1079 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Drasanil wrote...

 Indeed. However, based on recent performances, I would never accuse them of having a competent marketing department

But we have no data to evaluate the game. For example, if you look at the old youtube reviews of things like the violence trailer, you get a tremendous positive response.

[Drasanil]

AWESOME BUTTON!


...I rest my case.


EDIT: I also thought the DAO commercials looked pretty tacky, and most of the interesting stuff about Fenris/Most Companions comes out of the forums, as opposed to the short tag-line and paragraph we get on the official site.

Modifié par Drasanil, 22 décembre 2010 - 03:23 .

[Hawksblud]

SirOccam wrote...
... (though you might as well have a problem with not being able to join the Darkspawn in DAO) ...

Darkspawn Chronicles!

[Onyx Jaguar]

SirOccam wrote...


There's no game that is going to allow you to do anything you want. For that you have to stick to PnP, where your options are limited only by your imagination (and your DM's indulgence). This is a cRPG, where you have technological limitations, but more importantly--and more relevantly--it is a scripted story in which writers have determined that certain things will happen and certain things won't. As I said to druplesnubb, in this story, a sibling dies. It doesn't really matter if you wanted to keep both of them alive, because that possibility was never on the table.

As I've said elsewhere, I'd have liked to spare Loghain but remain BFFs with Alistair in DAO. The fact that that wasn't possible doesn't indicate that BioWare did something wrong. It was just the story they wanted to tell. If you have a problem with a sibling dying, that's fine (though you might as well have a problem with not being able to join the Darkspawn in DAO), but it's not like they're intruding on your freedoms or anything--or at least no more than any scripted story does, by definition.

Let me put it this way

By choosing one of three classes I am also making storyline choices.  Normally in these kind of games we would make these storyline choices within the story portion of the game.  This one we are not, this is based on character building.  It is a waste of divergent path that baffles my mind.  None of the examples you have given apply at all to what this is.

[SirOccam]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

SirOccam wrote...


There's no game that is going to allow you to do anything you want. For that you have to stick to PnP, where your options are limited only by your imagination (and your DM's indulgence). This is a cRPG, where you have technological limitations, but more importantly--and more relevantly--it is a scripted story in which writers have determined that certain things will happen and certain things won't. As I said to druplesnubb, in this story, a sibling dies. It doesn't really matter if you wanted to keep both of them alive, because that possibility was never on the table.

As I've said elsewhere, I'd have liked to spare Loghain but remain BFFs with Alistair in DAO. The fact that that wasn't possible doesn't indicate that BioWare did something wrong. It was just the story they wanted to tell. If you have a problem with a sibling dying, that's fine (though you might as well have a problem with not being able to join the Darkspawn in DAO), but it's not like they're intruding on your freedoms or anything--or at least no more than any scripted story does, by definition.

Let me put it this way

By choosing one of three classes I am also making storyline choices.  Normally in these kind of games we would make these storyline choices within the story portion of the game.  This one we are not, this is based on character building.  It is a waste of divergent path that baffles my mind.  None of the examples you have given apply at all to what this is.

I'm not talking about choosing between Bethany and Carver. I was referring to people who say they wanted both of them, and are upset at BioWare for taking that choice away.

[Onyx Jaguar]

But the response you responded to with that response seemed to be along the lines for which my response works in context to your response

[SirOccam]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

But the response you responded to with that response seemed to be along the lines for which my response works in context to your response

Alright, that makes sense. But I think the main thrust of my argument still applies: that they can't take something away that you never had.

I can understand why people might be upset about it (I myself thought it would be cool to see what being a Mage would be like with Bethany there). My guess is there's a good reason for having only one mage in the family. It's just a hunch, though. It also might be that there was no elegant way to orchestrate this choice within the story without it seeming totally OOC or obvious.

[otis0310]

David Gaider wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Again, I don't even need to lay a trap to make an opening for my point.

If I want to fully load a mage party I cannot.  In fact I am hampered more so because of this.

The same for other party combinations

Unless they over-simplify what a Mage can do, which wouuld be seriously unsurprising, then I could not test build a set of mages for circumstance.  Same with the other classes.

How is removing what I want to do on a playthrough just because of what class I play as "diversify" my party?

It locks me out based on what class the PC is!

That's assuming:

a) That Carver or Bethany are permanent party members.

