1079 réponses à ce sujet

[David Gaider]

tmp7704 wrote...
I understand you've made an arbitrary decision and don't feel like discussing it. It's just surprising that -- in situation where you are unable to determine what exactly the individual player would be basing their decision on, and in situation where these reasons could be numerous and varied -- you've decided to just yank the decision out of their hand and then attach it to the meta-gamey "melee = mage and vice versa" mechanics. Thus effectively just limiting possible variations for the player's game, and little else.

There's nothing arbitrary about our decision. I've explained the reasoning-- and if I'm not going to debate it that's because you've no basis for a debate beyond assumptions, and I've no way to explain further without going into spoilers. I'm also saying we've provided two full characters that work with the player's story, as opposed to "just limiting possible variations for the player's game". If we'd wanted to do that, we would have just had one sibling, period. I know some people started conjuring entire scenarios in their head based on those assumptions, and this seemingly destroys those scenarios, but we never promised otherwise. There is a great deal of story variation that rests on these characters, and I'm confident that players will see this in the end.

[Herr Uhl]

ViSeirA wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
Couldn't that be decided on something like say, the way Hawke interacted with both siblings up to the point where the Drama Moment™ happens? Situations like where you directly support one over the other, or are attentive/dismissive to their concerns, things like that?

I'd imagine that could feel less cheap than a person arbitrarily kicking the bucket based on what class you chose... maybe it could even make player somewhat remorseful about the way they did interact with that person. Instead, you have basically a cross between pure metagaming and Mhairi 2.0

Mhairi 2.0? We've never claimed that either sibling joins your party or is available anywhere beyond the Prologue. If you're deciding now who you prefer, you're basing it on... what? Their looks? A few screenshots? We went with what works based on the context of the story rather than allowing the player to make an arbitrary decision-- and I'll leave it at that, sorry.

Really? seeing as how Bethany and Carver appear in almost all screenshots post-prologue in Kirkwall I say he has a viable point, balancing the party is fine with me I just needed to put this out there.

It can also be said that they just stage those situations for screenshots, as not to spoil partymembers. There has even been screens that feature both Carver and Bethany in Kirkwall IIRC.

[Addai]

Wulfram wrote...

Mage Hawke + Bethany will probably be the first mod released. Or at least the first one that isn't a nude mod.

Even so, there won't be any dialogue related to it so story-wise it amounts to the same.

[Ziggeh]

Addai67 wrote...

If I didn't think it was unbalanced, why should it matter to anyone else?  I choose my party based on my preferred playstyle and for RP reasons and then adjust the gameplay difficulty according to that.  I don't need someone enforcing on me the tank- mage- rogue setup just because.

I mean it causes a problem for the devs. Not for you or other players. I should perhaps have said "balancing" rather than "balance".

Addai67 wrote...
I'm sure the rationale was that people would choose who lives based on gameplay reasons anyway, but I hate having the choice taken away and for no good story reason.  Wouldn't it have been interesting for mage siblings to play out the templar conflict?  I thought so.

Maybe theres a mage/non mage family conflict within the story. Maybe we see how apostate status effected them from both the mage and the non mage perspective, internal and external, and so they needed to impose one of each.

edit: that actually makes a lot more sense than I'd assumed when writing it.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 20 décembre 2010 - 07:29 .

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Whoa boy, the boards are gonna have fun with this one:

"People generally hated the silent protagonist," he says, but that wasn't the only reason to adopt a main character who could speak for themselves; Having the hero stand stoically while drama erupted all around them "seemed to be doing a disservice to the storytelling."

While I'm one of those people who seriously did hate the silent protagonist, those that love it seem to be in the clear majority 'round these parts.

Yeah, I don't know where they got the "Which, as Laidlaw tells it, is not that many players."  I think the journalist was paraphrasing Mr. Laidlaw's following statement, so I won't blame him for the apparent slight.

I can't speak to responses overall in terms of percentages.  If the majority of gamers are in their 30's or older (as most statistics seem to point out), and most of those gamers probably grew up with unvoiced MC's in cRPGs... then I think it's as selective to say "people generally hated the silent protagonist" based on, what, responses they got from a control group or other gaming forums as it is to take a poll on RPG Watch on what's the best genre of video game..."
for the exact same reason that everyone quotes for why a loud minority on these boards means next to nothing - your only sampling a subset of a subset, and any information you try to draw from that to extrapolate for the gaming populace at large is a waste of time.

It may be that most want voice.  It may be they don't.
It may be most likely that most are ambivalent.

But without some kind of statistically accurate polling of a nice random sampling of DA:O players, you can't honestly say one way or the other.  Any attempt to say you know without good evidence is simply opinion based on data points that are not statistically significant.

Anywho... I'll write my reaction to the article in a bit - this is already too long, and too negative, for me to tie to what I was to say about the preview.

