267 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Il Divo wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

However, these side stories are way more connected to the main plot. Korriban basically fleshes the Sith and their philosophy out, Manaan shows their manipulation, Kashykk shows their alliances....Tatooine is the weakest planet when it comes to story connection. Then the Sith atatck the player more in the midgame, sending assassins, a bounty hunter, an dMalak's apprentice. They also have the plot reveal afterthe third planet. It sfar better done than DAO.

Is Calo Nord really  your example for how the plot is "way more connected"? Should I throw out the fact that I get to kill darkspawn in the Deep Roads? Or the codex entries on brood mothers? Those demonstrate the bad guys attacking the player throughout the mid-game, but they still don't push the storyline forward. The purpose of any plotpoint is to allow the storyline to develop.

In that sense, Manaan and Kashykk are absolutely useless from a narrative perspective. We already know the Sith are evil; it doesn't add any critical information. As I said, remove any of those planets and you retain the exact same narrative. Point me to any plot-critical information contained in those sections. If I pulled them right out, you would still have the same events and the same understanding of those events, which consist of :

Taris-->Dantooine-->Leviathan-->Unknown Planet-->Starforge.

Killing Czerka officers doesn't strengthen that narrative any more than killing darkspawn. The point of those sections is (literally) to add gameplay length, without giving the player opportunity to change the main narrative. It's a very weak method of story-telling. You would have been better off citing Jade Empire or Mass Effect as your sources.

 

Forget about Darth Bandon, who Malak sends as a result of Calo Nord's death.

Do I need to remind you that the Sith were not only the antagonists, but the protagonist was part of them and can be again. Revans legacy is also part of the story, so fleshing out the Sith is fleshing out the protagonist as well.

Or the fact that the Deep Roads Darkspawn is seperate from the main horde and the golems story overpowers the Darkspawn story in the Deep Roads quest in DAO.

[KendallX23]

erm i am confused...this thread is in the DA II forums and yet it talks more about DAO and other games...am i missing something ?

[Melca36]

KendallX23 wrote...

erm i am confused...this thread is in the DA II forums and yet it talks more about DAO and other games...am i missing something ?

Its just the same prognostications from a guy who hates Origins, thinks DA:2 is the end all be all of games and has obviously read that the developers are planning to incorporate more of Origins elements in DA:3.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Yeah, this tread went to hell shortly after I read "Whine all you want about..."

Essentially when you start something out like that you are calling a certain group of people "whiners" and it's not going to end well.

[txgoldrush]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
A) They shown things you obviously missed. It was not how Ander's turns into an abomination, his development is about how he struggles with it and it can go two different ways depending on friendship or rivalry. However, he gets less comedic and far more moody as the game goes along. His relationship with all other companions deteriorates as well, even with Varric.

A) As I said talk show only. A liar always talk so much no matter if there is billion paths. His action througout his existence from Awakening to DA 2 prove how static his character is. The only difference is, he was not a terrorist in Awakening.

txgoldrush wrote...
Did you even play the game? Did you see Aveline insist that the Arishok hand over the suspects that killed a city guard? Did you see how the Arishok finally had it and attacked Aveline and Hawke? Isabela's actions brang the Qunari to Kirkwall, they did not set off the conflict with them and the city.

Are you nitpicking only certain events to suit your interpretration. Had you not listening to what Arishok said? He will not leave the city without the Artifact. Should he had the artifact earlier, there wouldn't be any reason for him to stay any longer since he obviously didn't like how the city was governed. Therefore, there wouldn't be any issue with elven prisoners, the culture etc.... So who's the major problem here? Isabela or Aveline? 

txgoldrush wrote...
C) What, have other characters play a role in the plot other than the protagonist. Quick, tell The Witcher developers that. Oh wait, Geralt isn't the center of everything either. Some RPG sin, that there is a huge event and the player didn't cause it.

C) That's right. So why bother to tell the story? Players expect to play their role. Not watch movie or play pokemon in interactive story environment. 

txgoldrush wrote...
D) And you really do no tknow what an observer protagonist is......observer does not mean irrelevant, a lot of times they are very relevant as they take in the lessons of the conflict and may act on it or develop themselves as a character. "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "The Great Gatsby" has these types of protagonists. And Hawke doesn't have to be passive either, he can participate an descalate conflicts in the game such as siding with Varnell and Patrice.

D) So do you have any role in "To kill a Mockingbird" and The Great Gatsby" ?
Nope. I don't see your name anywhere. Unless you can prove me you play "observer" role in any stories, be it novels or movies,  your argument remain moot.

