87 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fernando Melo wrote...

The decision of whether to have a set character in the style of DAII, or multiple origins a la Dragon Age: Origins will be based on fan feedback.

I'd like to know why those are the only two options.

Prior to DAO, some of BioWare's games have offered a blank slate PC with no set background details at all.  Your PC in NWN could be at the Neverwinter Academy for any reason you could imagine, and have any background prior to his arrival there.  Your PC in KotOR could be (as far as he knew) on the Endar Spire for any reason, and have any background prior to his arrival there.

I'd like to see a return of the blank slate PC.  While I very much enjoyed the origins in DAO, they were a restriction beyond what I would consider an ideal design.

So while I obviously would not enjoy a set character, I also think that DAO-style origins are still too restrictive.  There's a continuum here, and DAO-style origins are not one end of it.  A set character is one end, DAO-style origins are in the middle.  The other end is a blank slate character, and that's what I'd like to see in future games.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

A blank slate design makes it harder to craft a linear narrative that really involves your character's backstory (for obvious reasons) or involves them personally. So that's obviously something that I don't think BioWare would want to look at.

IMO, a blank slate design works better for open world, or more non-linear games where the story isn't as focused and accommodating enough to handle basically an unlimited variety in backstories and characters. If you try and fit them into a narrative heavy games, you'd have to find a method to make it irrelevant or unimportant. Some of them could turn out to be incredibly contrived or brilliant depending on how you actually do it.

Retrospectively for example, Revan was a fixed character. Sure, you picked out a backstory, but the game literally made it wrong and irrelevant after a certain point.

Also, unlike BioWare's D&D games, or the D20 ruleset they used for KotOR, the character system in Dragon Age is not robust enough to carry the same variety when creating different types of characters. Part of the appeal of the blank slate was the robust nature of the character system, allowing for incredibly unique characters and builds without the need for metagaming. Since rulesets were used as frameworks to explain the natural world and what your character can do, you could roleplay a character of your creation through the character system quite well.

The lack of meaningful racial choices outside of story content (bonuses, access to certain talents/skills etc), or even racial choices at all for DA 2, or other aspects like gender bonuses, non-combat skills, etc compounds this. So roleplaying your blank slate through the character system (thus making the step from imagination to concrete game mechanics) is much more difficult.

Because of this, a Dragon Age blank slate would suffer enormously compared to the blank slates of Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Darklands, Arcanum, etc.

But as to why BioWare would go in this direction, the first part of my post covers it. Because it makes it harder to craft a narrative that personally involves the protagonist without a gimmick or bottleneck which could come out as being really contrived. Especially since a Revan 2.0 won't work.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 22 août 2011 - 04:57 .

[LeBurns]

The statement is a joke IMO. Most of the people who loved DA:O but hated the DA2 changes have already written off the whole franchise, so how are they really going to give feedback? Where are they going to look for their feedback? In the DA:O forums? I doubt it. They will continue to do whatever Mike likes. Fans be hanged. This PR talk makes me ill.

In response to your post, I'm not sure how blank you can make someone in a CRPG. Even in BG you had a fixed start, and even a half sister. The old Gold Box D&D games were fairly blank I suppose. To be honest I liked the origins and there were enough of them, and choices within them, to give the right flavour to your character before they started the real game at Ostagar.

[Cutlass Jack]

Almost no Bioware protaganist (except the NWN1 one) was truly a blank slate. KotoR certainly wasn't, but he was made into one. They all had something connecting them to the world in some fashion. Even the Bhaalspawn.

Freedom to play what you want is extremely important, but connection to the world and the people in it is why I enjoy Bioware games. Its what I specifically come to them for.

If I want Blank Slate I'll play an Elder Scroll game. You're always playing a random prisoner let loose in a sandbox world. While thats undeniably entertaining, at no point do I truly feel personally connected to the story. Which should not be mistranslated to me saying those games are bad. Far from it. I just enjoy both companies games for entirely different things.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 22 août 2011 - 04:57 .

