180 réponses à ce sujet

[Abispa]

DA:O had tons of choices, true, I've never denied that. But 99 percent of those choices are available for you no matter what race or back-story you chose. In fact, only the human noble seemed to have his/her life story meaningfully concluded.

[Tereval]

The day they can give me a deep, complicated, and personal story based on a character I slide barred into existance I'm game. The Baldurs Gate series pulled this off because of the nature of the story, Candlekeep allowed them to give your character that peaceful hero past and most of your characters development was in game, but that only works for stories of that nature. Some of the best stories I've read or played were about pre-existing characters with deep histories that I learned about as I played. I would love to play a game about a character like Druss from David Gemmel's works. Take a legendary character and force you to play them as the person behind the legend. That would be a kind of game worth playing and I think that was what DA2 was a good first step towards.

Until then I prefer the Sheperds and the Hawkes of the gaming universe to the Random adventurer number 6 of Oblivion, or Messenger Boy/Girl with no past of Fallout: New Vegas.

The Witcher may be one of the best examples, I've never read any of the novels but the character grew on me with play. I knew Geralt was more than just random PC toon I was playing. He had a place in the world I was playing in, even just within the game. Because of that I am definately looking forward to Assassin of Kings. I liked DA2 but Witcher 2 is probably going to thump it baddly. In the long run a good thing, as competition will keep great companies like Bioware racing to improve.

Modifié par Tereval, 31 mars 2011 - 05:31 .

[kinna]

Tereval wrote...

The day they can give me a deep, complicated, and personal story based on a character I slide barred into existance I'm game. The Baldurs Gate series pulled this off because of the nature of the story, Candlekeep allowed them to give your character that peaceful hero past and most of your characters development was in game, but that only works for stories of that nature. Some of the best stories I've read or played were about pre-existing characters with deep histories that I learned about as I played. I would love to play a game about a character like Druss from David Gemmel's works. Take a legendary character and force you to play them as the person behind the legend. That would be a kind of game worth playing and I think that was what DA2 was a good first step towards.

Until then I prefer the Sheperds and the Hawkes of the gaming universe to the Random adventurer number 6 of Oblivion, or Messenger Boy/Girl with no past of Fallout: New Vegas.

The Witcher may be one of the best examples, I've never read any of the novels but the character grew on me with play. I knew Geralt was more than just random PC toon I was playing. He had a place in the world I was playing in, even just within the game. Because of that I am definately looking forward to Assassin of Kings. I liked DA2 but Witcher 2 is probably going to thump it baddly. In the long run a good thing, as competition will keep great companies like Bioware racing to improve.

Baldur's Gate worked as long as you didn't pick an elf because you only lived in Candelkeep for 20 years. Elven characters would have only small children at that age. It felt like the back story really made sense for human characters only.

Modifié par kinna, 31 mars 2011 - 06:20 .

[Dark83]

In hindsight, BG didn't really care who we were. Only BG2's romances cared about our sex/race. Only BG2's strongholds cared about our class. As far as the rest of the game was concerned, we were the protagonist, and that was all.

Oh ho, and that reminds me of Imoen - our childhood friend and companion, who is also introduced in a "Hi! I'm like your sister and close buddy for the last twenty years!" way.

[Aireoth]

Morroian wrote...

Aireoth wrote...

It wasn't an RPG, DAO was, thus cognitive dissidence. It kept elements of the RPG genre, much the same as ME did, but DA2 and the ME series are more Action games with a side of RPG Lite. Don't get me wrong, I love action games, shooters, adventure, strategy, pretty much everything, I am a grand gamer, and spend way to much time/money on it (I should just get a job in the industry).

What I think most people are upset about and are having a hard time expressing is the loss of the RPG in the game. We where expecting another RPG, not a new Action game. You can argue that it is an RPG but most elements of that system are gone (skill/stat checks, non-combat skill/stat progression, art of conversation and manipulation) and replaced by click here to talk until we fight.

Non combat skills are just a trope and persuasion is still there and in a form that I argue is more based around role playing than simply sticking points in a coercion stat and having highlighted options come up. You don't actually have to do anything under the DAO system except put points in a skill, after that the game holds your hand.