And the peasant doesn't have to stand passively outside the chantry corner for 7 years either. He too can participate an descalate conflicts in the game such as siding with Varnell and Patrice. So your point? You still haven't answer my question why it has to Hawke to be the observer.

txgoldrush wrote...
You really do not know a thing about storytelling. Not every RPG protagonist HAS to influence the entire world with every decision. In Fat, many WRPG protagonists, especially the Fallout and Fable games, the hero is TOO powerful and unrealistically so.

E) No. It's you who don't really know anything about storytelling and role-playing. You view any stories as if they were like novels or movies. It's not. In novels or movies, you have no role. You are the passive audience. In role-playing you can't dish out player character into void. Your story suppose to provide meaningful role for your player to play your game. Otherwise there is no reason to play it. In novels you can played out observer protagonist since you are not taking part anyway. But in role-playing games? You heard people screaming choices that matter.... They are not just passive audience like you. They are not just third party story reviewer like you. They are the actors who will be experiencing the story. If you write a sad event then you better make sure your audience feel sad as well. Otherwise go polish your writing skill. If you want to write dramatic event, make sure you are good enough to carry out those decision. Otherwise stop cheating your audience into thinking they made meaningful decisions. 

I ask you earlier and I ask you again, perhaps for the last time. Do you know the differences between playing an active ROLE in video games and becoming a passive audience in novels or movies?

And before I end my post, I would like to remind you, BioWare will not likely going to use frame narrative and will consider player choices in future. So you can say goodbye to your passive Hawke already.
Why they do this? Go figure this out yourself.

A) So he has to deal with the merging of Justice and the warping of him into Venegence and he is static from Awakenings to DAII? Get real.

Isabela is responsible for bringing the Qunari to Kirkwall, however, she is NOT responsible for the attack on the city. Thats the difference. Is she responsible for Act II's events? Certainly, however, she is not SOLELY responsible, just like Hawke isn't SOLELY responsible for the Mage/Templar conflict. It actually also goes with the main theme I stated the game has.

C) Then what is Chrono Trigger than, one of the highest rated RPGs ever. The protagonist and mostly player character (most of the time he is always in the party) does not really have the story revolve around him.

Then why do games use this trope....(although Hawke is techinically not this)
http://tvtropes.org/...tingProtagonist

D) In both Witcher games (more so in the second), and in Deus Ex HR you play "observer" roles to the conflicts at hand for most of the game. Hawke is no different. Just like Adam Jensen and Geralt, Hawke does not dictate the action for most of the game, he just dictates the outcome (which is what kind of symbol he is to the mages).

E) Last time I checked, Bioware was bad at the "choices that matter" aspect, especially when compared to othe RPG companies like Obsidian and CD Projeckt. However, you are narrowily defining role playing. Many RPGs have you playing an established character in an established story, including many WRPGs. They are not all the same. Also the player DOES NOT have to be the most powerful person in the game, why does the player have to make EVERY decision, and have all companion development only on HIS choice? Why can't external forces affect the player as the player effects the environment? In far too many RPGs, external forces barely affect the character and when they do, its at the beginning. RPGs are allowed to have external forces and even party member characters shape player choices just as they allow the  player choices to affect the environment.

Observer protagonists can work well in RPGs when instead of a hero fighting a great evil, which always requires an active and dedicated protagonist, have a conflcit between tow factions that are both flawed. This way , the player can decide who to support instead of forcing a player to support a specific one (chosen by story not player) over the other. Geralt is the ultimate "observer protagonist", was so in the books and is in the games.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

txgoldrush wrote...
And passive characters can make key decisions, instead of world changing ones, they are more personal.

That's right. Therefore, the story better concentrate on personal level and not just 2/3 of it while the last part of it try to change the world. Legacy isn't much. But it certainly try to address that issue by relating player character bloodline to it's main quest.

I have seen many amazing personal dramas and movies that don't try to change the world. My favorite all time drama series was "The Falcon Crest." It explored power struggle, rivalry, conspiracy, betrayal etc...  among family members. The most dramatic movie which explored personal theme for me is like "The Last Mohicans" It tells the story of survival of the last native American Indian who get caught in the middle of French-British Colonial War. It touched me deeply because it is about how a common person had to do everything he could for survival while been helpless to save the person he loved. 

txgoldrush wrote...

Hell, Hawke was not the only mostly passive RPG protagonist this year.

