182 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

jlb524 wrote...

 That makes every BW PC a servant.

Yes. It is a difference though whether you serve a cause or just people because the game gives you no choice. In DA:O I understand your duty as a Warden. They tried to kind of do that with the 'Champion' which is supposed to mean that the Champion has no way to chicken out of the last battle mages vs templars. But tbh it doesn't work well. If you want a blank sheet character, a protagonist who finds his or her own reasons to do things, as for example pick sides, then you can't suddenly force the player to make a decision they don't want to make. At least not just out of the blue. I mean if you are in a tunnel and you only have the choice to go on or go back it is one thing. But if you are standing on an open field and the game tells you, you can only go north or south then logically people will start to wonder why they can't go east or west.
 
Either Bioware have to drop the idea of a blank sheet character that does not fulfill a higher duty, or they have to give more choices and explainations why something is necessary or not possible. In DA2 you get a dialogue choice to pick one of two options and that's all the explaination you get. You have to accept that your choice is limited because the devs only give you two, not because the situation only gives you two. That's the difference and that's why you feel like a servant. Because it feels like you are following orders without getting an explaination. It is the same when you tell a kid to do this and that without explaining why. It will likely rebel because it does not understand the why. And this is important.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 29 novembre 2011 - 05:42 .

[jlb524]

AlexXIV wrote...
Yes. It is a difference though whether you serve a cause or just people because the game gives you no choice. In DA:O I understand your duty as a Warden. They tried to kind of do that with the 'Champion' which is supposed to mean that the Champion has no way to chicken out of the last battle mages vs templars. But tbh it doesn't work well. If you want a blank sheet character, a protagonist who finds his or her own reasons to do things, as for example pick sides, then you can't suddenly force the player to make a decision they don't want to make. At least not just out of the blue. I mean if you are in a tunnel and you only have the choice to go on or go back it is one thing. But if you are standing on an open field and the game tells you, you can only go north or south then logically people will start to wonder why they can't go east or west.
 
Either Bioware have to drop the idea of a blank sheet character that does not fulfill a higher duty, or they have to give more choices and explainations why something is necessary or not possible. In DA2 you get a dialogue choice to pick one of two options and that's all the explaination you get. You have to accept that your choice is limited because the devs only give you two, not because the situation only gives you two. That's the difference and that's why you feel like a servant. Because it feels like you are following orders without getting an explaination. It is the same when you tell a kid to do this and that without explaining why. It will likely rebel because it does not understand the why. And this is important.

But I prefer this...it seems to allow for more roleplaying.  Why does my rogue Hawke care enough to defend the Circle mages?  I have to come up with a reason (and I've came up with different ones across multiple playthroughs).

With these 'Warden' type characters, your motive for doing anything is easy...it's 'my duty'.  I find that boring and it seems to limit roleplaying.

It's not perfect in DA2 and can be improved upon, but I think it's better than the 'duty bound' PC.

[Sylvianus]

The result doesn't need to be perfect, just worked, with improvements. Origins in DAO ​​were anything but perfect, but very positively received.

There were critics, but as with any system, it takes a few critics.

When it disappeared, very negative reaction from people. And the desire to see origins back, is stronger than ever for the next game, system flawed or not in DAO. The result is also there, when the public strongly supports something, flawled or not in the past.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 29 novembre 2011 - 06:09 .

[jlb524]

Sylvianus wrote...
When it disappeared, very negative reaction from people. And the desire to see origins back, is stronger than ever for the next game, system flawed or not in DAO. The result is also there, when the public strongly supports something, flawled or not in the past.

You mean just the people that post on BSN.

The origins are fine...I don't like that they merge into one generic-feeling character after an hour.  This is why most of my attempted DA:O playthroughs die around Ostagar/Lothering.  IMO, to do this 'right' they'd have to keep the distinctness of the origins throughout the story..which means making multiple PC story paths from the beginning that don't converge into one character.  That takes a lot of work and lots of $$ which is why they've never done anything like that.

Ironically, the origins stories were easily my favorite part of DA:O...I liked those characters.

It was that Warden character I couldn't stand...bored me to tears.

Modifié par jlb524, 29 novembre 2011 - 06:11 .

[Aaleel]

jlb524 wrote...

With these 'Warden' type characters, your motive for doing anything is easy...it's 'my duty'.  I find that boring and it seems to limit roleplaying.

Why did you Warden pick werewolves over elves or vice versa.  Or why did your warden decide to try and find a cure?

