1279 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I've got one: Baldur's Gate.  That was a story with limited regional impact, and a primarily personal focus.

Though things might have been a good deal worse if Sarevok's plan had been workable and had succeeded. Maybe not, though -- after all, the world wasn't all that much better off with Bhaal dead than it had been when he was alive.

Hell, BG2 and ToB aren't much more than regional/personal affairs if it doesn't really matter who occupies the Throne.

[Amioran]

AlanC9 wrote...

You keep repeating this without making what you're getting at any clearer.

It is clear but it is also subtle. Hawke is already created from beginning, it is inherent in itself, while the warden (or the character that it is to be the warden) is created by yourself, depending on what you chose yourself (or whatever) to be. As I said it is an intrisical evidence so you must think a bit for it yourself to understand. There's no way I can make you understand it for yourself.

We know all of these factors for the human and dwarf nobles and  the dwarf and elf commoner in DAO. We have somewhat less background for the mage, and it's conceivable that the Dalish elf has relatives we don't see in the game. 

But the character you go with doesn't exist in beginning. You chose different origins, you create your character further. It is not already existent, it doesn't contains in itself a role and a character as Hawke does.

If you can't explain yourself, don't blame us.

I've explained it, however being a subtle difference it is difficult to have practical comparisions to make apart ideas. The only comparisions I can make to make you understand are contained within the role and character themselves, but these are at the same time a part of the difference between the two. Try to understand the difference of what it means interpreting a character and having a character interpret yourself (or an aspect of the same). The difference is in this sentence I did make at beginning. All the rest is superflous and just adding to the point, in reality.

As I said there have been written books on the argument, so you cannot expect me to eviscerate it in a forum.

Edit: unless your whole point is merely that DAO had six characters to play with as opposed to DA2's one.

That's a point, yes, but not the only one. However, it is a pivotal one, as the one that the warden it is a role and not a character, differently from Hawke, and that the role and character of Hawke are indissoluble one another, while it is the contrary for the warden.

Modifié par Amioran, 23 septembre 2010 - 09:40 .

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But we still get to decide everything about how Hawke feels about any of those things.  Hawke's opinion of Bethany is left up to us.  We've been specifically told that we're not required to care for her.

True. But that doesn't change that Hawke already contains a character in itself from beginning, isn't it? I already said that if you can interpret Hawke it doesn't mean that you are him/her, and I also said that a role as that of a warden doesn't contain a character in itself, at priori, from beginning, you just create it with your choices yourself. This isn't true for Hawke. He already exists in itself, from beginning, you have no choice on the matter.

No one gets to choose who his family is, but each of us can choose whom we acknowledge as family.
The same is true with Hawke.

And this what does have to do with what are we talking about? We are talking here of the difference between a role and a character, not a  lesson on antropology.

And anyway changing the course of your life do also changes you (your true you, not what you think you are) really? Think about it. No. It just changes the external, the ego, a part of you, not what you are, not your character in itself, your real self. It can seem it does, because you are accustomed to regarding your ego as your true self, but the two are distinct thing, the former is finite, mutable, the latter is the contrary, immutable, infinite, true to itself. But all of this is beyond the scope both of this thread and this forum.

Modifié par Amioran, 23 septembre 2010 - 09:43 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amioran wrote...

True. But that doesn't change that Hawke already contains a character in itself from beginning, isn't it? I already said that if you can interpret Hawke it doesn't mean that you are him/her, and I also said that a role as that of a warden doesn't contain a character in itself, at priori, from beginning, you just create it with your choices yourself. This isn't true for Hawke. He already exists in itself, from beginning, you have no choice on the matter.

You haven't exaplained at all why you think this is true.

I see no evidence of it in what we've learned so far.

I will play Hawke as if he is my character, and if that doesn't work then DA2 will have failed in my eyes.

[AlanC9]

Amioran wrote...

It is clear but it is also subtle. Hawke is already created from beginning, it is inherent in itself, while the warden (or the character that it is to be the warden) is created by yourself, depending on what you chose yourself (or whatever) to be. As I said it is an intrisical evidence so you must think a bit for it yourself to understand. There's no way I can make you understand it for yourself.

Sorry. I have thought about it and you're simply wrong. Hawke is neither more nor less defined than Cousland , Aeducan, Brosca, or Tabris. He/she is slightly more defined than Amell or Surana. Mahariel is arguable.

But the character you go with doesn't exist in beginning. You chose different origins, you create your character further. It is not already existent, it doesn't contains in itself a role and a character as Hawke does.