But he certainly is the most controversial RPG protagonist this year. Not sure if this is intended by BioWare. If it does, then it's a lame way to keep people talking about Hawke in order to extend DA2's life expectancy.

 

[txgoldrush]

Melca36 wrote...

KendallX23 wrote...

erm i am confused...this thread is in the DA II forums and yet it talks more about DAO and other games...am i missing something ?

Its just the same prognostications from a guy who hates Origins, thinks DA:2 is the end all be all of games and has obviously read that the developers are planning to incorporate more of Origins elements in DA:3.

When did I say that DAII was the end all be all game? I didn't.

You are trying to say I said something I didn't say. In fact, I too think its flawed, and even called the combat not so great in another post. I also have said that it was rushed, hurting the quality.

And also, they are going to keep DAII elements as well, thats also what the designers have said.

[txgoldrush]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
And passive characters can make key decisions, instead of world changing ones, they are more personal.

A) That's right. Therefore, the story better concentrate on personal level and not just 2/3 of it while the last part of it try to change the world. Legacy isn't much. But it certainly try to address that issue by relating player character bloodline to it's main quest.

I have seen many amazing personal dramas and movies that don't try to change the world. My favorite all time drama series was "The Falcon Crest." It explored power struggle, rivalry, conspiracy, betrayal etc...  among family members. The most dramatic movie which explored personal theme for me is like "The Last Mohicans" It tells the story of survival of the last native American Indian who get caught in the middle of French-British Colonial War. It touched me deeply because it is about how a common person had to do everything he could for survival while been helpless to save the person he loved. 

txgoldrush wrote...

Hell, Hawke was not the only mostly passive RPG protagonist this year.

But he certainly is the most controversial RPG protagonist this year. Not sure if this is intended by BioWare. If it does, then it's a lame way to keep people talking about Hawke in order to extend DA2's life expectancy.

 

A) What if Bethany or Carver was part of the endgame? There is still a huge personal storyline to the finale if they are alive. In fact, Bethany can make Templar players think twice about siding with them in the finale.

And really, taking or not taking Bethany or Carver into the Deep Roads may be one of Bioware's most significant chocies and consquences they have ever done. Not only does it determine whether the sibling will live or die, but affects what type of character development they have if they survive...Circle Bethany has a much different relationship with Hawke and much different characterd evelopment than Warden Bethany. Most of all that choice shows you the consquences throughout the game. Bioware's choices in the past didn't do this. And it wa sone of the most personal choices....the city or environment doesn't change, just the person.

Contraversial because many fans wanted th eblank slate blank stare protagonist instea dof somebody different.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

txgoldrush wrote...
 A) So he has to deal with the merging of Justice and the warping of him into Venegence and he is static from Awakenings to DAII? Get real.

Who asked for it if not Anders himself? The Spirit of Avenge could not have exist if Ander didn't feed it with hatred. Hmm.. now this remind me of demon instead of just "spirit". 

txgoldrush wrote...


Isabela is responsible for bringing the Qunari to Kirkwall, however, she is NOT responsible for the attack on the city. Thats the difference. Is she responsible for Act II's events? Certainly, however, she is not SOLELY responsible, just like Hawke isn't SOLELY responsible for the Mage/Templar conflict. It actually also goes with the main theme I stated the game has.

You blame the person for doing her duty as the captain of the city guard and you completely ignore the one who cause the problem in the first place? How enlightening! Isabela is the one who bring the Qunari to the City and Isabela is only one who can make them leave. Deal with this.

txgoldrush wrote...


C) Then what is Chrono Trigger than, one of the highest rated RPGs ever. The protagonist and mostly player character (most of the time he is always in the party) does not really have the story revolve around him.

Chrono what? Sorry never heard of it for the highest rated RPGs ever.

txgoldrush wrote...


D) In both Witcher games (more so in the second), and in Deus Ex HR you play "observer" roles to the conflicts at hand for most of the game. Hawke is no different. Just like Adam Jensen and Geralt, Hawke does not dictate the action for most of the game, he just dictates the outcome (which is what kind of symbol he is to the mages).

That still doesn't explain why it must be Hawke to play the "observer role" while they are thousands other "oberservers" on that day.

txgoldrush wrote...



E) Last time I checked, Bioware was bad at the "choices that matter" aspect, especially when compared to othe RPG companies like Obsidian and CD Projeckt. However, you are narrowily defining role playing. Many RPGs have you playing an established character in an established story, including many WRPGs. They are not all the same.