Why did your Warden chose that the circle was beyond redemption and wipe out the mages, or decide they could be redeemed and save them?

Why did your Warden decide that old school dwarven ways were better and pick one king over the one who was more progressive.

Why did your Warden decide to use blood magic to enter the fade as opposed to fighting the demon.

There were plenty of things you did that were more than just your duty.

Hawke had one goal in the first act, raise money to fund a expedition.  Then in Act 2 he was doing favors the bidding or whatever you want to call it for the Viscount or the Arishok.  Then Meredith and/or Orsino in th elast act.

And Hawke also had some other things to make choices on.  I really don't see the difference.

Modifié par Aaleel, 29 novembre 2011 - 06:16 .

[AlexXIV]

jlb524 wrote...

But I prefer this...it seems to allow for more roleplaying.  Why does my rogue Hawke care enough to defend the Circle mages?  I have to come up with a reason (and I've came up with different ones across multiple playthroughs).

With these 'Warden' type characters, your motive for doing anything is easy...it's 'my duty'.  I find that boring and it seems to limit roleplaying.

It's not perfect in DA2 and can be improved upon, but I think it's better than the 'duty bound' PC.

That's a subjective point of view. Yes it can allow more roleplaying if the choices suit your character. In my and obviously other people's case it wasn't so. Half of the choices I had to make were nowhere near choices I found suited for my character. If I had been ardent chantry supporter or mage supporter, maybe. But if you are a free spirit who makes choices based on other things you get forced. Probably íf you pick a role as mage or chantry type it's ok. But I am sometimes closer to the qunari than Kirkwall. And sometimes I don't like neither the mages side nor the templars. And sometimes I just want to tell Sister Petrice to f... off and do her dirty work on her own. Things I cannot do for no apparent reason. Other than 'the plot demands it'. That's not freedom to me. If Petrice told me I have to do it for some piece of information that I need for my 'higher duty' (be it as jedi, warden, spirit monk or whatever) then I understand the necessity. But just doing it because I was told so, not good enough.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 29 novembre 2011 - 06:24 .

[jlb524]

Aaleel wrote...

Why did you Warden pick werewolves over elves or vice versa.  Or why did your warden decide to try and find a cure?

Why did your Warden chose that the circle was beyond redemption and wipe out the mages, or decide they could be redeemed and save them?

Why did your Warden decide that old school dwarven ways were better and pick one king over the one who was more progressive.

Why did your Warden decide to use blood magic to enter the fade as opposed to fighting the demon.

There were plenty of things you did that were more than just your duty.

Why was the Warden in those situations to begin with?

Because...stopping the Blight was her duty.

[Sylvianus]

jlb524 wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
When it disappeared, very negative reaction from people. And the desire to see origins back, is stronger than ever for the next game, system flawed or not in DAO. The result is also there, when the public strongly supports something, flawled or not in the past.

You mean just the people that post on BSN.

The origins are fine...I don't like that they merge into one generic-feeling character after an hour.  This is why most of my attempted DA:O playthroughs die around Ostagar/Lothering.  IMO, to do this 'right' they'd have to keep the distinctness of the origins throughout the story..which means making multiple PC story paths from the beginning that don't converge into one character.  That takes a lot of work and lots of $$ which is why they've never done anything like that.

Ironically, the origins stories were easily my favorite part of DA:O...I liked those characters.

It was that Warden character I couldn't stand...bored me to tears.

Well, I do agree with your feelings.

But for me, already the simple feeling of playing/ roleplaying something different, is a delight. The rest, that's my imagination. Now, yes, I want, more substance and difference in the story, more lines, without expecting a revolution either. An evolution of this system is enough.

People know very well that this area is not easy/ or expensive. That is why, even if not perfect, but still with improvements compared to DAo, it will be better than again only a human. I am well aware that even with origins, we need to be railroaded for all the races for the main plot at a moment.

Now, personally I don't believe that it is too much for Bioware, since no one said ( only the players ) we " won't go on this road, it's impossible, too expensive that we can't  work on it. "

Modifié par Sylvianus, 29 novembre 2011 - 06:35 .

[Aaleel]

jlb524 wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Why did you Warden pick werewolves over elves or vice versa.  Or why did your warden decide to try and find a cure?

Why did your Warden chose that the circle was beyond redemption and wipe out the mages, or decide they could be redeemed and save them?

Why did your Warden decide that old school dwarven ways were better and pick one king over the one who was more progressive.

