608 réponses à ce sujet

[addiction21]

MerinTB wrote...
snip

But wheres my choice to mix the tuna and chicken salad into one? Or to have a waffle.


Anyway... what MerinTB said. I agree and could not say it any better.

[Nozybidaj]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Even though I agree with your fundamental idea that New Vegas offers less actual reactive quests,

Less than what?  Than DAO? 

[In Exile]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.  What exactly is the point you are trying to make?  That every game ever made is only about presentation of illusions of choice?  That no game ever made has ever offered real choice?

No; that people value the illusion of choice differently, and what that illusion to be handled in different ways. To me, getting a lot of scripted feedback on it, at the cost of reducing the number of hypothetical ways to trigger it, is more valuable.

To other people, the number of triggers for the choice is very important.

New Vegas (and open-world RPs in general) have a lot more trigger points for their scripted events, and a lot less scripted feedback for the scripted event. Which type out approach you prefer is obviously subjective, but just because one company uses one approach doesn't mean there's greater complexity there.

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Alan and Merin are right in this
case. Even though I agree with your fundamental idea that New Vegas
offers less actual reactive quests, there comes a point where you're
less arguing about choice in video games and more arguing about the
concept of choice in video games.

To me, the main issue in this thread is what can DA2 learn from NV. To me, what NV does in handling RP is introduce (from a design standpoint) lots of triggers for their scripted events. There are lots of ways you can get the Legion to hate you (for example). The Legion hates you in the same way, so the content of the scripted event isn't different, but you can get to that outcome in very many ways. In contrast, Bioware scripts not just the event, but the trigger. So you have very few triggers, but they're highly fleshed out.

This is the design difference. To make Bioware games more like NV, Bioware would have to essentially change their design philosophy. This is my point.

[Nozybidaj]

In Exile wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.  What exactly is the point you are trying to make?  That every game ever made is only about presentation of illusions of choice?  That no game ever made has ever offered real choice?

No; that people value the illusion of choice differently, and what that illusion to be handled in different ways. To me, getting a lot of scripted feedback on it, at the cost of reducing the number of hypothetical ways to trigger it, is more valuable.

To other people, the number of triggers for the choice is very important.

New Vegas (and open-world RPs in general) have a lot more trigger points for their scripted events, and a lot less scripted feedback for the scripted event. Which type out approach you prefer is obviously subjective, but just because one company uses one approach doesn't mean there's greater complexity there.

Hmm, okay, I agree with that.  Thanks for the clarification.

[Bryy_Miller]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Even though I agree with your fundamental idea that New Vegas offers less actual reactive quests,

Less than what?  Than DAO? 

Yeah. The entire Veronica/Harkin quest(s)? Did nothing, even though they promised big changes. As well, judging by FO3's DLC, I doubt New Vegas' will react to your decisions from the previous game (and there were a lot of major ones in FO3). Awakening and Witch Hunt did.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 16 novembre 2010 - 06:43 .

[Marionetten]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Having a set plot is not an "assumption". The plot of New Vegas was to find it a new ruler, which you do. So you played it as someone who did it to escape the tower, that's great. It's not different from what The Courier does. 

Plot = / = Story

Having a set plot isn't. Having a set role is. The courier did start out the game as a courier just like how the mage warden started out as an apprentice in the tower. So far so good. What I take issue with is how BioWare railroaded my character into this predetermined role at every turn. The character I played had no interest in defending Ferelden or becoming the next Warden Commander. Imagine my shock when he suddenly was. It seems that anything which doesn't agree with BioWare's narrow definition of heroic is discarded.

With the courier I was put in charge. I could join the Legion. I could join the NCR. I could have House be my sugar daddy. I could go at it by myself. That is choice.

In Exile wrote...

New Vegas allows my character to be a transgered shapeshifting alien from the plane Zablroxx 223 working to eliminate human resistance to allow for the Great Harvest that will come when the kidneys of all humans will be harvested for their aphrodesiac content and the entire planet will be turn into an amusement park.

All of which the game will never acknowledge. The game did however acknowledge all of the aforementioned examples.

If you had a legitimate point I must have missed it. My bad.

Modifié par Marionetten, 16 novembre 2010 - 06:52 .

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
All of which the game will never acknowledge. The game did however acknowledge all of the aforementioned examples.