So you are going to use bad examples to justifiy bad RPG? BioWare weakness with "Choices that matter" is the reason why I don't buy BioWare's Sonic Chronicles, Shattered Steel, Jade Empire and KOTOr. I only buy the ones that pack with toolset like NW and DAO since BioWare can't provide with "Choices that matter", I'll do it my myself with my own story. Until they stop providing toolset for DA 2. 

txgoldrush wrote...


Also the player DOES NOT have to be the most powerful person in the game,

I agree which is why leveling is essential in RPG and not in novels or movies. You don't start off being a powerful person in any RPG. You have to progress.

txgoldrush wrote...


why does the player have to make EVERY decision, and have all companion development only on HIS choice? Why can't external forces affect the player as the player effects the environment? In far too many RPGs, external forces barely affect the character and when they do, its at the beginning. RPGs are allowed to have external forces and even party member characters shape player choices just as they allow the  player choices to affect the environment.

Why? Because players don't play only to "observe", They play to shape their own story. It's about journeying their experiences. It's about developing the story. Their story. Not universal one story which everyone else played. If they look something just to "observe", they can just watch movie or read novel or play interactive games like Sherlock Holmes detective story. Why need to pay $60 just to "observe" something? Anyone can do that without even having to pay for anything. Why bother to tell such story if it doesn't relate to you anyway?

txgoldrush wrote...


Observer protagonists can work well in RPGs when instead of a hero fighting a great evil, which always requires an active and dedicated protagonist, have a conflcit between tow factions that are both flawed. This way , the player can decide who to support instead of forcing a player to support a specific one (chosen by story not player) over the other. Geralt is the ultimate "observer protagonist", was so in the books and is in the games.

I am yet to convinced how many RPG has ever pull this passive role successfully. I don't play TW 2 because I don;t play set protagonist. Set protagonist will never be my character. So in Geralt case, I don't give a sh*t if he's passive. And no. I don't play Deus:Ex either for fear it will feature the same set protagonist. So if you want to argue "observer" role because protagonist are set character like any protagonist in novels and movies, I have nothing against you. But for DA francise, it doesn't work that way. As far as I concern, it was never meant to feature set protagonist like Geralt.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 04 octobre 2011 - 04:54 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

txgoldrush wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
And passive characters can make key decisions, instead of world changing ones, they are more personal.

A) That's right. Therefore, the story better concentrate on personal level and not just 2/3 of it while the last part of it try to change the world. Legacy isn't much. But it certainly try to address that issue by relating player character bloodline to it's main quest.

I have seen many amazing personal dramas and movies that don't try to change the world. My favorite all time drama series was "The Falcon Crest." It explored power struggle, rivalry, conspiracy, betrayal etc...  among family members. The most dramatic movie which explored personal theme for me is like "The Last Mohicans" It tells the story of survival of the last native American Indian who get caught in the middle of French-British Colonial War. It touched me deeply because it is about how a common person had to do everything he could for survival while been helpless to save the person he loved. 

txgoldrush wrote...

Hell, Hawke was not the only mostly passive RPG protagonist this year.

But he certainly is the most controversial RPG protagonist this year. Not sure if this is intended by BioWare. If it does, then it's a lame way to keep people talking about Hawke in order to extend DA2's life expectancy.

 

A) What if Bethany or Carver was part of the endgame? There is still a huge personal storyline to the finale if they are alive. In fact, Bethany can make Templar players think twice about siding with them in the finale.

And really, taking or not taking Bethany or Carver into the Deep Roads may be one of Bioware's most significant chocies and consquences they have ever done. Not only does it determine whether the sibling will live or die, but affects what type of character development they have if they survive...Circle Bethany has a much different relationship with Hawke and much different characterd evelopment than Warden Bethany. Most of all that choice shows you the consquences throughout the game. Bioware's choices in the past didn't do this. And it wa sone of the most personal choices....the city or environment doesn't change, just the person.

Contraversial because many fans wanted th eblank slate blank stare protagonist instea dof somebody different.

A) What IF. For now there is no What IF. All this What if just pure assumption. 

If you can't make your own character then why claimed it to be yours? See Luke Skywalker in Star Wars? He was played by Mark Hamill. An excellent actor. Can you claimed Luke Skywalker as your character? 