Why did your Warden decide to use blood magic to enter the fade as opposed to fighting the demon.

There were plenty of things you did that were more than just your duty.

Why was the Warden in those situations to begin with?

Because...stopping the Blight was her duty.

Just like raising 50 gold to fund an expedition.  Just like helping
the Viscount, or dealing with the Qunari, just like helping Meredith or
Orsino.  Like I said, I don't see a difference.  The Warden just served
on overarching duty, whereas those Hawke was subject to changed

Modifié par Aaleel, 29 novembre 2011 - 06:38 .

[jlb524]

AlexXIV wrote...
That's a subjective point of view.

Of course it is...in fact, this thread is full of them.

AlexXIV wrote...
Yes it can allow more roleplaying if the choices suit your character. In my and obviously other people's case it wasn't so. Half of the choices I had to make were nowhere near choices I found suited for my character. If I had been ardent chantry supporter or mage supporter, maybe. But if you are a free spirit who makes choices based on other things you get forced. Probably íf you pick a role as mage or chantry type it's ok. But I am sometimes closer to the qunari than Kirkwall. And sometimes I don't like neither the mages side nor the templars. And sometimes I just want to tell Sister Petrice to f... off and do her dirty work on her own. Things I cannot do for no apparent reason. Other than 'the plot demands it'. That's not freedom to me. If Petrice told me I have to do it for some piece of information that I need for my 'higher duty' (be it as jedi, warden, spirit monk or whatever) then I understand the necessity. But just doing it because I was told so, not good enough.

How can they incorporate all possible responses that a player might want to do in a given situation?

They always give you a set of responses that they come up with and you have to pick one.  The 'higher duty' thing seems to cover motivation easily but even with these 'duty' characters there's never an option to say 'screw duty' and do something completely different (like, flee Ferelden instead of dealing with the Blight) which might fit my character.

[esper]

Aaleel wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

With these 'Warden' type characters, your motive for doing anything is easy...it's 'my duty'.  I find that boring and it seems to limit roleplaying.

Why did you Warden pick werewolves over elves or vice versa.  Or why did your warden decide to try and find a cure?

Why did your Warden chose that the circle was beyond redemption and wipe out the mages, or decide they could be redeemed and save them?

Why did your Warden decide that old school dwarven ways were better and pick one king over the one who was more progressive.

Why did your Warden decide to use blood magic to enter the fade as opposed to fighting the demon.

There were plenty of things you did that were more than just your duty.

Hawke had one goal in the first act, raise money to fund a expedition.  Then in Act 2 he was doing favors the bidding or whatever you want to call it for the Viscount or the Arishok.  Then Meredith and/or Orsino in th elast act.

And Hawke also had some other things to make choices on.  I really don't see the difference.

Because she had to stop a blight and didn't have time to wait for every little faction to discover that perhaps their petty squabbles could wait untill the horde of mindless monster were death.

[jlb524]

Sylvianus wrote...
But for me, already the simple feeling of playing/ roleplaying something different, is a delight. The rest, that's my imagination. Now, yes, I want, more substance and difference in the story, more lines, without expecting a revolution either. An evolution of this system is enough.

What I'm hoping for is one 'origin' with multiple race choice.  Kind of like what they did in Baldur's Gate (if you've ever played that).  Everyone was an orphan from Candlekeep so that backstory could be incorporated into the story but you could choose your race (human, elf, dwarf, etc.) which added some variety.

What I wanted (in theory) with the origins stories was to continue them the entire game.  If I start the Dalish Elf origin, I wanted to continue playing as a Dalish Elf.  The origin story could have continued...perhaps Mahariel wouldn't have become tainted and the Keeper would have sent her/him away to research and find more information on the mirrors.  They'd have to do this with every origin, creating 6 separate stories (that need cinematics and voice acting)...it adds up to be a lot of work and cash.

Aaleel wrote...
Just like raising 50 gold to fund an expedition.  Just like helping
the Viscount, or dealing with the Qunari, just like helping Meredith or
Orsino.  Like I said, I don't see a difference.  The Warden just served
on overarching duty, whereas those Hawke was subject to changed

Ah..that's kind of the point.

The Warden always had one overarching reason to do everything (duty).  Hawke's wasn't a duty thing so you had to come up with motivations yourself...sometimes on the fly.

Modifié par jlb524, 29 novembre 2011 - 06:45 .