If you had a legitimate point I must have missed it. My bad.

The game will acknowledge this as much as any choice. You said:

You can be a conman who skillfully plays all the sides. You can be a
savage who clubs everyone and everything to death. You can be loyal to
the NCR. You can pretend to be loyal to the NCR. You can be loyal to the
Legion. You can pretend to the be loyal to the Legion. You can be loyal
to House. You can pretend to be loyal to House.

What does being a savage mean? Attacking every NPC. That's the only in-game acknowledgement. That, and a faction penalty. Loyalty to the NCR - that just means NCR quests, +faction score. Pretend loyalty to NCR - identical to loyalty to NCR (+faction score + quests), with an endgame betrayal.

What does being a shapeshifting transgered alien from Zarblox 232 meant?

1) Working against all sources of authority in the game.
2) Activating the Poseiden Energy plant and killing NCR troops with the super weapon
3) Killing the brotherhood
4) Sabotaging the Ghouls
5) Killing Mr. House
6) Make New Vegas independent - weaken both the legion and NCR
7) Kill people of power/authority, i.e. the leaders

The game can acknowledge my plot to weaken New Vegas as much as it acknowledges any plot.

The point you're missing is that reactivity in New Vegas is limited to some very narrow quest triggers, and the perception of reactivity comes from your mental state at the time of choosing the action. That works with any half-baked, half-insane scenario I can come up with.

ETA:

Put another way: if I work with Yes Man to keep New Vegas free, who is to say that I do it out of a love for freedom instead of some outrageously complicated Xanatos Roullete to facilitate the alien invasion?

Hell, I could RP all of the following at an even higher level of abstraction, where my character is just an insane human who thinks he's an alien spy who yada yada yada.

Modifié par In Exile, 16 novembre 2010 - 06:53 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Marionetten wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Having a set plot is not an "assumption". The plot of New Vegas was to find it a new ruler, which you do. So you played it as someone who did it to escape the tower, that's great. It's not different from what The Courier does. 

Plot = / = Story

Having a set plot isn't. Having a set role is. The courier did start out the game as a courier just like how the mage warden started out the game as an apprentice in the tower. So far so good. What I take issue with is how BioWare railroaded my character into this predetermined role at every turn. The character I played had no interest in defending Ferelden or becoming the next Warden Commander. Imagine my shock when he suddenly was. It seems that anything which doesn't agree with BioWare's narrow definition of heroic is discarded.

With the courier I was put in charge. I could join the Legion. I could join the NCR. I could have House be my sugar daddy. I could go at it by myself. That is choice.

Once again, plot does not equal story. 

The plot of the game was to save the world from the Blight. The plot of the expansion was to rebuild the Wardens. I don't understand your argument (well, I do, but it's fairly ridiculous). Those were the plots of the games. You don't get an option to change the main plots of the things themselves. You are in someone's else's story, free to make your own in the context of theirs.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 16 novembre 2010 - 06:56 .

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
Having a set plot isn't. Having a set role is. The courier did start out the game as a courier just like how the mage warden started out as an apprentice in the tower. So far so good. What I take issue with is how BioWare railroaded my character into this predetermined role at every turn. The character I played had no interest in defending Ferelden or becoming the next Warden Commander. Imagine my shock when he suddenly was. It seems that anything which doesn't agree with BioWare's narrow definition of heroic is discarded.

With the courier I was put in charge. I could join the Legion. I could join the NCR. I could have House be my sugar daddy. I could go at it by myself. That is choice.

Could you leave New Vegas alone, happy that you are alive, and move to the New California Republic to see your sister?

[Nozybidaj]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
New Vegas offers less actual reactive quests

Less than what?  Than DAO? 

Yeah.

K, just gonna roll my eyes and walk away now.

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

The game can acknowledge my plot to weaken New Vegas as much as it acknowledges any plot.

It can acknowledge your plot to weaken New Vegas as it's actually one of the endings. It cannot and will not acknowledge the rest.

In Exile wrote...

The point you're missing is that reactivity in New Vegas is limited to some very narrow quest triggers, and the perception of reactivity comes from your mental state at the time of choosing the action. That works with any half-baked, half-insane scenario I can come up with.