Character Creation is essential for RPG except for JRPG who feature set character. Character Creation is where the player get to create their own character. The reason for this, You have to develop and care this character. I am not going to waste my time teaching someone new about RPG. Study aspect of Character Creation first. I'm sure a lot of references there and read GameMaster writings about story in RPG. Then we'll talk. Until then, it's pointless to argue with someone who is not familar with RPG setting ( Not JRPG ).

[Melca36]

txgoldrush wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

KendallX23 wrote...

erm i am confused...this thread is in the DA II forums and yet it talks more about DAO and other games...am i missing something ?

Its just the same prognostications from a guy who hates Origins, thinks DA:2 is the end all be all of games and has obviously read that the developers are planning to incorporate more of Origins elements in DA:3.

When did I say that DAII was the end all be all game? I didn't.

You are trying to say I said something I didn't say. In fact, I too think its flawed, and even called the combat not so great in another post. I also have said that it was rushed, hurting the quality.

And also, they are going to keep DAII elements as well, thats also what the designers have said.

Yes but they are going to keep the aspects of DA:2 that worked but incorporate more from Origins to bring back some of the fans they lost. 

I didnt hate DA:2 and it was a fun game for what it offered but when I see you put down Origins constantly to get your point across, it really ticks me off. 

[txgoldrush]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
 A) So he has to deal with the merging of Justice and the warping of him into Venegence and he is static from Awakenings to DAII? Get real.

A) Who asked for it if not Anders himself? The Spirit of Avenge could not have exist if Ander didn't feed it with hatred. Hmm.. now this remind me of demon instead of just "spirit". 

txgoldrush wrote...


Isabela is responsible for bringing the Qunari to Kirkwall, however, she is NOT responsible for the attack on the city. Thats the difference. Is she responsible for Act II's events? Certainly, however, she is not SOLELY responsible, just like Hawke isn't SOLELY responsible for the Mage/Templar conflict. It actually also goes with the main theme I stated the game has.

You blame the person for doing her duty as the captain of the city guard and you completely ignore the one who cause the problem in the first place? How enlightening! Isabela is the one who bring the Qunari to the City and Isabela is only one who can make them leave. Deal with this.

txgoldrush wrote...


C) Then what is Chrono Trigger than, one of the highest rated RPGs ever. The protagonist and mostly player character (most of the time he is always in the party) does not really have the story revolve around him.

C) Chrono what? Sorry never heard of it for the highest rated RPGs ever.

txgoldrush wrote...


D) In both Witcher games (more so in the second), and in Deus Ex HR you play "observer" roles to the conflicts at hand for most of the game. Hawke is no different. Just like Adam Jensen and Geralt, Hawke does not dictate the action for most of the game, he just dictates the outcome (which is what kind of symbol he is to the mages).

D) That still doesn't explain why it must be Hawke to play the "observer role" while they are thousands other "oberservers" on that day.

txgoldrush wrote...



E) Last time I checked, Bioware was bad at the "choices that matter" aspect, especially when compared to othe RPG companies like Obsidian and CD Projeckt. However, you are narrowily defining role playing. Many RPGs have you playing an established character in an established story, including many WRPGs. They are not all the same.

E) So you are going to use bad examples to justifiy bad RPG? BioWare weakness with "Choices that matter" is the reason why I don't buy BioWare's Sonic Chronicles, Shattered Steel, Jade Empire and KOTOr. I only buy the ones that pack with toolset like NW and DAO since BioWare can't provide with "Choices that matter", I'll do it my myself with my own story. Until they stop providing toolset for DA 2. 

txgoldrush wrote...


Also the player DOES NOT have to be the most powerful person in the game,

F) I agree which is why leveling is essential in RPG and not in novels or movies. You don't start off being a powerful person in any RPG. You have to progress.

txgoldrush wrote...


why does the player have to make EVERY decision, and have all companion development only on HIS choice? Why can't external forces affect the player as the player effects the environment? In far too many RPGs, external forces barely affect the character and when they do, its at the beginning. RPGs are allowed to have external forces and even party member characters shape player choices just as they allow the  player choices to affect the environment.

G) Why? Because players don't play only to "observe", They play to shape their own story. It's about journeying their experiences. It's about developing the story. Their story. Not universal one story which everyone else played. If they look something just to "observe", they can just watch movie or read novel or play interactive games like Sherlock Holmes detective story. Why need to pay $60 just to "observe" something? Anyone can do that without even having to pay for anything. Why bother to tell such story if it doesn't relate to you anyway?

txgoldrush wrote...