[esper]

jlb524 wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
But for me, already the simple feeling of playing/ roleplaying something different, is a delight. The rest, that's my imagination. Now, yes, I want, more substance and difference in the story, more lines, without expecting a revolution either. An evolution of this system is enough.

What I'm hoping for is one 'origin' with multiple race choice.  Kind of like what they did in Baldur's Gate (if you've ever played that).  Everyone was an orphan from Candlekeep so that backstory could be incorporated into the story but you could choose your race (human, elf, dwarf, etc.) which added some variety.

What I wanted (in theory) with the origins stories was to continue them the entire game.  If I start the Dalish Elf origin, I wanted to continue playing as a Dalish Elf.  The origin story could have continued...perhaps Mahariel wouldn't have become tainted and the Keeper would have sent her/him away to research and find more information on the mirrors.  They'd have to do this with every origin, creating 6 separate stories (that need cinematics and voice acting)...it adds up to be a lot of work and cash.

I can't see that working because elves and humans are treated vastely different in DA so you still run into the same problems that you do with origins. For me the biggest problem with the origins is that the npc basically stopped treated my character as an elf.
I am still voting class orings for the same race, at least then the npc won't be able to see what origing you came from once you have proceeded long enough past it and then it could be explained that way why the treat all three three the same.

[AlexXIV]

jlb524 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
That's a subjective point of view.

Of course it is...in fact, this thread is full of them.

AlexXIV wrote...
Yes it can allow more roleplaying if the choices suit your character. In my and obviously other people's case it wasn't so. Half of the choices I had to make were nowhere near choices I found suited for my character. If I had been ardent chantry supporter or mage supporter, maybe. But if you are a free spirit who makes choices based on other things you get forced. Probably íf you pick a role as mage or chantry type it's ok. But I am sometimes closer to the qunari than Kirkwall. And sometimes I don't like neither the mages side nor the templars. And sometimes I just want to tell Sister Petrice to f... off and do her dirty work on her own. Things I cannot do for no apparent reason. Other than 'the plot demands it'. That's not freedom to me. If Petrice told me I have to do it for some piece of information that I need for my 'higher duty' (be it as jedi, warden, spirit monk or whatever) then I understand the necessity. But just doing it because I was told so, not good enough.

How can they incorporate all possible responses that a player might want to do in a given situation?

They always give you a set of responses that they come up with and you have to pick one.  The 'higher duty' thing seems to cover motivation easily but even with these 'duty' characters there's never an option to say 'screw duty' and do something completely different (like, flee Ferelden instead of dealing with the Blight) which might fit my character.

Well at some points you don't get to make a choice. Also it is a matter of explaining, as I said. As a player, just as a reader or watcher, I want to have a clue as to why things happen as they do. The higher cause is such a motivation. Motivation as in it gives you purpose and reason to so things even maybe against your nature, because you have to do it.

I will stick with the Petrice example. What if you don't want to do her quest? What are you gonna do? You can wait watching time pass by, because it is a main quest and the plot won't move a bit until you do it. So who is making this choice? Hawke is making it, but not the player. And don't even get me started with hollow threats you can throw at Petrice just to find yourself unable to follow through. I mean it's basically a slap in the face. How could Bioware think to get through with it is beyond me. It's like they render you helpless and then laugh at you. I can fully understand that people felt it at times being insulting. To their intelligence and otherwise.

Basically it is the very same concept of the Warden or other special people with a higher purpose. There is not one thing different in the way you are forced into your destiny. The only difference is that you get told you don't have such duty, but you still have to do things for some reason. Without duty, without explaination.

I am not against forcing certain plot events. I know it is necessary, don't get me wrong. And I realize that you cannot have ultimate freedom. But what you can have is a story that makes sense. You can have a proper explaination why you have no choice. Other than 'the plot needs to be pushed forward'. Because that's the only reason I accepted and did the quest. It had nothing to do with my Hawke.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 29 novembre 2011 - 06:51 .

[Aaleel]

Origins had a great idea with Origins, but they just made one fatal flaw. The game didn't in any substantial way change the way it reacted to you based on the events of your Origin or your race.

That was the mistake, which could have been corrected, and would make a much better game than one race one story.

I'd actually prefer a game that splits into different locales in the middle to let you see the story from many different angles, and have the game react to your Origin and race. Especially if the path you pick doesn't fit your Origin and race.

That would be the perfect game to me.

[esper]

Aaleel wrote...

