87 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Teddie Sage wrote...

So I take it you also don't like Zelda games?

I have no experience with Zelda games.  I don't play on consoles.

[Sylvius the Mad]

csfteeeer wrote...

i think that's what he said, but what i do remember is that he out right said "Gameplay > Lore" (well, not like i did, but he said that gameplay beats lore).

And I think that's entirely the wrong way to do it.  Yes, they can't just let the lore make the game unplayably bad if that's what the lore would do, but they're allowed to tweak the lore, or invent some in-game contrivance that explains away the lore.

But the details of the gameplay need to be consistent with the lore.  Always.  If the rules of the game world don't match the characters' knowledge of the game world, how are they supposed to be able to make decisions?

[maxernst]

I don't actually mind having a set origin. As Sylvius commented earlier, your upbringing in BG is pretty specific, about as specific as Hawke's really, other than the ability to be different races which had very little impact on the game. As long as I have the ability to take that character and decide how I am going to react to those life circumstances, and have my choices affect the narrative, I can live with that. DA:O did that quite well, and I actually like the sort of emergent characters that I derived from playing through the different origins better than pure concept characters. While I enjoy creating characters for pen & paper RPG's as much as anyone, it's hard to do well when you're knowledge of the world is limited, and the DA:O origins were wonderful introductions to what it's like to grow up as a city elf, a mage, a dwarf noble, etc.

I do think that having the single-origin Hawke was always going to limit the replayability of the game for me compared to DA:O, but where DA2 was really problematic for me was that the restrictions on my character's decisions--and implicitly on his values and motivations--were far greater than could be justified simply by his upbringing or the circumstances he found himself in.  I found that my Hawke was forced to make far too many choices that I simply couldn't empathize with or understand.

Modifié par maxernst, 25 août 2011 - 03:36 .

[Vicious]

When has Bioware ever offered a blank slate?

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

i think that's what he said, but what i do remember is that he out right said "Gameplay > Lore" (well, not like i did, but he said that gameplay beats lore).

And I think that's entirely the wrong way to do it.  Yes, they can't just let the lore make the game unplayably bad if that's what the lore would do, but they're allowed to tweak the lore, or invent some in-game contrivance that explains away the lore.

But the details of the gameplay need to be consistent with the lore.  Always.  If the rules of the game world don't match the characters' knowledge of the game world, how are they supposed to be able to make decisions?

I heartily agree.  It's always best for a game to have as much internal consistency as possible  If you discover part-way through that you've created lore (like lyrium addiction and the extreme danger of contact with darkspawn blood) that you don't think you can carry in the gameplay, change the lore to make it work.  Maybe it just takes years of regular lyrium use to cause addiction, or the chances of being infected by darkspawn taint are actually fairly remote and people are overly frightened of them, so it's not a problem, but spell that out.

Modifié par maxernst, 25 août 2011 - 03:49 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vicious wrote...

When has Bioware ever offered a blank slate?

KotOR.

NWN.

[Jestina]

I thought they basically already said they don't want RPG fans. Well something to the effect of aiming at the casual market...here today gone tomorrow gamers. Most of the good stuff Bioware put out came pre-EA so I doubt we'll see a return to quality RPGs.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Given the choice, I'll go with a blank slate over another canned character like Hawke or even Shepherd. I find I'm better at creating a character I like and want to play ,than any game developer has so far, in terms of pre written, set characters. Other people's characters are seldom interesting to RP, at least in my opinion.

However, Origins was great. Despite having 6 set backgrounds, you were still given alot of room and leeway to create and develop a character that you could truly call your own, and I could immerse myself in.

[SirGladiator]

I enjoyed having the different origins, they were pretty cool. I'd really rather play as Morrigan's child in DA3, but if they don't go that route then having a bunch of origins again would be pretty cool, it sure was in DAO. The chance to start as a poor or rich character, different races, etc. it was all so cool and interesting, and really had a meaningful impact on the rest of the game, because it helped shape how you were roleplaying your characters. The opportunity to play as a Dwarf, Elf, or Human, and how that could subtly (or not so subtly) impact things later on in the game was just so awesome, it really made every single playthrough seem unique, however many playthroughs you had, and I had quite a few . It was a really great feature of the original, and Im sure if they go that way again in DA3 it'll be super fun then too.

