597 réponses à ce sujet

[Seeker Sparrow]

I don't see why any DA game has to emulate any other game within the same genre, because I know for a fact that when DA:O came out no one was saying it should emulate The Witcher then.

Personally I want DA3 to be DA3 and by that I mean follow it's own narrative and character of the Dragon Age world.

[CaimDark]

Indeed, the Witcher 2 is the most impressive game I've played in a long time, far better than DA2 (my opinion, no need to rage) and Dragon Age could learn a lot from it, and not just how to make better sex scenes...

That said, Dragon Age and The Witcher are 2 fundamentally different games. There is a lot of overlap between their respective audiences, but there are different audiences for each game as well. In TW2 you control a single character and combat plays like an action game, whereas in DA you control several party members, combat is a mix of real-time and turn-based tactics (despite Bioware's ridiculous claims that ou can play DA2 like an action game) and interaction between the party members is (or at least is supposed to be) a big part of the experience , so that needs to be taken into account, and I hope DA continues to be a party-based game.

[Captain_Obvious]

As a female gamer, Bioware has spoiled me by giving me options that I don't see in some other RPGs. I have not played The Witcher, and I don't really care to. Ever since I started playing Bioware games with KOTOR, I have had the option to play as a female character. I really have no interest in playing an RPG where my only option is to play a male character anymore.

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

You mean one of 3 dominant personality types, all ultimately doing the same thing as to not change the story baring superficialities.

3 core tones that can be mixed for a wide range of character permutations.

But, yes, Hawke worst protagonist ever, rah rah rah.

[Siansonea]

SO tired of all the Witcher worship. How about Witcher 3 becoming another Witcher, and let Dragon Age 3 be its own game? I think if anyone has lost faith in the DA franchise, well, there's other games out there. Like Witcher/Witcher 2. Play those games. Enjoy those games. Leave DA to those of us who enjoy DA for what it is.

[Mr.House]

csfteeeer wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Difference though, the Nameless One was a interesting character, Geralt is just a pile of fail that is ugly as sin but women want to have sex with him? O_o

Geralt is Uninteresting?
Then What the Hell is Hawke?

I can make Hawke intresting. I can write her backstory, I can fill in the gaps between each act ect. You can not with Geralt, Geralt has a set personlty, a set past a set everything.

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

3 core tones that can be mixed for a wide range of character permutations.

It's unfortunate the game simply ignores any mixing you might want to do and simplifies your character down to single personality, as far as it's concerned.

[CaimDark]

Sparrow Hawke wrote...

I don't see why any DA game has to emulate any other game within the same genre, because I know for a fact that when DA:O came out no one was saying it should emulate The Witcher then.

This might have something to do with the fact that most people were busy enjoying DA:O while DA2 caused many fans to wonder "what the hell did they do to my favorite game!?!?!?"...

[erynnar]

I loved Witcher 2, but Witcher is Witcher, and DA is DA. I prefer the two stay true to themselves thanks.

[erynnar]

CaimDark wrote...

Sparrow Hawke wrote...

I don't see why any DA game has to emulate any other game within the same genre, because I know for a fact that when DA:O came out no one was saying it should emulate The Witcher then.

This might have something to do with the fact that most people were busy enjoying DA:O while DA2 caused many fans to wonder "what the hell did they do to my favorite game!?!?!?"...

DA3 should emulate another game...it's called DAO. Sorry, I couldn't resist.  Really, What worked in DAO keep, what was meh, make better, what was broken, fix. Same for DA2 and Legacy.

[KnightofPhoenix]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Geralt's VO was a lot like Geralt's character - stiff, detached, and completely immutable. I didn't find Geralt particularly compelling, because I couldn't see him change or grow over the course of the game. He remembered stuff, but it didn't make *him* change, it just made his *goals* change. OTHER things changed over the course of the game, but Geralt didn't. I didn't like that, because it just reinforced that Geralt was never "my" character to begin with, he was just "a" character that I happened to issue orders to. I made choices, and he voiced those choices, but he never really cared either way about practically anything. With Hawke, I could make those choices, and I could see Hawke expressing desires differently. I could see that in the companions too, as the rivalry and friendship stories progressed toward their ends, and the characters are different from when they started.

Geralt was never meant to be your character, of course he is a set character.
You can alter his perceptions about himself and the world around him (that's especially the case with TW1), but he ultimately remains Geralt. And I don't mind that.

I'd much rather have that with choices that matter, than superficial differences that the game barely recognizes and reacts too. 

And that's a difference in taste.