Origins had a great idea with Origins, but they just made one fatal flaw. The game didn't in any substantial way change the way it reacted to you based on the events of your Origin or your race.

That was the mistake, which could have been corrected, and would make a much better game than one race one story.

I'd actually prefer a game that splits into different locales in the middle to let you see the story from many different angles, and have the game react to your Origin and race. Especially if the path you pick doesn't fit your Origin and race.

That would be the perfect game to me.

That depends on how much game time is cut. It the game still has the same length as da2 fine, but no shorter. Da2 cut it really short for me, I don't want the story to last even less.

[Aaleel]

jlb524 wrote...

What I wanted (in theory) with the origins stories was to continue them the entire game.  If I start the Dalish Elf origin, I wanted to continue playing as a Dalish Elf.  The origin story could have continued...perhaps Mahariel wouldn't have become tainted and the Keeper would have sent her/him away to research and find more information on the mirrors.  They'd have to do this with every origin, creating 6 separate stories (that need cinematics and voice acting)...it adds up to be a lot of work and cash.

Why not just have 6 different games, this is bascially what this is.   If you're going to have Origins in a game, what mwould make it great for me is the game reacting to you differently based on your race.  One choice may make sense as a human but not as a dwarf or an elf.  Tackling it from multiple perspectives that react to the differences in your PC makes the system good.  Having a story for each origin just gives you 6 different games.

Ah..that's kind of the point.

The Warden always had one overarching reason to do everything (duty).  Hawke's wasn't a duty thing so you had to come up with motivations yourself...sometimes on the fly.

Why are you helping the Orsino/Meredith if not out of some sense of duty.  Why are you helping the Viscount?  duty.  It's the same thing.  You're not just doing this stuff just for fun.

Modifié par Aaleel, 29 novembre 2011 - 06:59 .

[jlb524]

AlexXIV wrote...
I am not against forcing certain plot events. I know it is necessary, don't get me wrong. And I realize that you cannot have ultimate freedom. But what you can have is a story that makes sense. You can have a proper explaination why you have no choice. Other than 'the plot needs to be pushed forward'. Because that's the only reason I accepted and did the quest. It had nothing to do with my Hawke.

Yeah, with the way they organize their games around the story, I'm not sure you can avoid the whole 'quest X must be done to move the plot forward' but...is there a way to give a good reason besides defaulting to 'higher duty'?  With Petrice, they could pull a 'duty to the city' or the Chantry.  

I'll say that it doesn't bother me as I don't do a self-insert into my PC (she's a character I partially define at the beginning but discover more about her as I play).  I'm fine with having limited player choices because I don't really think of it as 'me' that's making the choices (I interact through third-person perspective).

[esper]

Aaleel wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

What I wanted (in theory) with the origins stories was to continue them the entire game.  If I start the Dalish Elf origin, I wanted to continue playing as a Dalish Elf.  The origin story could have continued...perhaps Mahariel wouldn't have become tainted and the Keeper would have sent her/him away to research and find more information on the mirrors.  They'd have to do this with every origin, creating 6 separate stories (that need cinematics and voice acting)...it adds up to be a lot of work and cash.

Why not just have 6 different games, this is bascially what this is.   If you're going to have Origins in a game, what mwould make it great for me is the game reacting to you differently based on your race.  One choice may make sense as a human but not as a dwarf or an elf.  Tackling it from multiple perspectives that react to the differences in your PC makes the system good.  Having a story for each origin just gives you 6 different games.

Ah..that's kind of the point.

The Warden always had one overarching reason to do everything (duty).  Hawke's wasn't a duty thing so you had to come up with motivations yourself...sometimes on the fly.

Why are you helping the Orsino/Meredith if not out of some sense of duty.  Why are you helping the Viscount?  duty.  It's the same thing.  You're not just doing this stuff just for fun.

I have three finished Hawke the first two did help the Vicount because of duty to their home, the last did it because he promised her some money.
My canon Hawke helps Orsino because she wants freedom for mages,
My second Hawke helps Orisno because she as a healer can't stand to see people suffering.
My third Hawke tried to stay out of it, but Meridith made it very clear that she would die if she didn't pick a side in which my Hawke said, **** you and sided with Orsino out of spite for Meridith.

[jlb524]

Aaleel wrote...
Why not just have 6 different games, this is bascially what this is.   If you're going to have Origins in a game, what mwould make it great for me is the game reacting to you differently based on your race.  One choice may make sense as a human but not as a dwarf or an elf.  Tackling it from multiple perspectives that react to the differences in your PC makes the system good.  Having a story for each origin just gives you 6 different games.