Observer protagonists can work well in RPGs when instead of a hero fighting a great evil, which always requires an active and dedicated protagonist, have a conflcit between tow factions that are both flawed. This way , the player can decide who to support instead of forcing a player to support a specific one (chosen by story not player) over the other. Geralt is the ultimate "observer protagonist", was so in the books and is in the games.

H) I am yet to convinced how many RPG has ever pull this passive role successfully. I don't play TW 2 because I don;t play set protagonist. Set protagonist well never be my character. So in Geralt case, I don't give a sh*t if he's passive. And no. I don't play Deus:Ex either for fear it will feature the same set protagonist. So if you want to argue "observer" role because protagonist are set character like any protagonist in novels and movies, I have nothing against you. But for DA francise, it doesn't work that way. As far as I concern, it was never meant to feature set protagonist like Geralt.

A) And since he did fill it with hatred, he has to face the consquences. He is no longer the free spirited mage from Awakenings, he is now the deeply burdened character in DAII. He now has to deal with the spirit within him.

No, I blame the enitre city, including Isabela, and even the Arishok himself. Its not just Aveline's, or Patrice's, or Isabela's fault. It was a failure from society as a whole.

C) http://en.wikipedia..../Chrono_Trigger

D) Do you really want to be forced to play a Templar or a pro-mage character? As an observer, the player has the option to be neutral, which he can for most of the game.

E) And DAO really doesn't either, all the consquences come with ending cards as well as who you can call as mobs in the end. People act like if their choices truly mattered.

F) And you don't have to be godly and ultra powerful in the end as well, gameplay wise or story wise.

G) They don't have to shape everything either.

H) And your narrow view on RPGs has been confirmed.

[txgoldrush]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
And passive characters can make key decisions, instead of world changing ones, they are more personal.

A) That's right. Therefore, the story better concentrate on personal level and not just 2/3 of it while the last part of it try to change the world. Legacy isn't much. But it certainly try to address that issue by relating player character bloodline to it's main quest.

I have seen many amazing personal dramas and movies that don't try to change the world. My favorite all time drama series was "The Falcon Crest." It explored power struggle, rivalry, conspiracy, betrayal etc...  among family members. The most dramatic movie which explored personal theme for me is like "The Last Mohicans" It tells the story of survival of the last native American Indian who get caught in the middle of French-British Colonial War. It touched me deeply because it is about how a common person had to do everything he could for survival while been helpless to save the person he loved. 

txgoldrush wrote...

Hell, Hawke was not the only mostly passive RPG protagonist this year.

But he certainly is the most controversial RPG protagonist this year. Not sure if this is intended by BioWare. If it does, then it's a lame way to keep people talking about Hawke in order to extend DA2's life expectancy.

 

A) What if Bethany or Carver was part of the endgame? There is still a huge personal storyline to the finale if they are alive. In fact, Bethany can make Templar players think twice about siding with them in the finale.

And really, taking or not taking Bethany or Carver into the Deep Roads may be one of Bioware's most significant chocies and consquences they have ever done. Not only does it determine whether the sibling will live or die, but affects what type of character development they have if they survive...Circle Bethany has a much different relationship with Hawke and much different characterd evelopment than Warden Bethany. Most of all that choice shows you the consquences throughout the game. Bioware's choices in the past didn't do this. And it wa sone of the most personal choices....the city or environment doesn't change, just the person.

Contraversial because many fans wanted th eblank slate blank stare protagonist instea dof somebody different.

A) What IF. For now there is no What IF. All this What if just pure assumption. 

If you can't make your own character then why claimed it to be yours? See Luke Skywalker in Star Wars? He was played by Mark Hamill. An excellent actor. Can you claimed Luke Skywalker as your character? 

Character Creation is essential for RPG except for JRPG who feature set character. Character Creation is where the player get to create their own character. The reason for this, You have to develop and care this character. I am not going to waste my time teaching someone new about RPG. Study aspect of Character Creation first. I'm sure a lot of references there and read GameMaster writings about story in RPG. Then we'll talk. Until then, it's pointless to argue with someone who is not familar with RPG setting ( Not JRPG ).

Then why is this game beloved then...you cannot fully create a character in this game, you will always have to play the Nameless One.

However, this game is viewed as one of th egreatest RPGs ever made and one ever written. Why? Because OF THE SET PROTAGONIST, with his set backstory.

[TheRealJayDee]

txgoldrush wrote...

[A) What if Bethany or Carver was part of the endgame? There is still a huge personal storyline to the finale if they are alive. In fact, Bethany can make Templar players think twice about siding with them in the finale.

