650 réponses à ce sujet

[BeefoTheBold]

I'd be willing to have a non-voiced protagonist if it meant elimination of the conversation wheel and going back to actual dialog choices.

I'm a bit fan of actually knowing what the character I'm pretending to be is going to say before they say it. It helps me choose the choice that MY character would actually say.

Similarly, I'm a big fan of my only character creation choices not being:

1. Gender
2. Character class

But actually having some additional leeway to have a few more options when creating a character I'm going to invest 60 some odd hours in.

[MonkeyLungs]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BP20125810 wrote...

From what I know, the voiced main charachter was one of the reason DA2 had only a human PC.  Would you be willing to ditch that for more replayability and customization in DA3, at the loss of not having a voiced protagonist?

I would be willing to ditch the voiced protagonist simply for the benefit of not having a voiced protagonist, which I see as a huge negative in the game.

So yes.

This.

[TEWR]

shantisands wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Sexy and mysterious? She looks like she's been hit repeatedly in the face with a shovel.

Well I find her SA version very sexy, dark, and mysterious.

I like that version of Morrigan myself.  personally.  

Her facial animation was kind of...unattractive (though it totally fit her character's mood at the time), but the face itself was fantastic.  

yea I noted on another thread that the facial movement was odd at first, but I imagined that it would be exactly how Morrigan would talk all the time. Honestly I think that SA Morrigan is perfect in every regard.

[Chiramu]

I found Origins has a lot of replay-ability because you had a very large choice over what type of character you could play.
For me with DA2 I have to always make a particular personal quest for myself to enjoy the story again , which is fun too, but it's much easier in Origins (next DA2 game is the world's biggest **** playthrough lol).

Though the problem with no voices for our character is that it makes the conversations with NPCs feel very one sided. It doesn't feel like your character is talking at all when they have no voice :<.

[Drasanil]

Chiramu wrote...
Though the problem with no voices for our character is that it makes the conversations with NPCs feel very one sided. It doesn't feel like your character is talking at all when they have no voice :<.

Not that much a problem after the first time around, I just read my way through the conversations and always ended skipping through most of the VO any ways, made it feel much less one-sided.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr.House wrote...

As long as the character is good I don't care if it's voiced or mute.

Mute at least allows you to make the character good, regardless of whether the designers did and regardless of whether you agree with the designers about what a good character is.

A voiced PC leaves you stuck with the character they designed.

[Wyndham711]

In my opinion you have two satisfying ways of handling PCs, one of which can be basically done in any genre, and the other only in RPGs. I certainly prefer the method unique to RPGs. Let us create a character with all possible freedom, and the developer should interfere to that process as little as possible. If this line of design is chosen, I want to play my character, not BioWare's character.

The other method is the one present in Witcher 2, for instance. There the developer utilizes an extremely strong, intriguing, pre-existing and lorefilled, almost legendary character with an extremely distinct look and personality and personal history, and the player then just makes some of his crucial decisions within the storyline. Playing Geralt is a bit like playing Batman. This style can, however, to a large degree be done in any genre, so I do see it as a bit of a waste to do it in RPGs as well.

What I think is crucial, is to realize that compromises here just don't work. I hate BioWare's current style where they try to be somewhere in between. You have Shepard and Hawke, neither of which are my characters, but neither can the writers truly claim them as their own, since they leave us with these superfluous decisions such as appearance and gender. I say that this needs some crucial rethinking.

If they obsess over follwing this current style over the DA:O style, either the team really gives each gender - as well as the possible personality/character history options - exponentially more depth than they currently are, or they follow CD Project's lead and decide on a single, solid, entirely predefined main character. This present undecisiveness is not healthy.

[Cutlass Jack]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

I thought Leli looked better in the SA trailer, while Morri looked better in-game, IMO.

This would be my opinion as well.

(Which is why I used a mod to make Leli look more like her SA version)

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 21 mai 2011 - 09:19 .

[astreqwerty]

this thread went so off topic right now

[Ad Dugg]

David Gaider wrote...

Should we have put those variations into the story? Possibly. You seem to think a talking pig would work as well, however, so maybe you have a better idea of how it works than I do.

Talking pigs!  That sounds like money making DLC to me, or at least an actually  funny feastday prank.

[Firefeng]

Keep the talking pigs thing goin'. I wanna see a hidden talking pig easter egg in DA3, a la the hidden cow level in Diablo 2.