[FieryDove]

I am not interested in a set character. I also greatly enjoyed the more or less blank slate approach in previous games.

I don't think origins are needed unless the story calls for it. It made sense to introduce people to lore and the races in DAO.

[happy_daiz]

FieryDove wrote...

I am not interested in a set character. I also greatly enjoyed the more or less blank slate approach in previous games.

I don't think origins are needed unless the story calls for it. It made sense to introduce people to lore and the races in DAO.

Agreed. I want to play as whatever BioWare deems relevant to their story.

[danielkx]

Blank slate is the better choice for an RPG, however, I highly doubt BioWare will go that route. I think, just as LeBurns said, this is simply PR. Even if BioWare goes back to using origins, they will almost certainly have the character set for each origin. So if they give you a Dwarf commoner origin, that character will have a set personality and everything just like in DA2 with the difference being you can choose a different race and starting point.

I do not see BioWare going back to the old ways, even though DA:O is only a couple of years old. All BioWare tells us is that DA3 will be the "best of both worlds." That is so vague they might as well have not said it at all. You cannot have the best of both worlds if one method completely breaks the other...i.e voiced protagonist with a set personality. This breaks the RPG aspect of the game for many people and I think it is safe to say that DA3 will have the same dialog system as DA2, ME series and TOR. The simple fact that they are using this dialog system for TOR makes it blatanly clear that they have no intention on going back to silent protagonist.

BioWare, imo, has no intention on making DA3 more of a traditional RPG than DA2 was... the only thing I see them doing to make it better than DA2 is to not recycle the maps and eliminating the wave garbage in combat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

mrcrusty wrote...

A blank slate design makes it harder to craft a linear narrative that really involves your character's backstory (for obvious reasons) or involves them personally.

It's for this reason that I think designing the narrative like that is a bad idea.

If the story relies on some personal connection for the PC, or on some aspect of the PC's backstory, that forces the character's design to accommodate that detail.  But, if that detail is going to revealed during the game's story, then the player can't know about it in advance.  And that means that the player doesn't actually know his character at the start of the game.

That's a huge problem.  How is the player supposed to make decisions for his character if the player doesn't know his character?

So, instead, the player should be free to craft a character as he sees fit, and the writers should write a story that stands on its own without the need for a personal connection to a character they don't know.

Also, unlike BioWare's D&D games, or the D20 ruleset they used for KotOR, the character system in Dragon Age is not robust enough to carry the same variety when creating different types of characters. Part of the appeal of the blank slate was the robust nature of the character system, allowing for incredibly unique characters and builds without the need for metagaming. Since rulesets were used as frameworks to explain the natural world and what your character can do, you could roleplay a character of your creation through the character system quite well.

I would argue that this is always what rulesets should do.  The whole point of the ruleset is to describe the natural world.  That's what the ruleset is - it's the set of rules under which the in-game reality operates.

Those unique characters and builds are part of the fun of RPGs.  This is why I also insist on equipping my whole party as I choose, because it increases the amount of build fun in the game (Sten made a great archer).

I want to play a warrior with a quarterstaff, or a rogue who uses only blunt weapons, or a mage with a sword (even if he's ineffective with it).

And I'd like my character to be able to have goals that might be unrelated to the game's intended story.

But as to why BioWare would go in this direction, the first part of my post covers it. Because it makes it harder to craft a narrative that personally involves the protagonist without a gimmick or bottleneck which could come out as being really contrived. Especially since a Revan 2.0 won't work.

They don't need to "personally involve the protagonist".

[Dragoonlordz]

I like having a choice of race and background upon entering into a story. A origin or selection of entrances via background and race selection is just as connected to the world and story progression as a set protaganist. The only difference between the two is how easy it makes the writing to have set protaganist. I personally would prefer they put more effort into writing for the 3 to 6 origins that through progression to become as intrigated into the story as any set protaganist, Hawkes no more unique than the Warden outside of one simple factor which is the dialogue and NPCs around him, all of which are possible for multiple origins. He could of been Dwarf as example and only things that would have changed is the dialogue and NPC interactions.