And really, taking or not taking Bethany or Carver into the Deep Roads may be one of Bioware's most significant chocies and consquences they have ever done. Not only does it determine whether the sibling will live or die, but affects what type of character development they have if they survive...Circle Bethany has a much different relationship with Hawke and much different characterd evelopment than Warden Bethany. Most of all that choice shows you the consquences throughout the game. Bioware's choices in the past didn't do this. And it wa sone of the most personal choices....the city or environment doesn't change, just the person.

Contraversial because many fans wanted th eblank slate blank stare protagonist instea dof somebody different.

Actually I found the Deep Roads decision and it's consequences to be very weak, like pretty much everything that had to do with the siblings and the family in general (the exception being Gamlen, he's awesome and interesting). I decided to take Bethany with me on my first playthrough (which was the only logical choice for both of my Hawkes, although I metagamingly decided to leave her the second time), and hoped the whole "are you really sure you wanna take her? bad things might happen to her" foreshadowing wouldn't neccessarily mean she would die. After finishing the Deep Roads I was actually positively surprised nothing happened, until the game suddenly went "oh, and also your sister got tainted off screen, aaaaaaand.... she's dead now". The death of my character's sister should have been something moving and dramatic, but the way it happenend I was just "oh, okay... whatever...".

[Sacred_Fantasy]

txgoldrush wrote...

A) And since he did fill it with hatred, he has to face the consquences. He is no longer the free spirited mage from Awakenings, he is now the deeply burdened character in DAII. He now has to deal with the spirit within him.

Which he welcome it which mean no character development since nothing is changed or he regretted it which also mean no character development since it out of his control.

txgoldrush wrote...


No, I blame the enitre city, including Isabela, and even the Arishok himself. Its not just Aveline's, or Patrice's, or Isabela's fault. It was a failure from society as a whole.

And I was talking about your interpretation about "Show, don't tell" which tell you Isabella incident's even if you never recruit Isabella.

 

txgoldrush wrote...
 
D) Do you really want to be forced to play a Templar or a pro-mage character? As an observer, the player has the option to be neutral, which he can for most of the game.

No. I certainly would mind playing any role as long as I don't do fedex quest or just sit there and do nothing about it. If it's doesn't concern me why should I be bothered about it. There is absolute zero reason to stay in Kirkwall after everyone in the family is gone. Let alone to fix the world event which is already been strongly hinted at Origins and one should well aware already it's beyond their power.

txgoldrush wrote...



E) And DAO really doesn't either, all the consquences come with ending cards as well as who you can call as mobs in the end. People act like if their choices truly mattered.

Because not all People have their wardens died sacrificing themselves to end the blight. Not all people become the king of Ferelden in endgames. Not all people travel with Leliana to search for Sacred Ashes after the Blight. Not all people going to see Bhelen change the Dawrven society etc... That's the beauty of it. Something that DA 2 is lacking because you know what, your Hawke is "gone" into oblivion of unknown dimensions leaving you pondering wheter he/she was actually your character..

txgoldrush wrote...



F) And you don't have to be godly and ultra powerful in the end as well, gameplay wise or story wise.

No one said you have to be godly and ultra powerful. Everyone said you need to leveling in order to progress. If you happen to become godly or powerful, then it's called accomplishment. Which is also essential to RPG. Something which is DA 2 is also lacking since you are doing nothing but "re-living" something that already happen in the past and do nothing.

txgoldrush wrote...



G) They don't have to shape everything either.

I never said everything. I said meaningful role beside the role of "errant boy" and "observer."

txgoldrush wrote...



H) And your narrow view on RPGs has been confirmed.

And your refusal to acknowlegde Character Creation concept which is essentiial to RPG has been confirmed. So, Why are you playing a ROLE playing games when you dont want to play any role in the story? 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

txgoldrush wrote...



Then why is this game beloved then...you cannot fully create a character in this game, you will always have to play the Nameless One.

However, this game is viewed as one of th egreatest RPGs ever made and one ever written. Why? Because OF THE SET PROTAGONIST, with his set backstory.

That's why I don't buy it too. Sorry. Did I said I only buy those RPG that pack with toolset like NW, Origins, Fallout, TES, Paradox's Europa Universalis and flexible Character creation like The Sims? You must have miss that one. I only hear Baldur Gate is the greatest RPGS ever made. So sorry. I never heard such things either from PT.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 04 octobre 2011 - 05:33 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I'd be very careful in trying to take TNO as an example of a set protagonist in the sense of Hawke, Shepard, Geralt, etc.