That you won't get the mages you need elsewhere.

c) That we ever intended for this to be anything other than a story mechanic.

Maybe it's just me, but that's a lot of assumptions-- all based on your desire to metagame your party composition rather than play the game we're presenting.

I'd lke to respond to this.  Let's start backwards though.
C:  Not quite sure what you mean by "story mechanic".  Although I'd assume either characater would fit the story equally.  Don't quote me on that though, because as I said, I don't know exactly what you mean.

B: Higly irrelevant.  I get Zevran as a two weapon specialist later in the game.  Does that mean I should just accept Lelliana as an archer?  No, I do not, I get a mod that lets me respec Lelliana instead.  Why? Because I need a two weapon specialist in my team, not an archer, and I think Zevran is a jerk, he has his uses so I don't kill him. But still a jerk.

Point is that simply because there is another mage/rogue that can take their place doesn't mean that we just use them instead. Maybe the other character is a grade A moron that you would rather feed to darkspawn than travel with.  In which case I'd rather have my sister instead of the other guy, wouldn't I?

A: Great point, fantastic, so tell me, are they present beyond the prelude.  Because if not there is little point in worrying about it, is there?

And a side thing completely off topic.  I feel bad, ripped off acutally, about being forced to play as a human.  I miss my elf in particular.  I hope that Mr. Gaider reads this so they can fix that in the next installment.  That is by far my number one gripe about it.  

I personally believe the decision was based on money.  Human male/female is two actors.  Add an elf or dwarf in and you can get two more actors per race. More money to pay?

If not, I would like an explanation for that design decision.  It's the worse one.

[AlanC9]

otis0310 wrote...
B: Higly irrelevant.  I get Zevran as a two weapon specialist later in the game.  Does that mean I should just accept Lelliana as an archer?  No, I do not, I get a mod that lets me respec Lelliana instead.  Why? Because I need a two weapon specialist in my team, not an archer, and I think Zevran is a jerk, he has his uses so I don't kill him. But still a jerk.

Point is that simply because there is another mage/rogue that can take their place doesn't mean that we just use them instead.

It might if they don't release a toolset....

[otis0310]

AlanC9 wrote...

otis0310 wrote...
B: Higly irrelevant.  I get Zevran as a two weapon specialist later in the game.  Does that mean I should just accept Lelliana as an archer?  No, I do not, I get a mod that lets me respec Lelliana instead.  Why? Because I need a two weapon specialist in my team, not an archer, and I think Zevran is a jerk, he has his uses so I don't kill him. But still a jerk.

Point is that simply because there is another mage/rogue that can take their place doesn't mean that we just use them instead.

It might if they don't release a toolset....

HIGHLY  unlikely

[David Gaider]

otis0310 wrote...
C:  Not quite sure what you mean by "story mechanic".  Although I'd assume either characater would fit the story equally.  Don't quote me on that though, because as I said, I don't know exactly what you mean.

You'll have to play the game to see what I mean.

B: Higly irrelevant.  I get Zevran as a two weapon specialist later in the game.  Does that mean I should just accept Lelliana as an archer?  No, I do not, I get a mod that lets me respec Lelliana instead.  Why? Because I need a two weapon specialist in my team, not an archer, and I think Zevran is a jerk, he has his uses so I don't kill him. But still a jerk.

Point is that simply because there is another mage/rogue that can take their place doesn't mean that we just use them instead. Maybe the other character is a grade A moron that you would rather feed to darkspawn than travel with.  In which case I'd rather have my sister instead of the other guy, wouldn't I?

You're always going to only get the companions that we offer you. Some you will like, some you won't. In this case, some people are deciding they wanted either Carver or Bethany-- sans any further knowledge of them, or even any assurances they were actual companions-- based on their first impressions of screenshots. Which is fair enough, but we're not "taking away" anything other than their assumptions. Like you not liking Zevran or someone not even meeting Leliana or having Wynne turn on them at the Urn of Sacred Ashes you will get the companions that are appropriate to the game you're playing and they will react as we dictate. That's how it always is. In this case, the Bethany/Carver thing was never a choice, nor could it be something we take away. In fact, what we did was add a sibling who will work very well with the story you have ahead of you-- and that's the way it was always intended.