[Mr.House]

The Warden was not really a blank slate character.

[eroeru]

I agree with the notion that DA:O character-choices were sufficiently varied to choose a fitting back-story to your protagonist. There always was sufficient role-play possible with every story there, whereas in DA2 there was none.

An idea: although some backstory is undeniably important in Bioware games, having one choice of origin as a more blank-sheet start besides the otherwise great back-storied ones would be a fantastic option imo.

[Zanallen]

Really? I created a backstory for my own Hawke. The only things that are set in stone are who your family is and that you were in Lothering for a time.

[Mr.House]

eroeru wrote...

I agree with the notion that DA:O character-choices were sufficiently varied to choose a fitting back-story to your protagonist. There always was sufficient role-play possible with every story there, whereas in DA2 there was none.

This is complete bogus. You are given a huge gap to fill in for your Hawkes childhood, just like you could with the Warden. Each Warden had a diffrent set origin, Hawke has one set orign ala fleeing Lothering.

Not to mention you have the year gaps to add more to Hawke.

[Mr.House]

Zanallen wrote...

Really? I created a backstory for my own Hawke. The only things that are set in stone are who your family is and that you were in Lothering for a time.

Yup and in Origins it was...

Human male or female was the youngest of the Cousland house, both there parents die andt here brother is missing
mage, pupil of Irving, helps Jowan escape in a sense
DC, mother is a drunk, you botch the provings, you kill Barat(sp)
DN, middle child of the familly, framed for the death of your eldest brother
DE: You and Tamlen get the taint, he disappears and Duncan saves you
CE, planed to get married, Vaughan screws that up, you have to leavet he city.

Each oirign is set just like Hawke with his familly and Lothering begining.

[Zjarcal]

Mr.House wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Really? I created a backstory for my own Hawke. The only things that are set in stone are who your family is and that you were in Lothering for a time.

Yup and in Origins it was...

Human male or female was the youngest of the Cousland house, both there parents die andt here brother is missing
mage, pupil of Irving, helps Jowan escape in a sense
DC, mother is a drunk, you botch the provings, you kill Barat(sp)
DN, middle child of the familly, framed for the death of your eldest brother
DE: You and Tamlen get the taint, he disappears and Duncan saves you
CE, planed to get married, Vaughan screws that up, you have to leavet he city.

Each oirign is set just like Hawke with his familly and Lothering begining.

Mr. Pony speaks the truth.

[highcastle]

Please no blank slates. That's what the Elder Scrolls is for. Blank slates work in pen and paper games because there are other flesh and blood humans who can react to what you imagine for your character. A computer can't react, so anything that happened in your past would have to remain off the table, so to speak. The problem is, as human beings, we're shaped in many ways by our past experiences. And to just walk around with none of that emotional baggage is not realistic or engaging or immersive in any way. Not to me, at least.

While there were gaps in Hawke's past, he also had a lot of family ties. His relationship with his father was front-and-center during Legacy, and that DLC would not have worked nearly as well without the emotion in Hawke's voice as he uncovers secrets to his past. A blank slate character would never be able to have relationships with their family. They wouldn't have roots, connections, or anything of substance. Sure, we might imagine these things. But if the game never acknowledges them, they don't really matter. I want my character's past to matter. If that means ceding over partial control to BioWare, then I'm fine with that. I want to be engaged on an emotional level as much as I want to RP my own character. I thought Hawke struck a nice balance between those two precipices. I could imagine his childhood and past as I wanted it, but he always had a family that mattered, and thus I cared about him quite a bit more than I would have otherwise.

[Sylvius the Mad]

highcastle wrote...

While there were gaps in Hawke's past, he also had a lot of family ties. His relationship with his father was front-and-center during Legacy, and that DLC would not have worked nearly as well without the emotion in Hawke's voice as he uncovers secrets to his past.

It was because of that emotional portrayal that I think Legacy didn't work.

I didn't know anything about Hawke's father before Legacy other than he was a mage and he was dead.  As such, I had no reason to expect any particular reaction from Hawke pursuant to Hawke's father.

And yet, there it was.  Those emotions risked breaking the player's design for his character.

A blank slate character would never be able to have relationships with their family.

Untrue.  A blank slate just wouldn't be able to be shown reacting emotionally to his family.  That's a far smaller limitation than the one you described.