This still makes no sense. I've got a thought experiment for you. Picture a hypothetical version of DAO with all origins cut out except the Couslands. How would this version of DAO be different from DA2?

As I said there have been written books on the argument, so you cannot expect me to eviscerate it in a forum.

Actually, you're doing a pretty good job of eviscerating it. I think you probably mean "explicate" there.

Maybe you should name a couple of those books. It's possible you're misapplying a serious idea rather than spouting pure drivel.

[bnolsen2]

If I remember correctly, and I'm pretty sure that I do, every single Warden was a "predetermined" character in the same sense as Hawke.



The city elf in my profile photo was "forced" to have a father and a fiancee. My human nobles were "forced" to be a brother, uncle, son to the Couslands. Hawke's history prior to the game is no more imposed upon the player than before.



Hasn't BioWare repeatedly said that this game is about WHO the Champion is and WHAT HE DID to become Champion and that YOU decide those things? Doesn't that seem to imply that the character of Hawke and his impact on the region are up to YOU?



To me, this hullabaloo about "predetermined" characters is just because people want to play their warden, and that is understandable but admit your true reasoning here. Saying that Hawke's personality, his history, and his future are already set in stone anymore than the Human Noble that was forced to have his family die, forced to become a warden, forced to take revenge on Howe, and forced to kill the archdemon is ridiculous.

[Jedimg]

Amioran wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But we still get to decide everything about how Hawke feels about any of those things.  Hawke's opinion of Bethany is left up to us.  We've been specifically told that we're not required to care for her.

True. But that doesn't change that Hawke already contains a character in itself from beginning, isn't it? I already said that if you can interpret Hawke it doesn't mean that you are him/her, and I also said that a role as that of a warden doesn't contain a character in itself, at priori, from beginning, you just create it with your choices yourself. This isn't true for Hawke. He already exists in itself, from beginning, you have no choice on the matter.

No one gets to choose who his family is, but each of us can choose whom we acknowledge as family.
The same is true with Hawke.

And this what does have to do with what are we talking about? We are talking here of the difference between a role and a character, not a  lesson on antropology.

And anyway changing the course of your life do also changes you (your true you, not what you think you are) really? Think about it. No. It just changes the external, the ego, a part of you, not what you are, not your character in itself, your real self. It can seem it does, because you are accustomed to regarding your ego as your true self, but the two are distinct thing, the former is finite, mutable, the latter is the contrary, immutable, infinite, true to itself. But all of this is beyond the scope both of this thread and this forum.

Wow so much discussion over that ? If you believe that Hawke has his own character, try and play him the way you think he should behave and if you want to play him the way you want things to be done, then do that. The same was true with the Warden from the 1st game ... I mean the game itself starts with an introduction of the world you're living in and what your people think about different things. With Hawke you have a past but they do that just so that he can have some connection with the story from DA:O. Even the team said that the only thing that you know is that you are the Champion of Kirkwall. You decide how that happens and what the protagonist's true feelings are. Same thing in Dragon Age - I'm sure everyone expected that their main character would become an epic hero.

Another similarity in DA:O the future Hero of Ferelden is taken away from his envoirment to fight the Darkspawn. In DA2 Hawke has to flee his home, again because of the Darkspawn. And even the fact that your character has a preselected last name isn't a difference (e.g. In DA:O you also had a last name and you just had to input your first name). The whole "Hawke has a character of his own" part is total BS. It's not like you got to play as your Warden from when he/she was a small child without any character. I mean really, you can't tell me that an adult man/woman is blank in terms of character... Nobody tells you what Hawke thinks, his mind and thoughts - that's all you. The same is valid for the Warden - they only tell you what the world around you is like but they don't really tell you what your character is like.

In both games you start from being someone that nobody has heard of and in the end of the game you become part of the history of that world. In both games you have the freedom to make all of the decisions and change the world around you.

Plus on dragon age you could play the Warden depending on where he comes from - Elves hate humans, humans hate elves, dwarves hate everyone even their own depending on and, sometimes, even regardless of their caste. So again in both games you have the freedom to play your main character the way you want to do that or the way you think he should be like.

In the end - it's all up to you and that's the beauty of the game ...

Modifié par Jedimg, 23 septembre 2010 - 05:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Jedimg wrote...

In the end - it's all up to you and that's the beauty of the game ...

That's the beauty of RPGs generally.

[JrayM16]

The fact that in DA:O you had a PC without VO and had fully written out dialogue choices is only giving the player the illusion of control over who the character is. The PC in DA:O has no non-stat based character development that isn't atleast in part imagined by the player.