As for role playing in general the game is about creating, defining and role playing Hawke in how she/he responds to events around him/her and the companions. The game has no persistent plot throughout the whole game because it is about Hawke and how Hawke responds to events unfolding in Kirkwall. The Qunari and the templar/mage conflict are almost just a backdrop. Yet its not just an adventure game because you do get to define and role play Hawke, just as much as you did the Warden. If you don't do that its because you personally don't find the system immersive or you're playing the game wrong.

This is not to deny the issues in the game like the OTT re-use of areas or the lack of nuance in Act 3. But they don't stop the players from being able to define and role play Hawke.

But it isn't... the outcome is almost the same regardless of dialogue chosen, as well, you have the choice (at times) to fight or talk, but its autopass no challenge, you either pick to fight or talk. That is not an RPG, its an Action Adventure...

I know its just my opinion, but in a fairly well versed opinion, DA2 made a giant leap from RPG to Action/Adventure with RPG-lite taged in.

[abnocte]

Ponendus wrote...

The thing that confuses me about DA2, is that it uses practically the same formula as Mass Effect, the cinematic, framed narrative, preset protagonist style. There is no doubt that Mass Effect was wildly popular with the RPG crowd and the sci-fi crowd (or at least I think it was).

So, assuming all this negativity on the forums is actually representative of how most people feel about the game, why didn't it work for DA2? Is it because those that are a fan of the 'fantasy' genre prefer to make their own character? Or because they prefer a more open world experience? Is it as simple as that? Does anyone else know why this formula may not have worked as well?

First of all, If I want to play something like Mass Effect I will play Mass Effect ( I like it well enough ).

Second of all,
In Baldur's Gate 2 you were the Bhaalspawn. Most of it took place in Athkatla.
In Planescape:Torment you were the Nameless One. A good part took place in Sigil.
In Neverwinter 2 you were the shard bearer.
In Kotor you were Darth Revan.
In Kotor2 you were The Exiled.
In DA:O you were The Warden.
...

classic RPG's always give a "preset" character no matter how well they try to disguise it ( DAO backgrounds ). 

The problem I have with DA2 is that it feels totally rushed and unfinished, the story had great potential yet I feel it never really comes through.... 

I also realized thanks to it how important gameplay was to me, I agree that DAO combat needed a llittle speed, but it didn't need this... and I think its bizzarre how DA2 combat is more "sillyninja-ish" than combat in Jade Empire...

Last but no least, 
I never expected to see a game with origins ever again ( hoped a little... but never expected ). As a programmer I can see how much work it requires and given that most people don't replay their games, and even if they do they don't necessarily would choose a different origin, so I prefer Bioware puts that resources elsewhere....

Edit: Baldur's Gate 2, was the one in Athkatla.

Modifié par abnocte, 31 mars 2011 - 09:32 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ponendus wrote...

The thing that confuses me about DA2, is that it uses practically the same formula as Mass Effect, the cinematic, framed narrative, preset protagonist style. There is no doubt that Mass Effect was wildly popular with the RPG crowd and the sci-fi crowd (or at least I think it was).

So, assuming all this negativity on the forums is actually representative of how most people feel about the game, why didn't it work for DA2? Is it because those that are a fan of the 'fantasy' genre prefer to make their own character? Or because they prefer a more open world experience? Is it as simple as that? Does anyone else know why this formula may not have worked as well?

I don't think ME worked either, to be frank.

I think roleplaying in a computer game requires the player be the primary architect of the PC's personality, because otherwise the player doesn't have enough information in order to play that character effectively.  Moreover, if the character is designed by the writers, that forces all of the players to play the same character, and they're not all going o like the same character.

A pre-set protagonist necessarily limits the game's market.

[PsychoBlonde]

kinna wrote...

Baldur's Gate worked as long as you didn't pick an elf because you only lived in Candelkeep for 20 years. Elven characters would have only small children at that age. It felt like the back story really made sense for human characters only.

It got even weirder if you played Throne of Bhaal and discovered that full-grown adult dragons were apparently conceived at the same time you were.  In D&D lore it takes about 400 years for a dragon to reach that size.

Then there's the entire discussion about whether elven children actually mature more slowly than humans or if they're just not normally allowed to go about by their elven parents . . .

ANYWAY.