Every game works on triggers. Including Dragon Age: Origins. I could make the same half-baked argument that my warden is in fact an alien from a different planet seeking to take over Ferelden but must first make certain that the Old Gods are removed and no amount of cinematics will ever change that.

In Exile wrote...

Hell, I could RP all of the following at an even higher level of abstraction, where my character is just an insane human who thinks he's an alien spy who yada yada yada.

And that's perfectly fine. But the game still won't acknowledge it. The game will however acknowledge if you opt to play it stealthily. The game will also acknowledge if you opt to play it savagely as you're bound to wreck quite a few quest givers and merchants along the way. This your actions have a direct effect on the world. Simple as that.

Modifié par Marionetten, 16 novembre 2010 - 06:59 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
New Vegas offers less actual reactive quests

Less than what?  Than DAO? 

Yeah.

K, just gonna roll my eyes and walk away now.

Thanks for not bothering to quote any of the substance there. It's fun to purposefully take things out of context, isn't it? The point I was trying to make was that, in the context (it must be the secret word or something) of the OP's "question", DA's (and BioWare's) track record for recording game data is solid, while Fallout's is non-existent.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 16 novembre 2010 - 07:06 .

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
It can acknowledge your plot to weaken New Vegas as it's actually one of the endings. It cannot and will not acknowledge the rest.

The game never acknowledges the mentally handicapped courier either, but you can certainly RP one (as your video shows). This was your praise for the game, remember?

In Exile wrote...
Every game works on triggers. Including Dragon Age: Origins. I could make the same half-baked argument that my warden is in fact an alien from a different planet seeking to take over Ferelden but must first make certain that the Old Gods are removed and no amount of cinematics will ever change that.

Of course you can - this is how I mock RP half the time on this forum. This is why I think DA:O had limited reactivity compared to Mass Effect.  All of this is a problem that comes from the blank slate, silent PC.

Remember - I'm not making the claim New Vegas was less reactive in general than DA:O. I'm making the claim it was less reactive to me, and that in general, it was equally reactive using a different design approach.

And that's perfectly fine. But the game still won't acknowledge it. The game will however acknowledge if you opt to play it stealthily. The game will also acknowledge if you opt to play it savagely as you're bound to wreck quite a few quest givers and merchants along the way. This your actions have a direct effect on the world. Simple as that.

The game won't acknowledge that I am a savage, or that I am a stealthy assasin. It will acknowledge it only insofar as it changes my gameplay rewards. This is my point. If yur entire definition for ''effect on the world'' and ''reactivity'' is such a general gameplay mechanism, then insane scenarios are equally consistent. 

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

The game never acknowledges the mentally handicapped courier either, but you can certainly RP one (as your video shows). This was your praise for the game, remember?

Which is why I didn't use it as my main argument. I fully realize just how poorly implemented the dumb options were. Icing on the cake, remember?

In Exile wrote...

Of course you can - this is how I mock RP half the time on this forum. This is why I think DA:O had limited reactivity compared to Mass Effect.  All of this is a problem that comes from the blank slate, silent PC.

Remember - I'm not making the claim New Vegas was less reactive in general than DA:O. I'm making the claim it was less reactive to me, and that in general, it was equally reactive using a different design approach.

I must confess, I'm having a hard time seeing additional presentation as this magical cure all. But if it works for you it works for you. A voiced protagonist certainly doesn't do much for me. Neither do cinematics. I prefer more direct feedback.

In Exile wrote...

The game won't acknowledge that I am a savage, or that I am a stealthy assasin. It will acknowledge it only insofar as it changes my gameplay rewards. This is my point. If yur entire definition for ''effect on the world'' and ''reactivity'' is such a general gameplay mechanism, then insane scenarios are equally consistent.

But the game does acknowledge it through those gameplay rewards. Several quests will have additional rewards for stealthy solutions complete with different dialogue sequences. Raiding the gun runners for McLafferty for one example. Dumping the chemicals on Cottonwood Cove for another. Did you play the same game as me here?

Modifié par Marionetten, 16 novembre 2010 - 07:18 .

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
Which is why I didn't use it as my main argument. I fully realize just how poorly implemented the dumb options were. Icing on the cake, remember?