Insofar as my comment about mages in the party, I was referring to the complaint that without Bethany someone couldn't have their all-mage complement. This is a complaint that assumes Bethany was even available in the first place, or that there wouldn't be suitable companions elsewhere. Might be, might not be, but raging that we didn't give someone Bethany is no different than someone raging that Alistair & Loghain were mutually exclusive or that they lost their only Spirit Healer in Wynne or... whatever. Sorry, but that's how the cookie crumbles. If one wants to complain just to complain, ie. "you didn't give me the companion I thought I wanted! I hate that so much!" then fair enough. Go ahead and gnash your teeth if you must. But it isn't really based on much, I'm afraid.

A: Great point, fantastic, so tell me, are they present beyond the prelude.  Because if not there is little point in worrying about it, is there?

True. Either way, I guess you'll have to find out.

And a side thing completely off topic.  I feel bad, ripped off acutally, about being forced to play as a human.  I miss my elf in particular.  I hope that Mr. Gaider reads this so they can fix that in the next installment.  That is by far my number one gripe about it.  

I personally believe the decision was based on money.  Human male/female is two actors.  Add an elf or dwarf in and you can get two more actors per race. More money to pay?

If not, I would like an explanation for that design decision.  It's the worse one.

"Forcing" you to play a human. It's a strange word, sort of like us "forcing" you to have Bethany or Carver, I guess? From our perspective, this is simply how we're making this game. It's not the same game as Origins. You can choose to look at the glass as half-empty or as half-full, if you like, but what we're presenting is simply the game that is. The decisions we make are for generally for numerous reasons.

Much like having the player be human. Yes, saving the cost of multiple voice actors is one factor-- short of us having all races use the same actor for their gender, which might be awkward (since we ourselves have set up the races as having different accents). There's also the savings of only needing the multiple armor models for humans (as the PC is the only one who is actively changing their model via equipment changes). There's also the story consideration, in that a human Hawke works better for the tale we wanted to tell.

I suppose one could sneer at us wanting to save costs, and we should simply spend as much as is needed to make the game someone thinks we should be making-- and fair enough. We'll put the money where we think it needs to go, and I suppose budgets will never be as high as someone thinks they should be-- in particular when a budget isn't a factor for them (outside of the sixty-odd dollars they're spending on the game).

But would it be better if the PC could be elven or dwarven? Maybe. It might also dilute the story we want, and take resources away from things we wanted to spend them on-- variation up front rather than later on, perhaps. There's always a trade-off, whether you agree or not. At any rate, it works for this project and we'll see if it's something we want to pursue in potential future projects. It's not a given either way.

Modifié par David Gaider, 22 décembre 2010 - 08:50 .

[Shady314]

David Gaider wrote...True. Either way, I guess you'll have to find out.

True but finding out doesn't require us to buy the game. 

Modifié par Shady314, 22 décembre 2010 - 08:34 .

[Bryy_Miller]

otis0310 wrote...
If not, I would like an explanation for that design decision.  It's the worse one.

As David has said (or rather didn't, but as common knowledge dictates), play the game. Find out if it is the worse one. The creators are not going to spoil their product just because you are indignant. I fail to see how you can feel "ripped off" by a product you don't even own.

Shady314 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...True. Either way, I guess you'll have to find out.

True but finding out doesn't require us to buy the game. 

Never did he say you needed to. (Also: don't pirate to "find out". That's not clever nor good)

YouTube and Wiki are friends to the skeptic.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 22 décembre 2010 - 08:42 .

[Xewaka]

David Gaider wrote...

"Forcing" you to play a human. It's a strange word, sort of like us "forcing" you to have Bethany or Carver, I guess?
Much like having the player be human.[...]There's also the story consideration, in that a human Hawke works better for the tale we wanted to tell.

But would it be better if the PC could be elven or dwarven? Maybe. It might also dilute the story we want[...] There's always a trade-off, whether you agree or not. At any rate, it works for this project and we'll see if it's something we want to pursue in potential future projects. It's not a given either way.

You know, since the story is king (queen?) in Bioware, and coupling that fact with that telemetry data mentioned long ago, I don't get the feeling that we'll be given the option to play a non-human again in the Dragon Age franchise. Which is a damn shame. I don't want to be playing fantasy just to be the most mundane option.

[Piecake]

David Gaider wrote...