They wouldn't have roots, connections, or anything of substance. Sure, we might imagine these things. But if the game never acknowledges them, they don't really matter.

Again, untrue.  They matter because they inform the choices you make on your PC's behalf.  If Hawke's choices in Legacy are driven by how he feels about his father, then those invented feelings have mattered.

I want my character's past to matter.

You can make it matter by having it be relevant to his choices.

If that means ceding over partial control to BioWare, then I'm fine with that. I want to be engaged on an emotional level as much as I want to RP my own character. I thought Hawke struck a nice balance between those two precipices. I could imagine his childhood and past as I wanted it, but he always had a family that mattered, and thus I cared about him quite a bit more than I would have otherwise.

I cared about his far less than I would have otherwise, because I never really knew him very well.  He was as much a mystery to me as any of the NPCs were.

[Darth Krytie]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

I think the solution to every complaint I've ever seen you post about can be summed up in two words: fan fiction.

You can write exactly every detail you could ever dream, create any background you want, pick any actions you'd like, any motivations, any feelings, anything at all  and not get hampered by the evil menace which is other people's hands in your world.

[eroeru]

Zanallen wrote...

Really? I created a backstory for my own Hawke. The only things that are set in stone are who your family is and that you were in Lothering for a time.

Ok, that's true... I guess that for me it's more of a problem how exactly Hawke was presented - the voice-over and forced cut-scenes, with less options on the table overall.

Yeah, I didn't like the game as a whole, so I might come off with some remarks that have that nay-sayer feel to it and might not aim to be perfectly sound.

But the main thing I'd like to say is that experimentation is good - but only if it is done having quality in mind over the sales-figures. As in having in mind the very powerful tradition of the D&D approach and the reasons why it is popular - at least in some game-titles - and more importantly, not rushing it.

So I'd like to see an option with a direction toward giving more room to one's imagination, and somewhat encouraging it. This may include some experimentation with a somewhat blanker-sheet-option, and I'd be enthralled.

[highcastle]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

highcastle wrote...

While there were gaps in Hawke's past, he also had a lot of family ties. His relationship with his father was front-and-center during Legacy, and that DLC would not have worked nearly as well without the emotion in Hawke's voice as he uncovers secrets to his past.

It was because of that emotional portrayal that I think Legacy didn't work.

I didn't know anything about Hawke's father before Legacy other than he was a mage and he was dead.  As such, I had no reason to expect any particular reaction from Hawke pursuant to Hawke's father.

And yet, there it was.  Those emotions risked breaking the player's design for his character.

A blank slate character would never be able to have relationships with their family.

Untrue.  A blank slate just wouldn't be able to be shown reacting emotionally to his family.  That's a far smaller limitation than the one you described.

They wouldn't have roots, connections, or anything of substance. Sure, we might imagine these things. But if the game never acknowledges them, they don't really matter.

Again, untrue.  They matter because they inform the choices you make on your PC's behalf.  If Hawke's choices in Legacy are driven by how he feels about his father, then those invented feelings have mattered.

I want my character's past to matter.

You can make it matter by having it be relevant to his choices.

If that means ceding over partial control to BioWare, then I'm fine with that. I want to be engaged on an emotional level as much as I want to RP my own character. I thought Hawke struck a nice balance between those two precipices. I could imagine his childhood and past as I wanted it, but he always had a family that mattered, and thus I cared about him quite a bit more than I would have otherwise.

I cared about his far less than I would have otherwise, because I never really knew him very well.  He was as much a mystery to me as any of the NPCs were.

How do emotions break your design for a character? The player still has agency in how those emotions are expressed and what precisely they are. In the post-Malcolm's Will conversation, there's a range of emotions Hawke can express. But the fact that he has them to begin with, that's a good thing. It makes him human. If he just stood there all stoic like the Warden during the Sacred Ashes quest, it would have been broken. It wouldn't have been believable. Haweke would have been reduced to an avatar instead of a character.

Reacting emotionally to a family is the whole reason you include familial relationships at all. Without emotion, those people might as well be strangers. Our relationships with people we love and are close to define us as who we are. For Hawke to just stand their blankly as everyone else emotes would mean he's emotionally dead inside or perhaps catatonic. I don't have any desire to play such a character.