And Geralt does care about a number of things, and we can actually change what he cares about (and there are things we can't change). The fact that he is naturally introverted and sounds detached does not mean he doesn't care.

I suspect that if I played a Witcher game with a protagonist Witcher that was actually allowed to develop, I'd have enjoyed it a lot more. But given my impression of the nature of the characters in W2, that's not something that CDPR is good at. None of the characters really grow or change over the course of the game, they just have their own set role that they play. Vernon Roche is still the same Vernon Roche at the end as he was in the
beginning. Geralt is the same Geralt, plus a few memories and a new thing to chase after. We learn more about their roles and history as the game progresses, but we don't see them actually develop into something else.

I chose to follow Roche. Perhaps all the character development was on the other side.

Vernon Roche prior to happens to the blue stripes, is not exactly the same as him after what happened. He is a character that reacts to what is happening around him, and I prefer that, than a forced and artificial substantial character development in a story that is supposed to span a few weeks at most. TW2's pacing is too fast to have any substantial character development that wouldn't feel forced and artificial.
Iorveth has the most development, thought his days as a terrorist butcher are not shown in the game. 

And ultimately, I found TW2 characters a lot more compelling than most Bioware characters, companions included.
I think they have a subtelty in them that the latter do not have (and imo, often end up being overblown). In addition to being projected in a story and setting I find much more interesting (and projected in a better way). They look, sound and feel more like normal people (circumstances considered) to me.

As opposed to say Carver who has to say he is jealous everytime he opens his mouth.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 août 2011 - 05:14 .

[luki1234567]

Mr.House wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Difference though, the Nameless One was a interesting character, Geralt is just a pile of fail that is ugly as sin but women want to have sex with him? O_o

Geralt is Uninteresting?
Then What the Hell is Hawke?

I can make Hawke intresting. I can write her backstory, I can fill in the gaps between each act ect. You can not with Geralt, Geralt has a set personlty, a set past a set everything.

you can change his believies and point of view and to some degree change his personality.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

You mean one of 3 dominant personality types, all ultimately doing the same thing as to not change the story baring superficialities.

3 core tones that can be mixed for a wide range of character permutations.

But, yes, Hawke worst protagonist ever, rah rah rah.

That the game cares nothing about. It ultimately still treats Hawke with one dominant personality.

And no, Hawke is MY least favorite protagonist. I never claimed he was the worst.

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That the game cares nothing about. It ultimately still treats Hawke with one dominant personality.

And no, Hawke is MY least favorite protagonist. I never claimed he was the worst.

But it doesn't? All the dominant personality really affects are lines that would otherwise be spoken completely without affectation, specifically to avoid association with any sort of strong personality. All that changes is the PC now has a "dominant personality" of one of three types instead of just "emotionless automaton".

But you wouldn't say neutral delivery of critical choice path lines means that that character must have a concrete personality as a boring emotionless automaton, I hope, so why is Hawke crystallized into only one personality this way? The dominant personality system does absolutely nothing to affect the other dialogue choices you make, and nor does it incentivize metagaming and points hoarding in the way the paragon/renegade system does.

[TEWR]

ipgd wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

You mean one of 3 dominant personality types, all ultimately doing the same thing as to not change the story baring superficialities.

3 core tones that can be mixed for a wide range of character permutations.

But, yes, Hawke worst protagonist ever, rah rah rah.

where you're still greatly restricted. If you want access to a dialogue option, you have to stay a certain personality type.

The dominant personality system should be replaced with a numerical tally system, where if you pick the sarcastic option 8 times in the game, when you come across the chance to use a sarcastic bonus dialogue that requires you to have chosen purple 8 times, you're good. You don't need to stay as purple.

Also, it should keep track of what option you picked the most, sort of like it does now. Whatever you picked the most becomes the dominant personality, but that doesn't mean you won't ever be able to access an aggressive bonus choice if you're a sarcastic character.

[AloraKast]

Sutekh wrote...

RageGT wrote...

No, it was not what I was trying to say. I was trying to say is that in TW2, there is no moment where one would think those two would have any interest whatsoever in the opposite sex. BW's should not make a mess where everyone or almost everyone is bissexual.

I see no evidence of "gay exclusive" (since, apparently, bisexual is bad story-wise, but let's leave that dead horse alone, poor thing). All I see are ignorant, forced stereotypes at their finest. <_<

So DA's writers should make their "gay" males ugly, old, flaming and depraved, and females hot and OMG kinky? Because what? Otherwise our poor feeble minds are unable to distinguish a sexual orientation? I don't enjoy being treated as a narrow-minded five-year-old, and if that's necessary for TW2's writers to make their point (whatever that point might be), then either said writers aren't as good as some people claim they are, or they have a very poor opinion of their intended audience.