[lunarknightmage]

well, at least we got some clarification on the whole Bethany/Carver issue.
it kind of sucks because I was hoping to do a run through with the 2 apostate Hawke sisters.
but, I guess, from a gameplay/balance issue, it makes sense as you don't want to have 2 warriors or 2 mages right off the bat.
now, I'm just hoping if we will finally hear more about specs and which ones are still in.......

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In character and out of character are two different things?

We're probably talking of two different things ourselves -- Sarah was asking "why not let the player choose rather than once again taking choice out of the player's hands?" You have decided to turn it into a case of Hawke actively choosing this very thing, but it is not necessarily the only way to provide such choice.

The fact is, the player in the end is allowed to choose the sibling who gets to live. But it is attached to another choice in rather unintuitive manner, and it limits possible variations available in the game. I think more explicit and less limiting choice would be a better approach, and it still wouldn't have to mean Hawke consciously making that choice (as opposed to just the player)

[Maria Caliban]

Seb Hanlon wrote...

The article is correct. You'll get Bethany if Hawke is a rogue or warrior (regardless of gender), and Carver if Hawke is a mage.

That's one reason to play a warrior.

I expect that if the toolset updates, this will be modded though.

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

We're probably talking of two different things ourselves -- Sarah was asking "why not let the player choose rather than once again taking choice out of the player's hands?" You have decided to turn it into a case of Hawke actively choosing this very thing, but it is not necessarily the only way to provide such choice.

Well, I was arguing that if that player choice took place within the game then it would by definition be an in-character choice by Hawke as well.  I had not considered, for example, the idea of adding a different out of character screen that allows the player, but not Hawke, to choose which sibling dies in the prologue.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 décembre 2010 - 07:34 .

[Shiro_the_Gambler]

So far we have-



Isabella and Varric- Rogues



Carver, Aveline, and Fenris (unless I misread something)- Warriors



Bethany- Mage



It almost seems like they are trying to push the 'holy trinity' of gaming at us with this decision. I am probably wrong and if I am proven wrong then I will rejoice. Hell, my problems might vanish entirely when I play the game... but until then I just don't have enough information to see why this was a good decision.

[Aermas]

I wish it was different too, but you can't accuse the game of taking your decisions away. You can't decide to take Mama Cousland with you in the HN Origin no more than you can choose to kill Bhelen in the dwarf origin

[Addai]

ziggehunderslash wrote...
Maybe theres a mage/non mage family conflict within the story. Maybe we see how apostate status effected them from both the mage and the non mage perspective, internal and external, and so they needed to impose one of each.

edit: that actually makes a lot more sense than I'd assumed when writing it.

And if you play a rogue...?

[tmp7704]

David Gaider wrote...

There's nothing arbitrary about our decision.

I meant arbitrary in the sense of autocratic rather than random   Sorry about the possible confusion, just the way you put it originally felt somewhat dismissive, along lines of "how could they possibly decide at that early point" and based on that denying the player ability to choose, period. Even though not every single game played is going to be the first playthough ever, nor every player is going to be completely devoid of out-of-game knowledge regarding these characters, etc.

I'm also saying we've provided two full characters that work with the player's story, as opposed to "just limiting possible variations for the player's game".

Does it mean Bethany's story is specifically tailored to melee player's story and wouldn't work with the mage player's story, while Carver's story work the other way around? I.e. does the sibling's and/or player's class play a role there?

[Ziggeh]

Shiro_the_Gambler wrote...
but until then I just don't have enough information to see why this was a good decision.

I think that's the crux of it. Gaider just said there's a story element to it, of which we're currently unaware.

[Snoteye]

Aermas wrote...

I wish it was different too, but you can't accuse the game of taking your decisions away. You can't decide to take Mama Cousland with you in the HN Origin no more than you can choose to kill Bhelen in the dwarf origin

The game isn't taking away your choice, it is hanging it up on some other, to the player completely unrelated choice. That, you can criticize.

[Ziggeh]

Addai67 wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...
Maybe theres a mage/non mage family conflict within the story. Maybe we see how apostate status effected them from both the mage and the non mage perspective, internal and external, and so they needed to impose one of each.

edit: that actually makes a lot more sense than I'd assumed when writing it.

And if you play a rogue...?

You get a mage. So you get one mage sibling, one non mage sibling in every case.

[Addai]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...
Maybe theres a mage/non mage family conflict within the story. Maybe we see how apostate status effected them from both the mage and the non mage perspective, internal and external, and so they needed to impose one of each.

edit: that actually makes a lot more sense than I'd assumed when writing it.

And if you play a rogue...?

You get a mage. So you get one mage sibling, one non mage sibling in every case.

If you're a rogue, Mama Hawke survives, Bethany dies.  Edit:  Ok, I see that it was rogue or warrior gets Bethany, sorry.