As I've stated before, I've yet to play a CRPG that lets me "make my own character", because this would either mean that my character was a completely opinionless mute faceless cipher (which I don't enjoy playing) or that the game was written for me and everyone else in the world would probably find it bizarre and impenetrable.

Almost everyone I know plays lots of different types of games and enjoys them all on different levels.  Why there is this silly conceit that there's one right way to do a game is beyond me.  I'm not looking to play the same games I played 15 years ago, only with updated graphics and the same crappy save-the-world rehash told in a slightly different way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

abnocte wrote...

Second of all,
In Baldur's Gate you were the Bhaalspawn. Most of it took place in Athkatla.
In Planescape:Torment you were the Nameless One. A good part took place in Sigil.
In Neverwinter 2 you were the shard bearer.
In Kotor you were Darth Revan.
In Kotor2 you were The Exiled.
In DA:O you were The Warden.
...

First, Baldur's Gate took place all across the sword coast.  BG2 was based in Athkatla, and I think it was the lesser game.

But in all of the games you mention there, the PC's personality - his goals and objectives - were the player's the design.  And the player could then play that character in keeping with that design.

KotOR and NWN did the best job, I think, or giving the player the freedom to design a character he liked, because they didn't tell you anything about the character's background.  Yes, in KotOR the PC's identity is fixed, but the PC doesn't know who he is at the start of the game so it can't influence his decisions.  Furthermore, we know he has an entirely new personality that's been assembled by the Jedi, but the game never tells us what the personality is, so we get to choose that.

In Torment, you had full control over the PC's personality.  In NWN2, you have full control over the PC's personality.

DA2 doesn't grant you that control.  DA2 divorces you from your character repeatedly throughout the game.

Last but no least, 
I never expected to see a game with origins ever again ( hoped a little... but never expected ). As a programmer I can see how much work it requires and given that most people don't replay their games, and even if they do they don't necessarily would choose a different origin, so I prefer Bioware puts that resources elsewhere....

I also don't expect to see origins again, but then we never had them before and we weren't constrained the way DA2 and the ME games constrain us.

BioWare needs to stop trying to tell us a story, and instead let us tell a story in the world they provide.  They've previously demonstrated that they can provide a richer and more responsive world than we see in straight-ahead sandbox games.  And the structure of Act I of DA2 is even a step in that direction (they haven't given us that directionless a plot in many years).  The problem arises in DA2 when they tell us what our character is doing rather than letting us do it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

As I've stated before, I've yet to play a CRPG that lets me "make my own character", because this would either mean that my character was a completely opinionless mute faceless cipher

That's all the PC ever is until you give him a personality.

If he's ever more than that, then he's not your character any longer.

[The_FenixV]

I didn't mind Hawke as his story wasn't a cliche story of saving the world from evil forces. Yes in DA: O you can pick the origins but does it really matter? The ending is what mattered the most, the best ending was the Human Noble, that ending in a way concluded the Human Noble Origin. plus if they made a movie out of it, or a novel, the warden would of been the human male noble warrior warden that we see in the trailers.

In other rpg games I also liked playing as Shepard, ME2 was more action packed but it was way better, when you could land on a planet the planet had more details than ME1, the planets on ME1 looked all the same, just change of colors throw in a Tresher maw on that planet and the other planet and then another planet.

At least the re-used areas of DAII had more details than the ones in ME1 but they should of learn from their mistake of the mass effect series.

[Relshar]

I like ME1, ME2 story was okish but hate the thermal clips and the lack of armour I could find and wear.
I loved BG and DA:O, but thats where it stops. DA:2 failed on so many levels.
Lack of content
recycled maps
no choice on race
recycled maps... oh wait done that one.
random people from the past that I never met
big chunks missing from Hawkes memory. Just how did Flemith get them to Kirkwall? What did you do for those years as a merc or smugler?
No connection to any of the companions, I felt nothing for them like I did for DA:O
Why is Hawke sticking his nose into other people bussines? What is he gaining from it?
Lore breaking continuity ( says Mages can not teleport, yet in the game the npc mages do this even the Qunari ones. )
Its basicaly go to random places in Kirkwall look for yellow arrows like you do in WoW for quests and then move to zone do quest kill X number and return. In DA:O I remeber Redclif going into a castle to save the villagers but along the way I also end up telling the blacksmith I will look for his missing daughter. A cutscene in DA:O camp that still gives me goose bumps is when Lileana sings, there is nothing like that in DA:2. It lacks any kind of soul.
oh yeh did I mention recycled maps?