Sure, but by those grounds, alien from Zabrloxx 23 is justified. And to me, a game that allows so much freedom in an undefined player character is just not a game I can enjoy.

All this thread is about is our subjective preference. New Vegas is not a game I would ever buy - it just isn't fun for me. So if DA2 was like it, I wouldn't buy DA2 either.

I must confess, I'm having a hard time seeing additional presentation as this cure all. But if it works for you it works for you. It certainly doesn't do much for me.

To me, it is abou reaction. If I cheat on my gilfriend with another woman, or with another man, or with another woman and man, it doesn't just translate into an approval loss (-50) and leads to missing out some quests. Each is a unique and dramatic argument were we talk about my specific behaviour. A big part of that is my chance to explain my reasons.

The more scripted the game, not only the more unique the reaction the NPCs can have to your choice, but the more opportunity you have to explain your motive in-game, and get a reaction to that. To me, that is the height of na RPG. Losing trigger choices for it is 100% worth it.

But the game does acknowledge it through those gameplay awards. Several quests will have additional rewards for stealthy solutions complete with different dialogue sequences. Raiding the gun runners for McLaffery for one example. Dumping the chemicals on Cottonwood Cove for another. Did you play the same game as me here?

I did. I just don't value that sort of feedback. This is our whole debate.

[Marionetten]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Once again, plot does not equal story. 

The plot of the game was to save the world from the Blight. The plot of the expansion was to rebuild the Wardens. I don't understand your argument (well, I do, but it's fairly ridiculous). Those were the plots of the games. You don't get an option to change the main plots of the things themselves. You are in someone's else's story, free to make your own in the context of theirs.

I think you're missing my point here.

BioWare's protagonist in Awakening was way too narrow of a role. It focused exclusively on a character who wanted to help the Wardens. A character who wanted to be a Warden. A character who fit their definition of heroic. My character wasn't it so I felt alienated by the whole experience. This is why I preferred the Courier. Yes, I realize it's a fine line to walk when making games like this but I think BioWare could have offered a bit more flexibility.

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
I think you're missing my point here.

BioWare's protagonist in Awakening was way too narrow of a role. It focused exclusively on a character who wanted to help the Wardens. A character who wanted to be a Warden. A character who fit their definition of heroic. My character wasn't it so I felt alienated by the whole experience. This is why I preferred the Courier. Yes, I realize it's a fine line to walk when making games like this but I think BioWare could have offered a bit more flexibility.

There isn't a big problem with what Bioware did in Awakening, if Awakening was a standalone game. The problem was that as a sequel to DA:O, your Warden did not have to do any of these things.

Though if you do watch DA:O carefully, you can see how Bioware is herding you. Basically, the DA:O problem is that their whole idea was that your origin was who you were before you became a Grey Warden, and they just didn't do enough to get all the players to buy intot hat; instead, the origin was who they are, and the Grey Warden role is just something they got shafted with.

[AlanC9]

Then shouldn't you have used a different character in Awakening? Or did you only have the one?

Note that the DAO box does say "You are a Grey Warden, one of the last of a legendary...." etc. So at least Bio made the design intent fairly clear there.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 novembre 2010 - 07:53 .

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

Sure, but by those grounds, alien from Zabrloxx 23 is justified.

It isn't. A dumb character is actually supported by both stats and dialogue options. Sure, you might not get feedback on it due to the half-assed effort but it's still there. Your example isn't. Nor will it ever be.

In Exile wrote...

To me, it is abou reaction. If I cheat on my gilfriend with another woman, or with another man, or with another woman and man, it doesn't just translate into an approval loss (-50) and leads to missing out some quests. Each is a unique and dramatic argument were we talk about my specific behaviour. A big part of that is my chance to explain my reasons.

The more scripted the game, not only the more unique the reaction the NPCs can have to your choice, but the more opportunity you have to explain your motive in-game, and get a reaction to that. To me, that is the height of na RPG. Losing trigger choices for it is 100% worth it.

But it isn't unique. A lot of the canned responses in Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins were the same regardless of which option you chose. Sure, there were major scenes in which you got different reactions but the same goes for Fallout: New Vegas. I'll use the quest to find Morales as an example here. You could go in with a nice and helpful attitude and the NCR soldiers would respond in a certain way. You could go in with a rude attitude and the soldiers would respond differently. You act as if Fallout: New Vegas had none of this when it does in fact have plenty. I think Fallout 3 serves your argument far better in this regard.