What Bioware should do imho is create their own poll on here sticky to top where you get a vote to gauge opinion on this subject and all other discussions included in that as additional information as to why people picked what they wanted. Else it just becomes another thread with two opposing sides bickering about why their stance is better. It might seem kind of 'meta' as people put it to actually use clear choice based on sample source aka BSN, but they are not going to get the information about what people want from outside this source unless use FB again without wading through a million arguments about whos idea is best. The ones who are willing to debate gameplay aspects tend to all be on BSN relating to Biowares products.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 22 août 2011 - 07:24 .

[the_one_54321]

Strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the fence. What Sylvius demonstrates here is a perfectly valid personal preference. I have greatly enjoyed both games that did and did not follow his approach to character creation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I like having a choice of race and background upon entering into a story.

I think it always does.  I can't imagine how race or gender or background would never influence the character's choiecs, and those choices are what create the emergent narrative.

But I don't think the choce of race or background necessarily needs to be relevant within the authored narrative.  The authored narrative is pre-written, and cannot possibly accommodate every character we could design.  As such, using those characters as an integral part of that narrative requires some restrictions on who those characters are.

And that's specifically what I'm trying to avoid.

But that doesn't mean that the character background can't ben relevant to the story.  it just won't be relevant within the authored narrative, but that's only part of the story.

[Dragoonlordz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I like having a choice of race and background upon entering into a story.

I think it always does.  I can't imagine how race or gender or background would never influence the character's choiecs, and those choices are what create the emergent narrative.

But I don't think the choce of race or background necessarily needs to be relevant within the authored narrative.  The authored narrative is pre-written, and cannot possibly accommodate every character we could design.  As such, using those characters as an integral part of that narrative requires some restrictions on who those characters are.

And that's specifically what I'm trying to avoid.

But that doesn't mean that the character background can't ben relevant to the story.  it just won't be relevant within the authored narrative, but that's only part of the story.

I cannot play as forced human again (means if forced human main character again puts me off buying the next title and as drastic as that sounds it is a reality of how tedious I find all the hundreds/thousends of games where thats all your playing as every single time), in a fantasy universe I would like to play a fantasy race. We just had forced human narrative time to allow the choice of a different race again imho. Because people like different things and I have a preference for origins themselves to me the ideal route is bringing back race and origins (for myself as preference) even though makes it harder for the writing to encompass it all even if via a collapse and then branch to the integration of the overall plot it's still what I prefer.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 août 2011 - 12:18 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

A blank slate design makes it harder to craft a linear narrative that really involves your character's backstory (for obvious reasons) or involves them personally.

It's for this reason that I think designing the narrative like that is a bad idea.

If the story relies on some personal connection for the PC, or on some aspect of the PC's backstory, that forces the character's design to accommodate that detail.  But, if that detail is going to revealed during the game's story, then the player can't know about it in advance.  And that means that the player doesn't actually know his character at the start of the game.

That's a huge problem.  How is the player supposed to make decisions for his character if the player doesn't know his character?

So, instead, the player should be free to craft a character as he sees fit, and the writers should write a story that stands on its own without the need for a personal connection to a character they don't know.

Also, unlike BioWare's D&D games, or the D20 ruleset they used for KotOR, the character system in Dragon Age is not robust enough to carry the same variety when creating different types of characters. Part of the appeal of the blank slate was the robust nature of the character system, allowing for incredibly unique characters and builds without the need for metagaming. Since rulesets were used as frameworks to explain the natural world and what your character can do, you could roleplay a character of your creation through the character system quite well.

I would argue that this is always what rulesets should do.  The whole point of the ruleset is to describe the natural world.  That's what the ruleset is - it's the set of rules under which the in-game reality operates.

Those unique characters and builds are part of the fun of RPGs.  This is why I also insist on equipping my whole party as I choose, because it increases the amount of build fun in the game (Sten made a great archer).

