1079 réponses à ce sujet

[Sharn01]

Maria Caliban wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Blastback wrote...
I've got to agree with this.  If the only real major change between Origins and DA2 was charater voice, sure, it would work, but there are definatly to many gameplay changes for us to judge the effect on sales of any one of them. 

I've debated that while writing the post. I suppose I'm not as sensitive to the changes since many of them are in a positive direction re: my tastes.

The biggest difference between DA:O and DA 2 is that one is a sequel.

I have a feeling the biggest change is going to be the advertising.  I never even saw a commercial for ME, but ME2 had tons of commercials and even had an entire time slot on sci-fi channel.  I never actually saw a commercial for DA:O either, I wonder how many I will encounter when DA2 gets close to release. 

[Addai]

Graunt wrote...
I don't know if you're being obtuse on purpose or what, but he's talking about the fact that even after you pick your response, you are still staring silently and have zero emotion displayed as well.  The deliveries are nothing alike.  The fact that there's a pause and it's determined on the player's reaction time is irrelevant -- that isn't supposed to be how long it would actually take Shepard to respond unless he's truly pondering something for a while before answering. 

After you've chosen a response, the camera switches back to the NPC you were talking to.  But I accept that it's jarring for some people to never see or hear their PC actually voice a response.

[Maria Caliban]

Johnny Shepard wrote...

So I have no problem with just playing Human in Dragon Age II. Infact I sort of se it as the missing 2:nd Human Origin.
I find it strange that nobody else ses it that way.

Several people have said just that. The Human Commoner origin was cut from DA:O, so others have suggested this makes up for it.

[Addai]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Johnny Shepard wrote...

So I have no problem with just playing Human in Dragon Age II. Infact I sort of se it as the missing 2:nd Human Origin.
I find it strange that nobody else ses it that way.

Several people have said just that. The Human Commoner origin was cut from DA:O, so others have suggested this makes up for it.

But we're still paying full price for it?  Shoot, if it were only 1/7th of what I paid for DAO, nooo problem.

[Maria Caliban]

Addai67 wrote...

But we're still paying full price for it?  Shoot, if it were only 1/7th of what I paid for DAO, nooo problem.

Seriously? DA II is 1/7th of DA:O just because you can't be an elf or dwarf?

I'm going to assume that you're just in a grouchy mood and don't actually believe this.

[Addai]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

But we're still paying full price for it?  Shoot, if it were only 1/7th of what I paid for DAO, nooo problem.

Seriously? DA II is 1/7th of DA:O just because you can't be an elf or dwarf?

I'm going to assume that you're just in a grouchy mood and don't actually believe this.

I'm responding to the idea that Hawke's story is just the "missing" human commoner origin.

[upsettingshorts]

The origin, in terms of ingame content, was barely an hour.  I contend that if the player truly claims to rely on their imagination, Hawke provides a pretty blank slate - considering we skip what we'd consider his origin and jump right into the story. 

I mean, all we know - as far as I know - is that Hawke lived with his family (all humans, obviously) in Lothering, and they moved there a while ago from Kirkwall.  Then the darkspawn come and start burninating the village.  That's a lot more open ended than say, had been an elf in the Denerim alienage whose marriage was interrupted by the son of the local lord and then stormed the manor and settled the situation, then in order to haul out of town was conscripted as a Grey Warden before the cops could lock him up.

Maybe your Hawke was a thug and a bully who spent most of his time in Lothering drunk at the tavern.  Maybe he was a blacksmith's apprentice.  Maybe he was a ladies man who took advantage of all those "unchaste" women in the Chantry that Leliana hinted about.  Maybe he was a she. 

Anyway, that's what I'm going to do.  And I don't even roleplay in the same way say, Sylvius does.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 26 décembre 2010 - 09:47 .

[Addai]

Even if you do what you suggest, i.e. flesh Hawke out, you could do the same thing with 6 different backgrounds in Origins.

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

Even if you do what you suggest, i.e. flesh Hawke out, you could do the same thing with 6 different backgrounds in Origins.

Of course. 

[AlanC9]

Sure. With six different backgrounds you can do more stuff. The question is whether you actually need more backgrounds, or whether one is enough. One background worked for me in BG1, NWN2, Fallouts 1 and 2.... etc. I expect it will work again for me in DA2.



YMMV, of course.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...

Even if you do what you suggest, i.e. flesh Hawke out, you could do the same thing with 6 different backgrounds in Origins.

The problem (at least for me, and why I'm not fond of the silent PC multiple background variant) is that if you choose to define your PC in some particular way, the game has to offer demarcating content to let you do it.

That is, you can have the same personality for any of the 6 origins. What varies is what impact where you come from has on your identity.

After many conversations on this forum, I have begun to appreciate that to many people, details matter very much to who someone is. So being an elf versus a mage is an incredible defining aspect for a character. I just don't get that. To me, it's personality by itself that matters. That sort of content, the where you come from part, is only interesting insofar as people react to it. But with DA:O you have very little of that.