[Zem_]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Mute at least allows you to make the character good, regardless of whether the designers did and regardless of whether you agree with the designers about what a good character is.

A voiced PC leaves you stuck with the character they designed.

It's the character they designed in either case.  Merely adding a voice actor doesn't change that fact.  They gave you a history, a family, a dog, a last name, everything.  They give you the list of lines you are allowed to speak.  You can imagine how your character SOUNDS while speaking lines that are not written by you.  I'll give you that.  Imagine you are affecting some kind of accent or something.  But this alone hardly makes it a character of your own design.

[Drachasor]

David Gaider wrote...

I see. Explain to me, then, how the story would have worked with Hawke and his siblings as dwarves-- and thus none of them having magic? Or elves, and thus altering the nature of th family in Kirkwall they come from? Unless your solution is that Hawke was adopted, having an elven or dwarven protaganist affects many other elements aside simply who the protaganist is.

You act like him being human or having magic in the family played a significant role in the story.  Maybe that was the original plan, but because of time and budget that's decidedly NOT how DA2 ended up.

Elves is easy.  It is stated in the game they can live anywhere.  Having great wealth would give an Elf influence.  Saving the city would give him more.  Would it really be any different than DA:O in this regard?  DA:O already showed that racism in Thedas isn't that deep with most people.  Really, this is only a few lines of dialogue.

Given that your mage sister can die in the first act, I don't see how you can say it is an important story element.  

The fact there is family in the city is pretty unimportant to the plot.  People flee to Kirkwall because that's a place to flee to.  There are tons of refugees (or at least we are told this) to prove it.  It would have been very simple to provide a way for others to get into the city with or without a family connection.

Fact is, the game repeatedly demonstrates that being a mage or having a mage sister isn't important.  It repeatedly shows that having family isn't important, outside of a few side quests (Hawke has to buy the mansion back himself, which anyone can do since it is on the market, his mother doesn't even get their noble title back).  These are extremely strong side issues to the entire story.

[Huntress]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

As long as the character is good I don't care if it's voiced or mute.

Mute at least allows you to make the character good, regardless of whether the designers did and regardless of whether you agree with the designers about what a good character is.

A voiced PC leaves you stuck with the character they designed.

Wouldn't you feel stuck if the main character in DA2 is mute aswell?

I have notes not one remembers how SOME players and bioware saw the warden, who is MUTE, for that i will remind you all! let me say, that while I type this am laughng my ass off ( as I promese)

 Warden was seen as:
1)Poker-face
2)blank sheet
3)Clumsy
This 3 are the ones who comes to mind right now, if I have the time or I remember of more, I'll add to the list.

1)People wanted a voiced character and since Bioware start talking about DA2 they mention the wheel, so no surprises there.
2) people wanted the character to feel emotions and at least my hawk, smile while talking and I like her sarcastic.
3)Character has family and * spoilers*, Hawk shows some* emotion.
4)Character cast and move more fluid.

I know been stuck in a city sux, that something that happens is somewhat not of my liking but, people wanted to feel that way, so bioware added to the game, I already gave my imputs of the game so I'll leave it there.

All and all:
1) I like the voice of female hawk.<3
2) I like playing mages now.
3) I like how the character talk in banter with companions.
4) I like she shows emotions given the situation exemple: sarcastic+diplomatic doesn't like to slap characters or do nasty things to them, and she let you know.<3

Modifié par Huntress, 21 mai 2011 - 03:58 .

[battleship potemkin village]

If anyone's keeping score: I prefer the voiced protagonist (and the dialog wheel) over a mute who communicates telepathically.

[Eleinehmm]

No one is  keeping score, really. But for the sake of the great balance, I vote for a non-voiced main character.

Modifié par Eleinehmm, 21 mai 2011 - 07:16 .

[haroldhardluck]

Drachasor wrote...
You know, even 30% of the player base is a huge number.  What those statistics show is that all the origins were pretty popular.

It is still 2 to 1 humans over dwarves. It shows that the human origins is overwhelmingly the preference over all the other races. It makes little sense to spend a lot of money and time on features that so few people will play.

Harold

[haroldhardluck]

[quote]Drasanil wrote...
There's also the fact that the human noble origin was percieved as the "default" one, and that humans are generally the safe generic option most people will opt for especially when they don't know much about what they're getting into.
[/quote]

If this is a fact, then where is the evidence that shows it? Given all the postings for a non-human option in this forum, the "fact" would seem to be that humans were not perceived as the default and was not the safe generic option.