In Exile wrote...

I did. I just don't value that sort of feedback. This is our whole debate.

You don't value dialogue shifting based on your actions?

AlanC9 wrote...

Then shouldn't you have used a different character in Awakening? Or did you only have the one?

I didn't have much of a choice as I wanted to play a mage. Yes, I realize that the Cousland fits the best and that playing anything else is pretty much an exercise in futility. I'm actually kind of happy to see BioWare scrapping the origins in Dragon Age II for this reason. At least now I can play a mage while enjoying the game as intended.

That said, I still don't fully agree with the design philosophy.

In Exile wrote...

There isn't a big problem with what Bioware did in Awakening, if Awakening was a standalone game. The problem was that as a sequel to DA:O, your Warden did not have to do any of these things.

Though if you do watch DA:O carefully, you can see how Bioware is herding you. Basically, the DA:O problem is that their whole idea was that your origin was who you were before you became a Grey Warden, and they just didn't do enough to get all the players to buy intot hat; instead, the origin was who they are, and the Grey Warden role is just something they got shafted with.

True. I thought the game played out fine as a Cousland as I had all the motivations right there. My mage playthrough on the other hand... yeah, it made no sense and I just ended up disinterested. To me that is bad design. This is why I don't mourn the loss of the origins.

Modifié par Marionetten, 16 novembre 2010 - 07:42 .

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

Then shouldn't you have used a different character in Awakening? Or did you only have the one?

I didn't actually have a Warden who wanted to be a Warden. None of my characters were relunctant heroes, they just didn't care per se about being Grey Wardens or buy into the self-sacrifice nonsense and wanted to move on to other things after Denerim. This is why I am very anti a Warden sequel.

In the end I bit the bullet and just overwrote my Human Noble's personality a little to make it work, but Awakening is a game I played through once to see the story because of this design decision.

Marionetten wrote...
It isn't. A dumb character is actually
supported by both stats and dialogue options. Sure, you might not get
feedback on it due to the half-assed effort but it's still there. Your
example isn't. Nor will it ever be.

Zarblox 2332 is as supported as any RP choice that isn't explicitly acknowledged by the game. Say you want to say the courrier was born in a vault, or used to be a tribal. You can have that freedom; the game just won't acknowledge it. My insane drift is the same.

I'll use the quest
to find Morales as an example here. You could go in with a nice and
helpful attitude and the NCR soldiers would respond in a certain way.
You could go in with a rude attitude and the soldiers would respond
differently. You act as if Fallout: New Vegas had none of this when it
does in fact have plenty. I think Fallout 3 serves your argument far
better in this regard.

I'm not talking about the responses; I'm talking about the interaction. With Morales, all you get are flavour shifts. What I'm talking about is the change to explain yourself, to define your character in-game by having people react to your background and motives, have you respon to that, and then have then respond to that.

New Vegas is very weak in this regard, because all you have are 1:1 interactions and very narrow dialogue trees that work only within the confines of the one specific quest you're doing.

You don't value dialogue shifting based on your actions?

I don't value them reacting to my actions, no. To me, a game is reactive only when it reacts to motives.

True. I thought the game played out fine as a Cousland as I had all
the motivations right there. My mage playthrough on the other hand...
yeah, it made no sense and I just ended up disinterested. To me that is
bad design. This is why I don't mourn the loss of the origins.

My Couslands had 0 motive to be a Grey Warden. I actually think mages, dwarves and city elves work better as Warden's because there is at least some motivation of a better life involved. For a Cousland being a Warden is just like 5-10 steps down.

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

Zarblox 2332 is as supported as any RP choice that isn't explicitly acknowledged by the game. Say you want to say the courrier was born in a vault, or used to be a tribal. You can have that freedom; the game just won't acknowledge it. My insane drift is the same.

But a stupid character isn't an RP choice. It's something enforced by your statistics.

In Exile wrote...

I'm not talking about the responses; I'm talking about the interaction. With Morales, all you get are flavour shifts. What I'm talking about is the change to explain yourself, to define your character in-game by having people react to your background and motives, have you respon to that, and then have then respond to that.