I want to play a warrior with a quarterstaff, or a rogue who uses only blunt weapons, or a mage with a sword (even if he's ineffective with it).

And I'd like my character to be able to have goals that might be unrelated to the game's intended story.

But as to why BioWare would go in this direction, the first part of my post covers it. Because it makes it harder to craft a narrative that personally involves the protagonist without a gimmick or bottleneck which could come out as being really contrived. Especially since a Revan 2.0 won't work.

They don't need to "personally involve the protagonist".

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that and I wholeheartedly agree on the issue of unique characters, but I'm not talking about what I want, I'm talking about what BioWare seems to want.

On the issue of rulesets - yes, that is what they should do, but BioWare's moving away from that too, as evidenced by the assymetrical attack speeds in Dragon Age 2.

It is undeniable that having a protagonist personally involved in the story makes it easier for the player to get personally involved with the story, as there's less of a requirement for them to buy into the premise.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 23 août 2011 - 12:18 .

[mesmerizedish]

Out of curiosity, how does the BG PC being a Bhaalspawn fit into this?

In more direct response to the thread, I agree to a point. Like a voiced protagonist, making the PC's background and such relevant to the story isn't something I consider a negative when it comes to making a good, fun game. At the same time, I would *also* very much enjoy more of a blank-slate protagonist. I enjoy many things, and sometimes they're mutually exclusive. Obviously, a single game cannot accommodate all of my tastes

I wouldn't mind DAIII being like Origins, I wouldn't mind it being like DAII, but I would also enjoy a blank-slate as you suggest.

And I'm very interested in your feelings toward the Bhaalspawn point, because I think Baldur's Gate did a brilliant job of blending the blank-slate with the personal relevance thing. I think "having grown up in Candlekeep" is not an unreasonably restrictive restriction. It affords a great deal of freedom in defining *who* your character is, and since your parentage is unknown to you, you don't need to know the twist to roleplay. When your parentage begins to assert itself on your character, the game tells you and allows you to roleplay your character's reaction to the unfolding mystery accordingly. Once everything is out in the open, this single aspect of your character is pre-defined, but what it means to her and how it affects her is entirely up to you and how you roleplay your character. This allowed BGII to tell a story in which your heritage is relevant without sacrificing freedom of roleplaying, and it's why I consider BGII the greatest game I have ever played.

[Wulfram]

I hated Baldur's Gate's background. It didn't come up all that often, but when it did it never failed to grate.

Personally, I liked how Mass Effect did it. A clearly established role for the PC now - you're an elite alliance soldier - which gives you a good motivation for getting involved in the plot, but few unnecessary details about your past.

[berelinde]

The problem with letting the player make up his own backstory for his character is that it guarantees that the backstory will be completely irrelevent. With no fixed background at all, no one will ever reference the past. In Origins, people complained that no one cared if they were Dalish or a Casteless dwarf. Human nobles kept waiting for somebody to say something about Fergus (another reused name, by the way; see Fearghus in BG2!), but it never happened. Imagine how that would be compounded by having no fixed events in the past at all.

Given the alternatives, I like the Origins model. It gives the player a lot of flexibility while still allowing game NPCs to react to origin events.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Out of curiosity, how does the BG PC being a Bhaalspawn fit into this?

I don't think him being Bhaalspawn is relevant at all.

What prevents BG from having a true blank slate PC is that his childhood and upbringing are fairly well defined within the game.  But, because that background isn't really relevant to the gameplay beyond that initial ambush, there are few restrictions on your character design.

The only real downside, I think, is that it's harder to justify extreme personalities given that the PC hasn't had the opportunity to have many extreme life experiences.

Lucky for me, "bookish nerd who grew up in a library" is often exactly who I want to play.