[/quote]
I for one thought the city elf origin was the best done and the most powerful, it certainly seemed far more like the "default" if you will. The human noble felt kind of tacked on in that your parents really get caught with their pants down due to their own stupidity. What kind of (idiot) noble lets an other's army camp in his fortress and sends off his own to the war front? I don't care that Howe was your "friend", with political instincts like those it's a wonder the Cousland line managed to survive all those centuries.[/quote]

You contradict yourself here if the city elf origin is your default. Attack people for being stupid, even fictional people, only shows that you are comfortable with belittling others as a way of debate. This makes people either lose respect for you or attack you in turn.

Harold

[haroldhardluck]

silentassassin264 wrote...
Which was completely unnecessary because if you running around with banner saying "I AM A MAGE" it would have made no difference because running around in a mage robe and mage staff was practically doing that and no one noticed.  Plus, over the game you get to see the sheer amount of apostates running around in Kirkwall just fine.  The main reason to me for Act 1 was to satisfy Birthright for Mother.

People in games go around wearing full armor all the time which is obviously ridiculous. It is nothing more than a gaming convention that people wear armor all the time. The presumption is people are really wearing normal street clothes even though the player only sees the armor. At least with a mage, robes and a staff could be normal street clothes.

DA2 made a nod to realism by having Hawke be in casual clothes while at the manor. DA2 is actually more realistic in the outfits its character wear all the time. Varric is in normal street clothes. Aveline is in her guard armor.  Only Hawke follows gaming convention by walking around in full armor when played as a warrior.

Harold

[haroldhardluck]

Addai67 wrote...
And even if people didn't finish an origin long enough to get the achievement- I think you have to get to midway at least?- doesn't mean they didn't get something out of having that origin available.  I never finished a dwarf playthrough, but had several partial pt's and liked having the option to play dwarves.  I know other people who just played the origin stories, but that at least adds value to the game.

If you did not like an origin enough to finish the game, why should the developers make the effort to create the story in the first place? They are just wasting their work.  Are you in the habit of buying games you know you will never finish? I have bought games I never finished but I bought them in expectation I would finish them. Furthermore if I did not finish the game, I never bought the sequels. That is sensible behavior. Why waste money on games you know you will never finish when there are games out there that you will like enough to finish?

Harold

[Fallstar]

Well obviously, both would be ideal. We don't live in an ideal world though, so if I had to pick one it'd be the Origins stories. They were epic, cool stories in their own right. (Human and Dwarven nobles anyone?) The introduction to DA:2 is seriously lame. I played through the prologue and act 1 out of a sense of loyalty to Origins. And I'm glad I did, because no matter what I say about the flaws of Act 1/3, Act 2 alone made the game worthwhile to me. I was seriously hooked. the Qunari in general are a fantastic race, which I would love to learn more about.

In fact, my ideal DA:3 deals with a full scale Qunari invasion, lead by Sten. With Morrigan and the Warden popping out of the Eluvian at the end. Obviously.

Edit: and get rid of the wheel either way.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 21 mai 2011 - 07:58 .

[Drachasor]

haroldhardluck wrote...

Drachasor wrote...
You know, even 30% of the player base is a huge number. What those statistics show is that all the origins were pretty popular.

It is still 2 to 1 humans over dwarves. It shows that the human origins is overwhelmingly the preference over all the other races. It makes little sense to spend a lot of money and time on features that so few people will play.

Harold

Except it isn't "a few" people, but 37% of the players. That's a huge number of them. If "only" 37% of the people played a female Shepherd, would you say they shouldn't have gender be an option in Mass Effect? And let's be honest, if you go an Origins route in terms of amount of unique content per origin*, then th vast, vast majority of the game resources is still spent on content all origins use. It isn't like DA:O spent a huuge amount of resources on each origin.

*I'd advocate spreading it out over the course of the game though.

[Drachasor]

DuskWarden wrote...
Edit: and get rid of the wheel either way.

I too dislike the wheel.  It seems like it does a lot to more to limit choices and options than anything else.

[haroldhardluck]

Eleinehmm wrote...
No one is  keeping score, really. But for the sake of the great balance, I vote for a non-voiced main character.

I asked for a voiced character back in DAO and think the voices chosen for DA2 were fine. I vote for adding one or two more choices for the voices but I can play with the one voice in DA2.

Harold