[DJ0000]

That comic was hilarious.

Anyway, it's not that I HAVE to create my own charecter. It's that I'd like to have some reason to care about them. I was thrown into it head first with my family and one of them dies, except I don't really know them so I don't care.

Aveline's husband dies, but I don't really know him or her for that matter. So I don't care.

Later there is the All That Remains quest, but I don't really know them as all they did was stand in the coner the whole game. So I don't care. I actually only cared because it is generally horrific no matter the victim.

Then there is the fact that I cannot actually be the Hawke I want to be because the dialogue wheel is too shallow. So I don't care, and that is about the charecter I am playing.

It is the general storytelling that is the problem. There are moments of brillliance that I love but also so many times when I just watch.

There are plenty of enoyable things about the gameplay and the lines but, generally there isn't really enough for you love Hawke or any charecter, just kind of like them.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Deylar wrote...

Alelsa wrote...

DTKT wrote...
Create something with your mother, sister and brother. Fallout did
something similar. You started as a child in the vault, went through
your anniversary, the SPECIAL test and finally when you exit the Vault.
 A similar flow could have been used for DAII. It would have helped
tremendously with the flow and how attached you are to the NPC's.

Yup, that would have been really nice to have.  It was a shame we got thrown straight into combat right at the beginning, and didn't get to spend "a quiet day at home with the family", maybe just before the darkspawn started crawling in the windows after us

Even in Fable 2 and Fable and Fable 3. You start off the quiet day before the **** storm happens. Its what attached me to my premade character.

It isn't that I have a problem with premade characters. Its how they implement them into the story. If I'm thrown into a story and been forced to care for some people most likely connection is going to get lost.

What was the quote from Joker at the end of ME2 without DLC?

[abnocte]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

First, Baldur's Gate took place all across the sword coast.  BG2 was based in Athkatla, and I think it was the lesser game.

Fixed. My mistake, sorry.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But in all of the games you mention there, the PC's personality - his goals and objectives - were the player's the design.  And the player could then play that character in keeping with that design.

KotOR and NWN did the best job, I think, or giving the player the freedom to design a character he liked, because they didn't tell you anything about the character's background.  Yes, in KotOR the PC's identity is fixed, but the PC doesn't know who he is at the start of the game so it can't influence his decisions.  Furthermore, we know he has an entirely new personality that's been assembled by the Jedi, but the game never tells us what the personality is, so we get to choose that.

In Torment, you had full control over the PC's personality.  In NWN2, you have full control over the PC's personality.

DA2 doesn't grant you that control.  DA2 divorces you from your character repeatedly throughout the game.

As I see it, you have more control in those games because you knew word by word what your character was going to say, but you still were limited to responses provided by the game/writers. So you were still limited to what they allowed you to, meaning playing "their character(s)".

Now the dialog wheel doesn't give you such knowledge, and the voice delivers the lines in a tone you may consider foreign to "your" character, but few times ( though more that I would have liked ) I felt I was getting less options to "roleplay" than before. Now we get silly icons and ambiguous "paraphrasing", yet I'm still playing "their character(s)".

Edit: Ok, now that I think about it Hawke talked more than once without me choosing any option...ok, we get a little less "freedom" in roleplaying....

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Last but no least, 
I never expected to see a game with origins ever again ( hoped a little... but never expected ). As a programmer I can see how much work it requires and given that most people don't replay their games, and even if they do they don't necessarily would choose a different origin, so I prefer Bioware puts that resources elsewhere....

I also don't expect to see origins again, but then we never had them before and we weren't constrained the way DA2 and the ME games constrain us.

BioWare needs to stop trying to tell us a story, and instead let us tell a story in the world they provide.  They've previously demonstrated that they can provide a richer and more responsive world than we see in straight-ahead sandbox games.  And the structure of Act I of DA2 is even a step in that direction (they haven't given us that directionless a plot in many years).  The problem arises in DA2 when they tell us what our character is doing rather than letting us do it.