That Hawke was a mystery to you is entirely your fault. DA2, for all the protest otherwise, is still an RPG. Much of Hawke's back story is left up to you to define. That you didn't is not a fault of the devs or a call for complete freedom so that you can play a self-insert. Think of it as a challenge: how would the character you want to play fit into the family we have in front of us? What would have happened to them to make them a certain way, give them a specific personality, drive them to blood magic or templar arts or whatever? Those are enough blank spots to RP specific motivations.

Emotions matter. In DAO, the Warden had many problems of a blank slate character because he could conceivably come from any one of 6 backgrounds. But the rest of the story played out the same way, which means though backgrounds didn't actually matter much to the surrounding world. It may have mattered to you, but if the game rejects your interpretation by never addressing it, then it doesn't matter to the game or the characters within it. That's an important distinction I think I failed to mention the first time around. How much do your interpretations and past matter if the game never acknowledges them?

[eroeru]

double-post...

wanted to edit my post, instead I quoted it :/

Modifié par eroeru, 26 août 2011 - 01:48 .

[eroeru]

@highcastle

Interesting that I agree with you almost entirely, except for the main point - it does NOT matter if the game does or does not acknowledge something, the main thing is that I have the emotions and considerations for the game and play. But for this to happen in a way that works, I must be given some carefully-crafted freedom of imagination to go on.

The (kinda-) blank slate character of DA:O wasn't broken, it had much more possibile interpretations, which made it more intricate and delightful imo.

edit note:
But I could easily agree that in a more movie-like story as in DA2 with all the family and relations as dramatical/cinematic as they were, the voice-overed and more pre-defined character was in its place. Though certainly in bad taste for me, it makes sense in-itself and out of context.
This is all semi-subjective of course (meaning that a lot of people seemed to feel likewise and that's more than ok, cause they seem to be in touch with bioware's roots and traditions to a more closer extent - sometimes over-eagerly and unto blind affection)...

Modifié par eroeru, 26 août 2011 - 02:08 .

[highcastle]

eroeru wrote...

@highcastle

Interesting that I agree with you almost entirely, except for the main point - it does NOT matter if the game does or does not acknowledge something, the main thing is that I have the emotions and considerations for the game and play. But for this to happen in a way that works, I must be given some carefully-crafted freedom of imagination to go on.

The (kinda-) blank slate character of DA:O wasn't broken, it had much more possibile interpretations, which made it more intricate and delightful imo.

edit note:
But I could easily agree that in a more movie-like story as in DA2 with all the family and relations as dramatical/cinematic as they were, the voice-over and more pre-defined character was in its place. Though certainly in bad taste for me (semi-)subjectively (meaning that a lot of people seemed to feel likewise and that's more than ok, cause they seem to be in touch with bioware's roots and traditions to a more closer extent - sometimes over-eagerly and unto blind affection)...

The problem I had with DAO was that the things I thought mattered were those the game never acknowledged, and thus I felt like I'd "chosen wrong" or "misunderstood the character." Let me give a specific example. In the human noble origin, Cousland loses his entire family. This seemed like a pretty big moment. We saw an innocent child dead on the floor and left our parents to die. Wow. That's the sort of thing to leave a big impression on a character. And yet, after Ostagar, it's never mentioned again. Oh, there are a few throwaway lines, but the impact of this event is largely ignored in preference for the Blight.

So if RPed a character who loved his family and wanted to go find Fergus and kill Howe before he reached Denerim, too bad. I couldn't even express these emotions in the game. Cousland stood around largely stoic and just went about his business as a Warden. The game invalidated the feelings I had by not allowing me to express them. I felt as though I'd missed the point. And maybe I had. The game was an epic. It was supposed to be about defeating an ancient evil. But the things I personal relate to are not necessarily the "save the world at any cost" moments, but the smaller ones.

When Hawke cradled his mother in DA2, I felt something. I understood his loss and what it meant to him. And the game then validated my feelings by allowing me to express them ot Gamlen, my LI, Aveline, the viscount, etc. In short, the game told me my feelings mattered, that Hawke's feelings mattered, and that the real point of the game was having this emotional experience. 

Now this is all a matter of preference. I'm not knocking anyone for liking epics or blank slates. I personally find the more personal stories to be more engaging. And for a story to be personal, you need emotional connections. They're what makes us human.