In DA2, Hawke will have as many dialogue choices with the same level of option as the PC had in DA:O. They will be presented as little tidbits to choose from and them be voiced but it's virtually the same.



As to the question of origins, I do still wish there were multiple origins to choose from, not because I felt they gave me more control, but because they were cool. However, I don't think DA2 is any less of a game because it lacks origins necessarily.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

The fact that in DA:O you had a PC without VO and had fully written out dialogue choices is only giving the player the illusion of control over who the character is. The PC in DA:O has no non-stat based character development that isn't atleast in part imagined by the player.

Why are you imposing a no-imagination filter?

Any why do you think imaginary control is illusory?  Does imagination not exist?

Imagination counts for a lot.  Allowing the player freedom to use his imagination is the key to engaging that player.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 septembre 2010 - 07:59 .

[foodstuffs]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

All conflicts are resolved by appealing to the hierarchy.

You acknowledge the possibility of conflicts right there.



Your hierarchy is sorta like a court, maybe a judge.  You and I would be
a team that addresses the judge because of conflicts.  The judge may
bring us to a compromise.  Sometimes the compromise will not
perfectly fit within the rules, but it will fit enough. 
Or, if there is no compromise to be found, we might have to rewrite some
rules.  This would be bending vs breaking, compromise vs rewrite.



I should have noted this from the beginning:  I was not stating you were wrong with your hierarchy, merely
acknowledging that conflicts will happen, that conflicts are bound to
happen during the production of a project, especially large ones. 

Also, come to think of it, I believe this is partly what's happening with the DA universe, is compromise vs rewrite.  Unfortunately, from what I've been able to gather about DA 2 so far, the world seems more like a rewrite, but I will reserve that judgement for the time.  I suppose as long as the feel of the DA univers is left in tact I will be ok, but I will reserve my judgement there as well, also I only have one game so far to compare to so it will be kinda difficult to make fair assessments unless DA 2 is quite obviously broken.

Still, I think you're a little too draconian :innocent:

[Sylvius the Mad]

foodstuffs wrote...

You acknowledge the possibility of conflicts right there.

Yes, but their resolution is algorithmic.  There's never any question about which way to go to resolve the conflict.

Your hierarchy is sorta like a court, maybe a judge.  You and I would be a team that addresses the judge because of conflicts.  The judge may bring us to a compromise.  Sometimes the compromise will not
perfectly fit within the rules, but it will fit enough. 

Or, if there is no compromise to be found, we might have to rewrite some rules.  This would be bending vs breaking, compromise vs rewrite.

No, the hierachy is a set of rules to be followed without question.  There is no room for compromise.

Follow the rules.  Build a game.  If it doesn't work out, then we can talk compromise.

Still, I think you're a little too draconian :innocent:

Rules are draconian.

[foodstuffs]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Imagination counts for a lot.  Allowing the player freedom to use his imagination is the key to engaging that player

I had to skip proofing my last post for a moment to acknowledge my complete and total agreement to this!

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No, the hierachy is a set of rules to be followed without question.  There is no room for compromise.

Follow the rules.  Build a game.  If it doesn't work out, then we can talk compromise.

Do you have to actually release the game, or can you talk compromise if the alpha build is no fun?

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No, the hierachy is a set of rules to be followed without question.  There is no room for compromise.

Follow the rules.  Build a game.  If it doesn't work out, then we can talk compromise.

Do you have to actually release the game, or can you talk compromise if the alpha build is no fun?

Sure.  But I don't generally get access to alpha builds, and I'm not likely to take someone else's word that something is or isn't fun.

[Gibb_Shepard]

This is great. I am personally a MASSIVE fan of mass effect 1 and 2, and when i tried to play origins the combat really, really turned me off the game. The story was great, but the turn based, tedious combat that seemed to be endless is what made me trade the game in. And now there is a voice for the character. I didn't really care for my character in origins as he was just a mute who didn't show any emotion. Now it seems i'll be able to connect with the new character due to the voice he'll have. DA2 sounds like it will be extremely epic.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 24 septembre 2010 - 03:13 .

[Monica83]

Best CRPG ever? BG2 The best immersive game wit awesome plot and huge contents... I miss this games..If someone didin't try it well... Try to find it... Its something beautyfull ... BG style is the best way an RPG can follow... If you play it you notice how wonderfull is.. Even Dragon age origins can't be compared with BG2..Now people asking about shiny graphic.. and easy gameplay.. or VO chars...



What we have hearned?... And what we have lose?... i just let you all answer this question.