Actually, you made a very good case against TW2 with those bits. Now I'm not sure I want to finish the game anymore, or ever read the books, and I really hope DA3 will never stoop down to this level of immaturity.

Hmmm... Ok, haven't watched the vids linked (I am, after all, at work) but have a pretty good idea what they are about.

The thing that I found perplexing (to say the least) in DA2 was that every romanceable option (well, aside from Sebastian) has suddenly turned bi for the player's pleasure. I have never understood that.

I believe a character's sexuality should be one part of what makes a character... well, a character, a person, and not be about a character's sexuality be defined by what gender the player is playing... for in my mind, it makes no sense whatsoever.

I thought there was a very nice balance achieved in DA:O (or rather a way better balance than in DA2). It made total sense for Zevran to be bi, taking into consideration his background and easy going personality (on the surface, at least). But I also love how he is able to grow as a character through his adventures with the player and is, in the end, after a difficult road, able to commit himself to the player. I really do love Zevran's writing and believe him to be one of the more comlpex and satisfying characters I have come across. In the same vein, it makes total sense for Alistair to be straigh, because of the character he is, as he is written.

As for Morrigan and Leliana, well, I can't say too much about them because I haven't romanced them. When I role play, I prefer to role play straight female characters. I certainly have no aversion to experiencing the game adventure through the eyes of a gay male character; I simply have my own preferances which, when given the opportunity, I like to impose onto my character.

So I do think that there was a good balance in DA:O. It wasn't perfect, because IMO to get to that perfect balance we ought to have straigh, bi and gay romance options, or at the very least straight and gay. That would have been ideal.

Now take DA2. It makes total and perfect sense for Isabella to be bi. I mean, that's how she was even in DA:O. But it makes sense for her character because it's part of who she is. It makes perfect sense for Sebastian to be straight, absolutely. As for Fenris... I suppose that issue is a bit murkier but for me, I tend to think of him as straight. Again, totally my view. The one thing I do take issue with is Anders being suddenly bi (or straight gay, depending how you look at it), because of the character established in Awakenings... and then we learn all of a sudden that he's been with men before (or rather he's been with that mage, whatshisface, that we meed in Act 1 when we ask Anders for his help). I didn't particularly like that development, because it doesn't jive with the character of Anders... but then again, the DA2 Anders is such a drastic change from the character we knew... well, it's almost not Anders anymore. As for Merrill, I simply do not know enough about the character to form an opinion.

But that's what I'm saying, instead to making a character's sexuality dependant upon the player, have the character's sexuality be a part of who they are, another aspect of what makes them them... it doesn't make sense for me to do otherwise.

Modifié par AloraKast, 03 août 2011 - 07:15 .

[Persephone]

Mr.House wrote...

Difference though, the Nameless One was a interesting character, Geralt is just a pile of fail that is ugly as sin but women want to have sex with him? O_o

Well, ahem, I'm a gal and I do admit that I find Geralt to be far more attractive versus the pretty boys from the media these days. I also love his English VO , sexy as heck. (Some lines lack involvenment though. But he is FAR better than Triss who sounds like she is auditioning for a school play)

[The Earl Of Bronze]

luki1234567 wrote...

The Earl Of Bronze wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Like I said, if the only customisation for my character is cosmetic (equipment doesn't count since it matters in gameplay), I'd much rather have a preset character with depth that I can mold to my liking through the story and character system.

Because at this rate, sports games have better and more meaningful character customisation than most RPGs.

Btw, have you played Planescape: Torment?

If you disliked the way a character looked what would you do?

I wouldn't play the game and also stop whining and caring about it

So you see the flaw in such a system, then why argue in favor of it?

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...
But it doesn't? All the dominant personality really affects are lines that would otherwise be spoken completely without affectation, specifically to avoid association with any sort of strong personality. All that changes is the PC now has a "dominant personality" of one of three types instead of just "emotionless automaton".

But you wouldn't say neutral delivery of critical choice path lines means that that character must have a concrete personality as a boring emotionless automaton, I hope, so why is Hawke crystallized into only one personality this way? The dominant personality system does absolutely nothing to affect the other dialogue choices you make, and nor does it incentivize metagaming and points hoarding in the way the paragon/renegade system does.

It certainly is not as restrictive as paragon / renegade (hate it).
But at several points, the game decided that my Hawke would be sarcastic in moments where I didn't want him to be sarcastic. Nothing too crucial, but still immersion breaking, which is why I'd never think he is MY character. Nor is he set, I think he is an awkward middle.