New Vegas is very weak in this regard, because all you have are 1:1 interactions and very narrow dialogue trees that work only within the confines of the one specific quest you're doing.

It has less dialogue. Often sweet and short. That doesn't necessarily mean it's less important. And I don't think any BioWare game to date has done motives particularly well. It's either greedy or selfless. Renegade or paragon. To that end, it really is no different from the mercenary versus wasteland saint approach of Fallout: New Vegas. Talk about illusion of choice.

In Exile wrote...

I don't value them reacting to my actions, no. To me, a game is reactive only when it reacts to motives.

People react to actions. Worlds are shaped by actions.

You can't really expect someone to care about your motive when you just shot them in the face.

Modifié par Marionetten, 16 novembre 2010 - 07:59 .

[AlanC9]

Marionetten wrote...
I didn't have much of a choice as I wanted to play a mage. Yes, I realize that the Cousland fits the best and that playing anything else is pretty much an exercise in futility.

I don't understand this. Someone from the mage background is perfectly capable of being "a character who wanted to help the Wardens. A character who wanted to be a Warden. A character who fit their definition of heroic." My first PC was such. Though since he preferred to die rather than see Anora on the throne, he isn't going into DAA.

Maybe you could explain what you took away from the mage origin that makes all your magi unlikely to feel this way.

I agree that DAA is problematic for a sequel since a fairly large number of PCs won't have any reason to be there. Not a problem for me since I have several Wardens, one of whom fits in quite nicely. But this is something they should avoid, except maybe with DLCs.

[Marionetten]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't understand this. Someone from the mage background is perfectly capable of being "a character who wanted to help the Wardens. A character who wanted to be a Warden. A character who fit their definition of heroic." My first PC was such. Though since he preferred to die rather than see Anora on the throne, he isn't going into DAA.

Maybe you could explain what you took away from the mage origin that makes all your magi unlikely to feel this way.

I agree that DAA is problematic for a sequel since a fairly large number of PCs won't have any reason to be there. Not a problem for me since I have several Wardens, one of whom fits in quite nicely. But this is something they should avoid, except maybe with DLCs.

I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying that I didn't play such a character in Dragon Age: Origins as I didn't feel there was sufficient motivation for it given the origin. My mage constantly questioned the Wardens and had a massive falling out with Alistair over it. Come Awakening and he's suddenly the Warden Commander. Throughout the whole game I had taken a very negative stance towards the organization only to have my character become that.  The worst part is that it was all done without any of my input whatsoever. The moment you start up Awakening you're there.

It was too narrow of a role and contradicted a lot of my previous decisions. As a result, I found myself unable to enjoy the game. I'm not asking for complete freedom here as I know that's not BioWare's thing but some flexibility would have been appreciated.

Modifié par Marionetten, 16 novembre 2010 - 08:15 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I didn't actually have a Warden who wanted to be a Warden. None of my characters were relunctant heroes, they just didn't care per se about being Grey Wardens or buy into the self-sacrifice nonsense and wanted to move on to other things after Denerim. This is why I am very anti a Warden sequel.

In the end I bit the bullet and just overwrote my Human Noble's personality a little to make it work, but Awakening is a game I played through once to see the story because of this design decision.

DAO's entire written structure did break down a bit too easily.  I've come to realise this.

Specifically, I've seen it fail any time your character has an objective that relates to social change.  If your character starts the game with a grand plan to change the world, the game simply doesn't work.

My second Cousland character (Inge) wants to restore the independence of the Couslands and throw off the remnant's of Calenhad's yoke.  That doesn't really work in the game, though.

I don't value them reacting to my actions, no. To me, a game is reactive only when it reacts to motives.

The game can't even know your motives unless it gives them to you.

[AlanC9]

Marionetten wrote...

I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying that I didn't play such a character in Dragon Age: Origins as I didn't feel there was sufficient motivation for it given the origin. My mage constantly questioned the Wardens and had a massive falling out with Alistair over it. Come Awakening and he's suddenly the Warden Commander. Throughout the whole game I had taken a very negative stance towards the organization only to have my character become that.  The worst part is that it was all done without any of my input whatsoever. The moment you start up Awakening you're there.

Oh... so when you said DAA fits a Cousland best, you meant your particular Cousland rather than Couslands in general?