[WDeranged]

I recently played Leliana's Song and I have to say that adding a voice for the main character absolutely helps gel the conversations together in a way far superior to the original game, that said I absolutely hate these abbreviated one or two word choices, sure it leaves room for surprises as you watch the character interpret your blunt request for violence or silliness via radial dials but I can't help but feel that this is a step down from what vast numbers of us liked about Dragon Age: Origins, which was a step back in time to when games didn't have to use big chunky one word buttons and reading a whole sentence wasn't considered too challenging for "core gamers"... uhg.

[WDeranged]

I should add that though I really dislike the changes to the dialogue system, many of the other details are quite promising,

[AlanC9]

Monica83 wrote...
 If you play it you notice how wonderfull is.. Even Dragon age origins can't be compared with BG2..

I've just finished replaying it, actually, and it's looking dated. There are a lot of things that DAO does better.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Thanks for the link.



Damn...you would think that the authors of these web articles would at least try to be professional and wouldn't post something so riddled with typos. It makes a block of swish cheese look like an impenetrable object by comparisson. I wonder what skill tree blesses/curses our main character with the ability of "...****ting hurlocks and genlocks in the air..." I mean that sounds painful and I can only guess Bethany is involved.



The only released features that seem an improvement to me so far is the ability to empower certain spells through the skill tree (fireball example in the article) and the mention that idle npcs don't just sit by the campfire, they go about their daily lives. Those two things sound very good...amidst alot of negative changes.

[Bryy_Miller]

Amioran wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You keep repeating this without making what you're getting at any clearer.

It is clear but it is also subtle. Hawke is already created from beginning, it is inherent in itself, while the warden (or the character that it is to be the warden) is created by yourself, depending on what you chose yourself (or whatever) to be. As I said it is an intrisical evidence so you must think a bit for it yourself to understand. There's no way I can make you understand it for yourself.

Please tell me that you are not a writer. Please do this.

AlanC9 wrote...

Monica83 wrote...
 If you play it you notice how wonderfull is.. Even Dragon age origins can't be compared with BG2..

I've just finished replaying it, actually, and it's looking dated. There are a lot of things that DAO does better.

Yeah, I just played the BG series for the first time ever last week. I also played The Witcher, and now I REALLY don't know why it is compared to Origins. 

Baldur's Gate is definitely fun - for a game based on/in the D&D universe. 

Origins is simply not that animal, nor should it be. D&D is not the world's sole format. To call BG2 the best RPG ever just because Origins is "shiny" would require it to be.

[SirOccam]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Amioran wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You keep repeating this without making what you're getting at any clearer.

It is clear but it is also subtle. Hawke is already created from beginning, it is inherent in itself, while the warden (or the character that it is to be the warden) is created by yourself, depending on what you chose yourself (or whatever) to be. As I said it is an intrisical evidence so you must think a bit for it yourself to understand. There's no way I can make you understand it for yourself.

Please tell me that you are not a writer. Please do this.

Seriously.

The Warden is already created from beginning, it is inherent in itself, while Hawke (or the character that is to be Hawke) is created by yourself, depending on what you chose yourself (or whatever) to be.

That is no more true than what you wrote, Amioran. You are just making an arbitrary declaration that doesn't even make any sense. Hawke is not already created, any more than Cousland is. You choose names for both of them, you choose appearance for both of them, things happen to both of them that are outside your control, you react with both of them. It is exactly the same.

You are seeing a default Hawke and for some reason the idea that he is a pre-made character has made its way into your brain and won't let go. We know nothing more of Hawke than we do of Cousland, or any of the others.

Would it help if they didn't call him Hawke, and just "the Champion" instead? I can see how "the Warden" might seem much more vague, but they still have last names that you can't change. If they just kept calling him "the Champion" and it just turned out that his last name was Hawke, I wonder if you'd still have this opinion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can see reasons to expect Hawke will be more of a pre-generated character than the Warden was, but Amioran hasn't appealed to any of those reasons.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Bryy_Miller wrote...


Yeah, I just played the BG series for the first time ever last week. I also played The Witcher, and now I REALLY don't know why it is compared to Origins. 

Baldur's Gate is definitely fun - for a game based on/in the D&D universe. 

Origins is simply not that animal, nor should it be. D&D is not the world's sole format. To call BG2 the best RPG ever just because Origins is "shiny" would require it to be.

BG and BG2 are two of the best RPG's ever in alot of peoples minds. Granted its all opinion obviously but still, both games are  held in high regard on most top CRPG lists from what I've seen. D&D license aside, Origins really isn't all that different systems wise to be honest.