"Forcing" you to play a human. It's a strange word, sort of like us "forcing" you to have Bethany or Carver, I guess? From our perspective, this is simply how we're making this game. It's not the same game as Origins. You can choose to look at the glass as half-empty or as half-full, if you like, but what we're presenting is simply the game that is. The decisions we make are for generally for numerous reasons.

Much like having the player be human. Yes, saving the cost of multiple voice actors is one factor-- short of us having all races use the same actor for their gender, which might be awkward (since we ourselves have set up the races as having different accents). There's also the savings of only needing the multiple armor models for humans (as the PC is the only one who is actively changing their model via equipment changes). There's also the story consideration, in that a human Hawke works better for the tale we wanted to tell.

I suppose one could sneer at us wanting to save costs, and we should simply spend as much as is needed to make the game someone thinks we should be making-- and fair enough. We'll put the money where we think it needs to go, and I suppose budgets will never be as high as someone thinks they should be-- in particular when a budget isn't a factor for them (outside of the sixty-odd dollars they're spending on the game).

But would it be better if the PC could be elven or dwarven? Maybe. It might also dilute the story we want, and take resources away from things we wanted to spend them on-- variation up front rather than later on, perhaps. There's always a trade-off, whether you agree or not. At any rate, it works for this project and we'll see if it's something we want to pursue in potential future projects. It's not a given either way.

Somewhat off-topic, but i'd like to take this opportunity to reiterate my desire for a multiple PC future dragon age game.  I think that would be a fantastic way to make a personal dwarf, elf, and human(you always need one of these it seems) story and would let you really delve into their respective cultures, circumstances.  Plus, I think this is really the only way we are getting a personal dwarf(elf might fair better) story since I can't imagine Bioware's sales and marketing dept. signing on for a Dwarf PC only game. 

I also think having multiple PCs could have very interesting choice/consequence dynamics.  for example, If you have 3 PCs and set up your game(or for part of it at least) into chapters where you can choose to play the PC's in any order, the order that you choose to play your characters could radically alter your game.  the first character you choose would have to be the baseline, but what ifa choice you made early in that character's 'act' -- say you had a choice between helping a local tyrant get rid of some bandits or depose him and try to do it on your own (which might lead to more town damage) -- greatly altered the story and the options available for the second character you choose, like if he visits that town near the middle or endof his character's 'act'(will the tyrant be there or not).  And then that character's choices(as well as the first's) could greatly alter thethird characters story 'act'.  And the whole process would repeat itself in the next chapter when you are again free to play the 3 characters in any order.

Now, I can imagine that this would get rather complicated, especially since the 3 characters are doing these things roughly simultaenously, but just think of the possibilities.  I mean, if you selected all of the goody-two shoes choices for all of yourcharacters on the first play through, you could still select all of thegoody-two shoes choices on your next playthrough and still get a different experience so long as you play the characters in a different order. 

You could also reduce the overlap/complexity by simply limiting the places where all or two of the characters visit. For example, one can be off doing his own thing for the first chapter or two. 

Besides the framed narrative, I think this would would be another narrative structure that will really let the players feel that the choices they make have meaningful consequences.

Modifié par Piecake, 22 décembre 2010 - 09:07 .

[Shady314]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Never did he say you needed to. (Also: don't pirate to "find out". That's not clever nor good)

Never said he did but I'm pretty sure Bioware wants us to not only buy but also pre-order. This does not make me want to do either. 

YouTube and Wiki are friends to the skeptic.

Which is exactly what I had in mind. Why did you immediately jump to piracy? I find that suspicious.
Follow your own advice.

Modifié par Shady314, 22 décembre 2010 - 09:09 .

[Xewaka]

Shady314 wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Never did he say you needed to. (Also: don't pirate to "find out". That's not clever nor good)

Never said he did but I'm pretty sure Bioware wants us to not only buy but also pre-order. This does not make me want to do either. 

YouTube and Wiki are friends to the skeptic.

Which is exactly what I had in mind. Why did you immediately jump to piracy? I find that suspicious.
Follow your own advice.

There should be a demo available for download. People who want to take a taste of the game before buying could then do so. Besides, teasing the story would make people curious enough to keep following it and buy (ideally).

[Piecake]

Xewaka wrote...

There should be a demo available for download. People who want to take a taste of the game before buying could then do so. Besides, teasing the story would make people curious enough to keep following it and buy (ideally).