By constrained you refer to being forced to play as human? In all D&D based games the only relevance to your race is the stats bonuses, etc you get. DA doesn't have any race bonuses, so if you remove origins, being able to choose race is nothing but for aesthetics....yet DA2 could have been really interesting if the race mattered in becoming the champion, it would have been interesting if being a mage also did....

Every time the game jumped forward the first thing that crossed my mind was "What has she being up to?" so yeah, I agree that it totally detaches you from you character. 

I must say though that I don't like sandbox games, I prefer to have a more or less clear goal.
I particulary liked Act1 because it felt like my old good Pen&Paper days, where my character was a nobody that became an adventurer to get rich and famous.

Modifié par abnocte, 31 mars 2011 - 10:28 .

[Riloux]

Mass Effect is a sci-fi shooter, and those who play shooters generally don't have very high standards. Dragon Age was marketed as the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. How do you expect fans to react when they see DA2?

[Sylvius the Mad]

abnocte wrote...

As I see it, you have more control in those games because you knew word by word what your character was going to say, but you still were limited to responses provided by the game/writers. So you were still limited to what they allowed you to, meaning playing "their character(s)".

But the non-literal content of those responses is yours alone.  The game doesn't provide tone or delivery.  The game is entierly unaware of your or your character's intent.  Why did he choose to say that thing?  Only you know that.

But a system like DA2 that hands intent to you, limiting you to a short list of lines and intent combined is far more restrictive.

Furthermore, without a voiced PC there's no particular reason for you to believe that the dialogue option you choose represents the exact words your character speaks.  You could design a character who never ends sentences with prepositions, but that doesn't force you to choose dialogue options that don't end with prepositions.  Since the game is unlikely ever to comment on the prepositions specifically, you could do whatever you like with those prepositions.

The dialogue options with a silent PC are no less abstract than the keyword or text-parsing inputs in games ranging from the early Ultimas to TES4.  In those games, your character is not walking around shouting single words at people unless you want him to do that), regardless of what the conversation UI elements say.

Now the dialog wheel doesn't give you such knowledge, and the voice delivers the lines in a tone you may consider foreign to "your" character, but few times ( though more that I would have liked ) I felt I was getting less options to "roleplay" than before. Now we get silly icons and ambiguous "paraphrasing", yet I'm still playing "their character(s)".

Edit: Ok, now that I think about it Hawke talked more than once without me choosing any option...ok, we get a little less "freedom" in roleplaying....

In addition to those times when Hawke speaks without you having had any direct input at all, that he ever speaks contrary to how you would have had him speak, given the option to choose differently, is simply unacceptable.  In DAO, the Warden never said anything that you didn't consciously and explicitly elect to have him say.  That should be the standard against which all other dialogue systems are judged.

If the PC ever says something you wouldn't have chosen, the game fails the test.

By constrained you refer to being forced to play as human?

No, I mean being forced to play the specific personality (or narrow range of personalities) they've designed.

In all D&D based games the only relevance to your race is the stats bonuses, etc you get. DA doesn't have any race bonuses, so if you remove origins, being able to choose race is nothing but for aesthetics....yet DA2 could have been really interesting if the race mattered in becoming the champion, it would have been interesting if being a mage also did....

I maintain that being able to choose is more important than having those choices acknowledged by the game.

Every time the game jumped forward the first thing that crossed my mind was "What has she being up to?" so yeah, I agree that it totally detaches you from you character.

This is also a huge problem.  I don't mind the framed narrative.  I don't mind that we've effectively playing through the past in a story told  by an NPC.  I mind that great swaths of my character's life and behaviour are beyond my control.

I must say though that I don't like sandbox games, I prefer to have a more or less clear goal.

When playing an RPG, I don't understand how your character  could ever not have a clear goal.  The difference is that some games force all characters to have the same clear goal every time they play.

And it's important that the goal belong to your character, not to you.  If you're thinking about your goals, then you're meta-gaming.

[kinna]

Aireoth wrote...

It wasn't an RPG, DAO was, thus cognitive dissidence. It kept elements of the RPG genre, much the same as ME did, but DA2 and the ME series are more Action games with a side of RPG Lite. Don't get me wrong, I love action games, shooters, adventure, strategy, pretty much everything, I am a grand gamer, and spend way to much time/money on it (I should just get a job in the industry).