While TNO is a set protagonist in terms of role in the story, the TNO the character makes is the definition of a blank slate. The game actively pushes as one of it's themes the idea that no two TNO are exactly the same (previous incarnations) giving the player the opportunity to completely customise their TNO outside of physical appearance.

Whereas Jensen, Geralt, Shepard, Hawke, etc all have a set personality and character, PS:T hammers in the idea of TNO being a character of your creation.

If you somehow claim that they are compatible simply because it's a set character, you're being disingenuous (spelt it wrong last time lol).

TNO is a blank slate character in all but appearance with a backstory and narrative written around him that explains why he is a blank slate. It's actually the same to what BioWare does with Revan, except it's done a lot more poorly in KotOR.

Also, an aside. You know the most acclaimed story based wRPG that really tried to integrate story and gameplay as a cohesive unit to "show, not tell"?

*taps nose*

Modifié par mrcrusty, 04 octobre 2011 - 05:51 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Oh. My bad. BSN needs a spoiler function, among a dozen other things. PS:T's been out for like 11-12 years though.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 04 octobre 2011 - 06:28 .

[Morroian]

mrcrusty wrote...

Whereas Jensen, Geralt, Shepard, Hawke, etc all have a set personality and character, PS:T hammers in the idea of TNO being a character of your creation.

Hawke doesn't have a set personality at least not like Jensen or Geralt. He has a set background and to a very broad extent his fate is set but thats all. His personality is able to be customised within the limits of the game mechanics and the players imagination.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Hawke is always confident, a leader. (S)he can neither be incredibly smart nor incredibly stupid. (S)he cannot express a weak mentality. (S)he always sounds well read, even aggressive ones have a level of refinement. Whether Hawke is sarcastic, angry or nice while projecting that persona is irrelevant.

While it's not to the same level as Geralt or Jensen, it's an unescapable side effect of having voiced protagonists.

[Yuqi]

Morroian wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Whereas Jensen, Geralt, Shepard, Hawke, etc all have a set personality and character, PS:T hammers in the idea of TNO being a character of your creation.

Hawke doesn't have a set personality at least not like Jensen or Geralt. He has a set background and to a very broad extent his fate is set but thats all. His personality is able to be customised within the limits of the game mechanics and the players imagination.

^this *There are also a lot of subtle changes in dialouge if you do a half sarcastic/ half agressive hawke.

Modifié par Yuqi, 04 octobre 2011 - 06:41 .

[Morroian]

mrcrusty wrote...

Hawke is always confident, a leader. (S)he can neither be incredibly smart nor incredibly stupid. (S)he cannot express a weak mentality. (S)he always sounds well read, even aggressive ones have a level of refinement. Whether Hawke is sarcastic, angry or nice while projecting that persona is irrelevant.

While it's not to the same level as Geralt or Jensen, it's an unescapable side effect of having voiced protagonists.

OK but its still a long way from having a set personality, there's a still a wide range available IMHO. I've got 5 Hawke's, all quite different, whereas no matter how I play Jensen he always comes out the same to me.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Yuqi wrote...

^this *There are also a lot of subtle changes in dialouge if you do a half sarcastic/ half agressive hawke.

Maybe, but then that's just metagaming.

Morroian wrote...

OK but its still a long way from having a set personality, there's a still a wide range available IMHO. I've got 5 Hawke's, all quite different, whereas no matter how I play Jensen he always comes out the same to me.

Set personality may have been much, at least in the sense of having a single set personality, but there is an overarching baseline for all Hawkes. It's a limitation of voice and paraphrasing when used in combination.

It can allow for potentially deeper and more explicit characterisation and personality, but then it limits all characterisation and personality to specific, developer ones as opposed to a player driven one. Which is not something that I'm a huge fan of in an RPG. I mean, if it's done well then that's fine, but it's really not going to add much for me, personally.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 04 octobre 2011 - 07:31 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

txgoldrush wrote...
Do I need to remind you that the Sith were not only the antagonists, but the protagonist was part of them and can be again. Revans legacy is also part of the story, so fleshing out the Sith is fleshing out the protagonist as well.

No, not really.
You don't really find anything relevant about Revan.

Or the fact that the Deep Roads Darkspawn is seperate from the main horde and the golems story overpowers the Darkspawn story in the Deep Roads quest in DAO.

Darkspawn are darkspawn. They are not "separate"