

For me when I chose a line in Origins I'm thinking how would my character reply to this type of situation based on what background and personality and "role" (hense the term role playing) that "I" chose. Key word being I there.

With voice overs it removes alot of that intimateness, since we don't know first, if a dialog choice will actually come out how we mean it to, nor do we know if it will even remotely match whats in the dialog wheel in the first place.

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 22 septembre 2010 - 08:55 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Amioran wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Bioware gave surnames to your Wardens. Predefined surname. People of talk of their Couslands, their Aeducans, etc. Difference is there were 6 surnames in Origins and now there's only one.

In the case of a role vs. a character if you take Adecuan as the house that's a role, if you take a specific member in itself that's a character. Same difference.

As for Hawke:
He has a mother, a father, a sister and a brother who live in Lothering. His father was an apostate mage and trained Bethany (and Hawke if he's a mage) in the art. His sister is an apostate mage.
This is all background, already existing. It defines a character already present in itself. The warden was created by yourself. It didn't have a background at priori, it didn't existed in itself, it was a role, the character came after, it wasn't present in the role itself.

I fail to see how a Dwarf born into nobility is any different from a guy fleeing a burning city in the sense of what role they are playing. 

[foodstuffs]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

I fail to see how a Dwarf born into nobility is any different from a guy fleeing a burning city in the sense of what role they are playing.

One is a noble dwarf and the other is a flee