What I think most people are upset about and are having a hard time expressing is the loss of the RPG in the game. We where expecting another RPG, not a new Action game. You can argue that it is an RPG but most elements of that system are gone (skill/stat checks, non-combat skill/stat progression, art of conversation and manipulation) and replaced by click here to talk until we fight.

Have you played Baldurs Gate? That game had no conversation skills, no non-combat skills (except rogues). Sure, it had stat-checks, you can even turn on to-hit-rolls, but in many ways it played out just like you said, click here to talk until we fight. I loved Baldur's Gate games, actually playing them now while waiting for the patch for DA2. But saying that DA2 is less of a RPG because they took out non-combat skills and conversation skills is same as saying that BG series lesser RPGs.

[mesmerizedish]

Baldur's Gate played the way it did because of the ruleset it was based on, 2e AD&D. Which sucked.

Second worst RPG system I've ever played.

But yes, as far as "gameplay" goes, the Infinity engine games were shallower by far than DAII.

[Abispa]

The Sonic the Hedgehog RPG was Bioware's shining moment, people.

*sniffle*

[Visanideth]

You make some pretty interesting points Sylvius and I hope to have to time to tackle them with calm later, but this thing here:

I maintain that being able to choose is more important than having those choices acknowledged by the game.

really doesn't make sense to me. Choice isn't immaterial. You can't tell a slave "you can choose to be free, and it will matter more than the fact that you actually are not".

[Annarl]

I liked the character Hawke. My criticisms of the game have nothing to do with Hawke. I hated the recycled environments. That was a terrible flaw. The time skips were strange and didn't feel natural especially if you're romancing a companion. The blood bags and exploding bodies, waves of enemies who jump off 2 storey buildings,...Well I could go on but I won't since you asked about character creation. I don't think Hawke was the problem. Hawke was interesting and both voice actors did an amazing job. And even with the problems I have with the game, I still enjoyed it.  It just wasn't a great game.

Modifié par omearaee, 01 avril 2011 - 04:17 .

[AkiKishi]

abnocte wrote...
Edit: Ok, now that I think about it Hawke talked more than once without me choosing any option...ok, we get a little less "freedom" in roleplaying....

Hawke does a lot of stuff without your input. In a CRPG that's kind of problem.

But it's also the paraphrasing system, not knowing what you will say before you say it. It's very clear that you are an observer not the character.

Even if you can only get a "best fit" in games not intended for one character, it's still better than having no idea what will be said before the line is delivered. It goes from a roleplaying experience, to a movie experience.

[Zem_]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is also a huge problem.  I don't mind the framed narrative.  I don't mind that we've effectively playing through the past in a story told  by an NPC.  I mind that great swaths of my character's life and behaviour are beyond my control.

Are they really "great" swaths?  Maybe Varric is not going into them in detail because nothing of note happened?  You say you don't have a problem with the framed narrative, but you're also saying it's impossible to have a game that covers a time period longer than it takes to actually play the game.  Perhaps you allow time to pass during overland travel or while sleeping?  But again, why?  Because nothing of note happens!  That's why.   In any other game, it's assumed that if three days pass while travelling on a world map and there's no encounter that nothing worth telling (or playing) happened and no one complains.

If someone ran up to you on the street and started talking about how you saved the city from a second invasion of Qunari or something during the missing years, then I'd agree with you.  Otherwise, I don't see how skipping over the "boring" years in DA2 is much different than any other RPG presenting you with a young-adult just starting out as an adventurer rather than demanding you play out your childhood on the farm in the country in real-time until something interesting happens.

[TJSolo]

Visanideth wrote...

You make some pretty interesting points Sylvius and I hope to have to time to tackle them with calm later, but this thing here:

I maintain that being able to choose is more important than having those choices acknowledged by the game.

really doesn't make sense to me. Choice isn't immaterial. You can't tell a slave "you can choose to be free, and it will matter more than the fact that you actually are not".

Except people did tell slaves that they can choose to be free. The choice of freedom has resulted in runaways, rebellions, and civil war in almost every country that I can think of that have used slaves.

The type of choice Sylvius is refering to is game choices which usually take place in the matter of seconds in game and not generations.

Modifié par TJSolo, 01 avril 2011 - 05:01 .