And the personality thing does restrict at least one choice. That of Petrice. With a broken logic to it.
I can't side with her unless I am aggro. And that's one of the very few choices that actually interest me.
So if I want to side with her, I have to metagame.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 août 2011 - 05:21 .

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

ipgd wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

Geralt is Uninteresting?
Then What the Hell is Hawke?

What You Make Him.

You mean one of 3 dominant personality types, all ultimately doing the same thing as to not change the story baring superficialities.

In my world, friendship, love, losing loved ones or not, betrayals, redemption vs. a terrorist/martyr act are anything but insignificant. That was what my Hawke experienced in abundance, with different nuances, dialogue....her journey counted to me. Getting there had me smiling, crying, hold my breath in shock....wait for it, everything I want out of roleplaying a character. Much more than the Warden ever did. And Geralt, who cannot even decide just WHO his girlfriend is supposed to be.

[jwalker]

meteorswarm wrote...

Some deeply storytelling,one protagonist ,no companions and no teammates .The third person visual  is nearly the witcher 2 of course,better with the first person visual if it has.

No.

If I wanted to play The Witcher, I would play The Witcher.
If you want another The Witcher, you should ask to whatever company that makes The Witcher to make another The Witcher

I want more Dragon Age.

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

But it doesn't? All the dominant personality really affects are lines that would otherwise be spoken completely without affectation, specifically to avoid association with any sort of strong personality. All that changes is the PC now has a "dominant personality" of one of three types instead of just "emotionless automaton".

It still means the game considers the character to have certain "strong personality" and disregards all that mixing you may be otherwise doing. Whether that personality is "emotionless automaton" or "trololol hawke" is a detail.

To put it differently, all the mixing you do and resulting 'nuanced personality' is entirely in your head. And while the same could be said about DAO, the older system didn't explicitly disregard that "mental vision" of your character. If just by not having them speak without input from you. Which is an alternative to having the delivery of "emotionless automaton".

Modifié par tmp7704, 03 août 2011 - 05:25 .

[luki1234567]

The Earl Of Bronze wrote...

luki1234567 wrote...

The Earl Of Bronze wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Like I said, if the only customisation for my character is cosmetic (equipment doesn't count since it matters in gameplay), I'd much rather have a preset character with depth that I can mold to my liking through the story and character system.

Because at this rate, sports games have better and more meaningful character customisation than most RPGs.

Btw, have you played Planescape: Torment?

If you disliked the way a character looked what would you do?

I wouldn't play the game and also stop whining and caring about it

So you see the flaw in such a system, then why argue in favor of it?

i don't see a flaw. i see a personal preference.

[Lenimph]

Persephone wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Difference though, the Nameless One was a interesting character, Geralt is just a pile of fail that is ugly as sin but women want to have sex with him? O_o

Well, ahem, I'm a gal and I do admit that I find Geralt to be far more attractive versus the pretty boys from the media these days. I also love his English VO , sexy as heck.

Well I'm a gal and I do not find Geralt attractive... and I typically like the rugged look a lot... hell I even like white/silver hair.  Let me check if he still doesn't do anything...  Nope nothing... 

[ipgd]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

where you're still greatly restricted. If you want access to a dialogue option, you have to stay a certain personality type.

The dominant personality system should be replaced with a numerical tally system, where if you pick the sarcastic option 8 times in the game, when you come across the chance to use a sarcastic bonus dialogue that requires you to have chosen purple 8 times, you're good. You don't need to stay as purple.

Also, it should keep track of what option you picked the most, sort of like it does now. Whatever you picked the most becomes the dominant personality, but that doesn't mean you won't ever be able to access an aggressive bonus choice if you're a sarcastic character.

I despise those systems. Anything that requires you to choose certain dialogue options in order to be able to pick ones that don't suck in the future is immediately conducive to metagaming. I really do not want any sort of system in my head when I'm deciding what dialogue choice to pick -- and that's precisely the reason why I can't see Shepard as a character, because half my motivation for dialogue choices is basically "I need to keep picking paragon or I might get locked out of something important later (also Renegade gets shafted constantly !!!)".

The personality system isn't perfect -- as mentioned, I don't like the personality-based "bonus" options that require a particular personality to execute, scarce as they are (the option to side with Petrice certainly shouldn't have been tied to it) -- but I prefer it to neutral delivery of choice path lines, and I greatly prefer it to the paragon/renegade system that requires you to choose certain dialogue options in order to accumulate metagame points to spend on actually being able to take decisive actions in some dialogues.

Right now the personality system is essentially a flavor element kept in the background, which is what it should be.