And I'm very interested in your feelings toward the Bhaalspawn point, because I think Baldur's Gate did a brilliant job of blending the blank-slate with the personal relevance thing. I think "having grown up in Candlekeep" is not an unreasonably restrictive restriction. It affords a great deal of freedom in defining *who* your character is, and since your parentage is unknown to you, you don't need to know the twist to roleplay. When your parentage begins to assert itself on your character, the game tells you and allows you to roleplay your character's reaction to the unfolding mystery accordingly. Once everything is out in the open, this single aspect of your character is pre-defined, but what it means to her and how it affects her is entirely up to you and how you roleplay your character. This allowed BGII to tell a story in which your heritage is relevant without sacrificing freedom of roleplaying, and it's why I consider BGII the greatest game I have ever played.

I find BG2 significantly more restrictive than BG.  It's one of several reasons I prefer the first game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

berelinde wrote...

The problem with letting the player make up his own backstory for his character is that it guarantees that the backstory will be completely irrelevent. With no fixed background at all, no one will ever reference the past. In Origins, people complained that no one cared if they were Dalish or a Casteless dwarf. Human nobles kept waiting for somebody to say something about Fergus (another reused name, by the way; see Fearghus in BG2!), but it never happened. Imagine how that would be compounded by having no fixed events in the past at all.

People complained about that because of the limited origin choices.  That, and that relevance of the origins had been something the developers had talked about.

No one complained that the events in NWN never referred to the PC's background.

You're misinterpreting the data.

[Dragoonlordz]

berelinde wrote...

The problem with letting the player make up his own backstory for his character is that it guarantees that the backstory will be completely irrelevent. With no fixed background at all, no one will ever reference the past. In Origins, people complained that no one cared if they were Dalish or a Casteless dwarf.

The problem still exist even with fixed protaganist (mage Hawke as example), it's not really an issue about narrative as much as effort willing to put into that narrative imho.

Given the alternatives, I like the Origins model. It gives the player a lot of flexibility while still allowing game NPCs to react to origin events.

I agree. If the effort is put in to the narrative and NPC/companion reactions I see no reason why origins and race couldn't be just as valid as any framed narrative of single race and background protaganist. Sure it might be harder, but just because something is hard doesn't mean it couldn't or shouldn't be done.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 août 2011 - 12:39 .

[element eater]

I like blank slate protagonists. The more scope there is to put our own character in the game the better. I did enjoy dao origin stories because they had some nice little touches which allowed you to supply certain character details that might otherwise be hard to do deliver such as dalish elves or dwarven social status. I would be happy to see either return but i certainly wont be happy if the trend of me da2 remains

Modifié par element eater, 23 août 2011 - 12:35 .

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I find BG2 significantly more restrictive than BG.  It's one of several reasons I prefer the first game.

In what ways? I think your actions are more restricted, because it's less "open-worldy" and the constructed narrative is a larger part of the game, but I don't think roleplaying is any more restricted.

[berelinde]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No one complained that the events in NWN never referred to the PC's background.

I did. I hated the fact that the "protagonist" of NWN was just some random recruit (hey, that's a backstory! What if you don't want to be a recruit?)

You probably should have phrased that as "I never complained, etc." You don't speak for everyone. Neither do I, but I'm not pretending to.

[Maconbar]

I think that the PC in DA:3 should have amnesia because that makes an awesome story.

[Elessara]

I rather agree with Cutlass Jack. If I want to play a blank slate character I'll go play Elder Scrolls. Although honestly that gets annoying to me. I feel really disconnected from the character and the world. Why is my character in prison? I'd really like to know. Does my character have family or a hometown because I'd kind of like to visit. Maybe I lack imagination in this area *shrug*. But I felt more connected to the DA world and felt my character fit into the story knowing where the character was from and why they were there.

[Xewaka]

While personally I support a blank slate player character (it allows more flexibility and creative freedom when coming up with a character, and it's accomodating to a wider amount of motivations and personality), due to the narrative style Bioware's been adopting since they moved to voiced characters, I doubt we'll see it, as player freedom to make a character clashes with the story they want to tell.
Then again, the gameplay and character mechanics usually require far more thought and flexibility to work with a blank slate than what Bioware's been offering lately.