Putting the beginning (exaggerated) part online for people who are on the fence and want to try it out does sound like a good marketing strategy.  I'd probably wait a month until release so the demo is as close to the final build as possible though

Modifié par Piecake, 22 décembre 2010 - 09:37 .

[Shiro_the_Gambler]

If I read that right...

Bethany/Carver are not permeant Companions, but are story relevant...

Makes me feel like I am going to have kill them.

But I will have to wait and find out.

[upsettingshorts]

Xewaka wrote...
You know, since the story is king (queen?) in Bioware, and coupling that fact with that telemetry data mentioned long ago, I don't get the feeling that we'll be given the option to play a non-human again in the Dragon Age franchise. Which is a damn shame. I don't want to be playing fantasy just to be the most mundane option.

What's mundane about humans?  To me the only difference between humans and dwarves and elves is aesthetics.  If a bunch of humans lived in Orzammar and had their own culture separate from the rest of Thedas, I would have liked the story just as much.

[upsettingshorts]

David Gaider wrote...

A: Great point, fantastic, so tell me, are they present beyond the prelude.

True. Either way, I guess you'll have to find out.

A previewer spilled the beans on that one.  The answer is yes.

Granted, that preview also makes it pretty clear - at least to me - why the story demands a human protagonist.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 décembre 2010 - 11:32 .

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
You know, since the story is king (queen?) in Bioware, and coupling that fact with that telemetry data mentioned long ago, I don't get the feeling that we'll be given the option to play a non-human again in the Dragon Age franchise. Which is a damn shame. I don't want to be playing fantasy just to be the most mundane option.

What's mundane about humans?  To me the only difference between humans and dwarves and elves is aesthetics.  If a bunch of humans lived in Orzammar and had their own culture separate from the rest of Thedas, I would have liked the story just as much.

Maybe mundane wasn't the correct choice of words. Maybe "familiar" would work better. Personally, I'm still looking for a setting with no humans as a player choice. Just for the novelty of it.

[upsettingshorts]

Xewaka wrote...
Maybe mundane wasn't the correct choice of words. Maybe "familiar" would work better. Personally, I'm still looking for a setting with no humans as a player choice. Just for the novelty of it.

That makes sense.  I'm just the opposite. 

[Kilshrek]

So, how relevant will Beth/Carver be in the grand scheme of things? If they're gonna be like your younger sister in *surprise!* Mafia 2, then that will be somewhat disappointing.

[otis0310]

Xewaka wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

"Forcing" you to play a human. It's a strange word, sort of like us "forcing" you to have Bethany or Carver, I guess?
Much like having the player be human.[...]There's also the story consideration, in that a human Hawke works better for the tale we wanted to tell.

But would it be better if the PC could be elven or dwarven? Maybe. It might also dilute the story we want[...] There's always a trade-off, whether you agree or not. At any rate, it works for this project and we'll see if it's something we want to pursue in potential future projects. It's not a given either way.

You know, since the story is king (queen?) in Bioware, and coupling that fact with that telemetry data mentioned long ago, I don't get the feeling that we'll be given the option to play a non-human again in the Dragon Age franchise. Which is a damn shame. I don't want to be playing fantasy just to be the most mundane option.

I'm afraid this is my point exactly.  That we will always be forced to play humans from now on.  In Dragon Age 2 we have to play as human and it appears to me that this will be the case for any future games as well.  

I  believe that marketing may well snuff out any possibility of playing a non human ever again.  Is DA:O the rule here for the franchise where you get to chose your race? Or is DA2 where it is chosen for you? And if it is chosen for you, will it always be human over and over again for the next 10 games?
 
I fear this is the beginning of a "Human only"  franchise. 

I would like Mr. Gaider to reply on this if possible.  We all know such decisions are probably made first and foremost by the marketing people, ie. "Is this game sellable?" rather than a creative stance of the designers. (Maybe bioware is different that way though). 

Given the internal politics and marketing of Bioware are our concerns justifiable?  I mean, if Hawke was elven only, would the game ever come out or get shelved by marketing mentality like "But people want to play humans, not elves."

Maybe I shouldn't ask, after all, if the answer was. "Actually, the marketing people said human only, and probably would never sign on to an elven only game." Would you actually have the courage to admit here on the public forums?