Modifié par Addai67, 20 décembre 2010 - 07:44 .

[MerinTB]

Brockololly wrote...

Seb Hanlon wrote...

The article is correct. You'll get Bethany if Hawke is a rogue or warrior (regardless of gender), and Carver if Hawke is a mage.

That kind of stinks- can't even make a choice in the matter its just predetermined by the Plot Gods? Eh, warrior Hawke it is then...

To be fair, in Origins your starting companions (pre-Ostagar) were decided by the Origin you chose.  This is barely any different than that.

[bsbcaer]

Addai67 wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...
Nope, but it was a balance problem.

Shouldn't I as a player be able to decide that?

I realize we'll probably have another mage NPC... maybe?... but Bethany was the one NPC I was actually looking forward to getting to know.  And I was planning on playing a mage.

Oh well.

If I remember correctly, we've been told that at least 2 of each class will be available as companions. 

[Shiro_the_Gambler]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Shiro_the_Gambler wrote...
but until then I just don't have enough information to see why this was a good decision.

I think that's the crux of it. Gaider just said there's a story element to it, of which we're currently unaware.

It probably deals with Cassandra's investigation.  Again entirely speculation at this point.  Probably dialogue issues with a warrior/rogue Hawke protecting an apostate or being one himself.

Modifié par Shiro_the_Gambler, 20 décembre 2010 - 07:49 .

[Ziggeh]

Addai67 wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...
Maybe theres a mage/non mage family conflict within the story. Maybe we see how apostate status effected them from both the mage and the non mage perspective, internal and external, and so they needed to impose one of each.

edit: that actually makes a lot more sense than I'd assumed when writing it.

And if you play a rogue...?

You get a mage. So you get one mage sibling, one non mage sibling in every case.

If you're a rogue, Mama Hawke survives, Bethany dies.

Seb Hanlon wrote...

The article is correct. You'll get Bethany if Hawke is a rogue or warrior (regardless of gender), and Carver if Hawke is a mage.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 20 décembre 2010 - 07:44 .

[silksieve]

Seb Hanlon wrote...

The article is correct. You'll get Bethany if Hawke is a rogue or warrior (regardless of gender), and Carver if Hawke is a mage.

But the Destructoid review had a rogue Hawke with Carver?  Or does everyone play in the prologue?

[Maria Caliban]

David Gaider wrote...

Not that this is something you're really concerned about, I imagine, but this came down to a design decision. I understand that you're deciding who you like more based on a meta-gaming decision (using information gleaned from previews, along with assumptions as to what Bethany and Carver are about) but someone who's playing the game for the first time won't know these things. How would they make such a decision, based on characters they've only just met? It would feel hollow at best-- and providing a decision that indirectly did the same thing (meaning you weren't directly deciding between them, but whatever decision you did make had the same end effect) might also feel cheap.

I'm going to agree with that the emotional impact of picking who lives or dies at the beginning of a game is nil. There's a reason that the Ash/Kaiden was left for a planet you couldn't go to until you finished three major hubs.

At the same time, tying it into class isn't very satisfying to me either. I'd rather the question of who dies be based on the player's actions at the beginning of the game. For example, if you choose to linger to help other refugees escape, Carver dies while he's waiting to meet up with you. If you rush on, Bethany gets cut down because that townsperson you helped isn't there to take the blow.

Okay, that sounds lame. But you get the idea.

My problem is that I do know this and so I will metagame. When I sit at the character creation screen, my thought process will not be 'what class do I want to play?' but 'who do I want as a companion?'

This did what we needed for the story to work-- and personally I really like the fact that both Bethany and Carver are fully-realized characters, providing you family members that aren't killed off right at the beginning of the story who are also going to work as part of it. I would caution you not to assume the worst about characters you haven't met yet and a story you don't know about... but you are of course free to jump to whatever conclusions you like.

To be sure, I imagine they're both excellent characters. I'm glad that Hawke has a family who don't all get wiped out at the beginning of the game.

I don't know why but fantasy fiction loves killing off a hero's family.

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, I was arguing that if that player choice took place within the game then it would by definition be an in-character choice by Hawke as well.  I had not considered, for example, the idea of adding a different out of character screen that allows the player, but not Hawke, to choose which sibling dies in the prologue.  

It could be something like that. Or for example, making use of the framed narrative thing by having "Cassandra interrupt" happen at this point and putting the player briefly in her shoes, allowing them to (optionally) question which of the siblings actually died.

[Crimson Invictus]

Maria Caliban wrote...
My problem is that I do know this and so I will metagame. When I sit at the character creation screen, my thought process will not be 'what class do I want to play?' but 'who do I want as a companion?'

I can't disagree with this.

I now feel like I'm balancing the class I want to play against the potential party composition I want.