Which comes back to why I like PC VO - because it adds a lot to the game, without taking the only aspect of RP that matters to me, which is variability in personality.

[tmp7704]

Graunt wrote...

I don't know if you're being obtuse on purpose or what, but he's talking about the fact that even after you pick your response, you are still staring silently and have zero emotion displayed as well.

After you pick your response the game instantly skips to the part where the person you're talking with delivers their reply to the line you picked. Meaning yes, your character sits there silently while the other person speaks  ... and it happens the same way in both games, again -- Shepard is keeping his/her trap shut when others are speaking, too. Save maybe for occasional interrupt.

It doesn't have so much to do with being obtuse but more with breaking down what you actually get (or in case of the silent protagonist don't get) to see.

[TheStrand221]

In Exile wrote...
After many conversations on this forum, I have begun to appreciate that to many people, details matter very much to who someone is. So being an elf versus a mage is an incredible defining aspect for a character. I just don't get that. To me, it's personality by itself that matters. That sort of content, the where you come from part, is only interesting insofar as people react to it. But with DA:O you have very little of that.

Which comes back to why I like PC VO - because it adds a lot to the game, without taking the only aspect of RP that matters to me, which is variability in personality.

Quoted for truth.

I really enjoyed DA:Origins for what it was, the novelty of playing such disparate characters with their unique origins, but as other insightful posters here have commented your origin selection had very little impact on large segments of the game.  It really surprises me that this issue hasn't come up more, I certainly thought it did a bit on the Origins boards.

As much as I liked Origins, I'm looking forward to something new where the Devs are free to focus on incorporating responsiveness to the choices you make during the game rather than just small acknowledgements of a single choice made at character creation.  I like Origins, but if I want that experience again I'll just replay it.  I don't require an entirely new game at this point to do so.

Modifié par TheStrand221, 26 décembre 2010 - 11:07 .

[Piecake]

In Exile wrote...

After many conversations on this forum, I have begun to appreciate that to many people, details matter very much to who someone is. So being an elf versus a mage is an incredible defining aspect for a character. I just don't get that. To me, it's personality by itself that matters. That sort of content, the where you come from part, is only interesting insofar as people react to it. But with DA:O you have very little of that.

You know, I have been thinking about why I don't particularly find role-playing in that sense enjoyable(creating a character's motivations/backstory, etc), and I think this is exactly the reason why.  If its just all in your head, your imagination, meaning the game doesnt react to it, then I just find it to be rather pointless

[TheRevanchist]

Piecake wrote...

In Exile wrote...

After many conversations on this forum, I have begun to appreciate that to many people, details matter very much to who someone is. So being an elf versus a mage is an incredible defining aspect for a character. I just don't get that. To me, it's personality by itself that matters. That sort of content, the where you come from part, is only interesting insofar as people react to it. But with DA:O you have very little of that.

You know, I have been thinking about why I don't particularly find role-playing in that sense enjoyable(creating a character's motivations/backstory, etc), and I think this is exactly the reason why.  If its just all in your head, your imagination, meaning the game doesnt react to it, then I just find it to be rather pointless

I'm like that too...but for some games I do it...mainly Bethesda games...Bioware games I just never see the point.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...

It doesn't have so much to do with being obtuse but more with breaking down what you actually get (or in case of the silent protagonist don't get) to see.

I don't think it helps to explain how precisely how imagination is supposed to work. We all get that you're supposed to imagine the character speak. That doesn't make the character less dead and empty. It is the lack of speaking that does this, not an inability on our part to understand that the character is supposed to speak.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

I just don't get that. To me, it's personality by itself that matters. That sort of content, the where you come from part, is only interesting insofar as people react to it. But with DA:O you have very little of that.

However doesn't the way your character makes choices vs their background ... define the character's personality to a degree?

For example, a city elf who decides to give their own father along with rest of childhood friends and acquaintances to slave traders for minor stat boost, vs human noble who just trades away bunch of unknown elves after having expressed view in the past how the elves should be routinely whipped to maintain good servant discipline and such. The choices may be the same, but they can tell (and require) different things about personality of the character who makes this choice.

Modifié par tmp7704, 26 décembre 2010 - 11:17 .

[TheRevanchist]

In Exile wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

It doesn't have so much to do with being obtuse but more with breaking down what you actually get (or in case of the silent protagonist don't get) to see.

I don't think it helps to explain how precisely how imagination is supposed to work. We all get that you're supposed to imagine the character speak. That doesn't make the character less dead and empty. It is the lack of speaking that does this, not an inability on our part to understand that the character is supposed to speak.

This ^

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
However doesn't the way your character makes choices vs their background ... define the character's personality to a degree?

No. Your background is your identity, but that has nothing to do with your personality.

For example, a city elf who decides to give their own father along with rest of childhood friends and acquaintances to slave traders for minor stat boost, vs human noble who just trades away bunch of unknown elves after having expressed view in the past how the elves should be routinely whipped to maintain good servant discipline and such. The choices may be the same, but they can tell (and require) different things about personality of the character who makes this choice.

You're thinking of personality as motives, but that isn't what it is.

Suppose we have a pure evil power-hungry elf and a pure evil power-hungry noble. The personality trait is the evil. The identity is the background. The evil elf would do it for power and to punish the weak alienage elfs who couldn't rise above their challenge (or whatever). The noble would do it because in exchange for the lives of some strangers there is a chance for great power.

What matters is good/evil. The motive is just the post-hoc rationalization.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

That doesn't make the character less dead and empty. It is the lack of speaking that does this, not an inability on our part to understand that the character is supposed to speak.

Since this perception of "dead, lifeless character" doesn't seem to be universal, i wouldn't be so hasty to exclude individual's limitation (or different focus) as potential factor here. Although certainly, it doesn't have to be "inability to understand the character is supposed to speak". Maybe rather inability/unwilingness to envision the character speaking as you pick the line, which leaves one indeed not ever seeing their character utter a word? Not sure.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Since this perception of "dead, lifeless character" doesn't seem to be universal, i wouldn't be so hasty to exclude individual's limitation (or different focus) as potential factor here. Although certainly, it doesn't have to be "inability to understand the character is supposed to speak". Maybe rather inability/unwilingness to envision the character speaking as you pick the line, which leaves one indeed not ever seeing their character utter a word? Not sure.

I can imagine the speech just fine. I don't want to. To me, that an impovrished experience. I want a visual and auditory medium. Within that medium, the character is dead. Constantly having to switch between imagination and action, with the game telling me what is going on, is not a fun experience at all. When I imagine things, I prefer to be in control of the content.

I find the PoV elitist and arrogant.

Modifié par In Exile, 26 décembre 2010 - 11:34 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

You're thinking of personality as motives

I'm rather thinking that identity combined with the choices made may require (or prevent) certain personality, in order for the choices made to make sense.

Suppose we have a pure evil power-hungry elf and a pure evil power-hungry noble.

That's very broad-painted personality, and one that doesn't conflict with the choice made in this particular situation. But try a more narrow aspect -- for example, "looks after own family/friends/species" You can have the human noble make this choice without "breaking" this aspect of character's personality. But you can't choose it as CE without at the same time defining his/her personality in this regard differently. 

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Constantly having to switch between imagination and action, with the game telling me what is going on, is not a fun experience at all. When I imagine things, I prefer to be in control of the content.

I find the PoV elitist and arrogant.

I'm not sure what's elitist and arrogant in recognizing that individual preference/ability/focus plays a part in how the game is perceived by the player, as opposed to attributing it fully to presence (or lack) of the VO.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
I'm rather thinking that identity combined with the choices made may require (or prevent) certain personality, in order for the choices made to make sense.

Right, I see the problem.

But try a more narrow aspect -- for example, "looks after own family/friends/species" You can have the human noble make this choice without "breaking" this aspect of character's personality. But you can't choose it as CE without at the same time defining his/her personality in this regard differently. 

That isn't a personality trait. That's a belief, or a description of behaviour. But this is four years of neuroscience and psychology speaking. It has dramatically affected how I look at people.

This is why I said that many people think background influences who the character is.

Personality is something like an 'altruism' triat that encompasses general helpful behaviours, and then the person is either high or low on that.

Personality is, at a meaningful level, general. Otherwise you're just talking about specific behaviours. Which leads to 'likes toast with butter at 8:43 in the morning on Tuesday' being a meaningful personality trait.

tmp7704 wrote...
I'm not sure what's elitist and arrogant in
recognizing that individual preference/ability/focus plays a part in how
the game is perceived by the player, as opposed to attributing it fully
to presence (or lack) of the VO.

The implication is that it is a lack of imagination that drives the effect is all to say that the only reason people do not want silent VO is that they are incapable of ever perceiving it.

It's a roundabout way of saying that the only reason silent VO isn't universally people is that some people are too limited to understand it.

Whereas saying that it is a preference or focus is to say that if people wanted to do it, they could, but for whatever reason, they don't.

One is elitist; the other isn't.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

That isn't a personality trait. (..)

Personality is something like an 'altruism' triat that encompasses general helpful behaviours, and then the person is either high or low on that.

Doesn't "looks after family/friends/own species" fall pretty much under "being at certain point of altruism scale"?

The implication is that it is a lack of imagination that drives the effect is all to say that the only reason people do not want silent VO is that they are incapable of ever perceiving it.

It's a roundabout way of saying that the only reason silent VO isn't universally people is that some people are too limited to understand it.

Whereas saying that it is a preference or focus is to say that if people wanted to do it, they could, but for whatever reason, they don't.

This is why in the original statement i included both the inability and unwilingness as possible reasons -- it wasn't to imply that everyone who finds themselves in this spot is there because they don't have choice in this matter.