Yes...it would be six different games....that's why it would take a lot of effort and money.

Also, when I say 'origin' I don't mean 'race'.  Those are two separate concepts.  'Origin' refers to where the PC starts from and shapes their backstory.  For example, Tabris and Mahariel from DA:O were both racially elves but their Origin was completely different.   Amell and Surana were racially different but their Origin was the same (Circle mage).

My ideal for DA3 would be one starting point (one 'origin') but with different races possible (kind of like the Mage Origin in DA:O).  Therefore, all PCs have some background commonalities that can be incorporated into the story and make it richer but there's also variety in dialog every once in awhile due to race.

Aaleel wrote...
Why are you helping the Orsino/Meredith if not out of some sense of duty.  Why are you helping the Viscount?  duty.  It's the same thing.  You're not just doing this stuff just for fun.

I'd say it would be prudent to have those people in your corner if you wanted to gain political power some day.

[AlexXIV]

jlb524 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
I am not against forcing certain plot events. I know it is necessary, don't get me wrong. And I realize that you cannot have ultimate freedom. But what you can have is a story that makes sense. You can have a proper explaination why you have no choice. Other than 'the plot needs to be pushed forward'. Because that's the only reason I accepted and did the quest. It had nothing to do with my Hawke.

Yeah, with the way they organize their games around the story, I'm not sure you can avoid the whole 'quest X must be done to move the plot forward' but...is there a way to give a good reason besides defaulting to 'higher duty'?  With Petrice, they could pull a 'duty to the city' or the Chantry.  

I'll say that it doesn't bother me as I don't do a self-insert into my PC (she's a character I partially define at the beginning but discover more about her as I play).  I'm fine with having limited player choices because I don't really think of it as 'me' that's making the choices (I interact through third-person perspective).

I don't think about the protagonist being me either. But I want to define who he/she is. That makes it especially annoying if I lose control. At times I can accept it, but at times it is much harder to accept. I don't know how they could have done it. They could maybe have put more templars in there and really forced Hawke. But cowing to Petrice and her bodyguard stretches it too far for me. Or the could threaten to harm friends, etc. Or they could make it a trap to begin with. What bothers me is that the story implies that it is Hawke's decission to help Petrice. But it is not mine. And it's not the one of my Hawke if I had a say in regard of his/her personality.

[alex90c]

 

Persephone wrote...
And I am glad that I got a game I enjoyed with brilliant DLC. DAII may not be to everyone's taste, but it doesn't suck. Want a game that sucks? Try Gothic IV. *Shudders*

Two Worlds. That is all.
Or to take it even further, Big Rigs.
Though going by the "it's not to everyone's taste" argument, then I'm sure we can take that to the extreme; there are some games which are just universally considered awful, but since nothing is intrinsically bad, you still couldn't say it sucks. For example Big Rigs.

Just saying....joking about servitude/slavery = herpderp and definitely not funny.

Now you're just being over the top. That's like someone cracking a joke about how Hawke is a mass murderer and getting all touchy and bringing Adolf Hitler in to it.

jlb524 wrote...
That makes every BW PC a servant.

Yup, sure are. Just DA2 sucked at hiding it whereas going around Wardening made you feel proactive and important, at least until you completed the game, did a massive post-game analysis in your head then realised that it's just another Bioware game with a mostly reactive protagonist. ME1, 2 and DA:O put up a great display of smoke and mirrors giving us all the illusion of choice, but DA2 just doesn't in the slightest, and it's worse when it even lets you say you want to do something (you know the conversation with Varric where he asks you what you want to do? or the one where he asks whether you consider Ferelden or Kirkwall home and whether you'd consider returning to Ferelden?) but then you can't go through with it.

Modifié par alex90c, 29 novembre 2011 - 07:17 .

[Aaleel]

jlb524 wrote...

Yes...it would be six different games....that's why it would take a lot of effort and money.

Also, when I say 'origin' I don't mean 'race'.  Those are two separate concepts.  'Origin' refers to where the PC starts from and shapes their backstory.  For example, Tabris and Mahariel from DA:O were both racially elves but their Origin was completely different.   Amell and Surana were racially different but their Origin was the same (Circle mage).

My ideal for DA3 would be one starting point (one 'origin') but with different races possible (kind of like the Mage Origin in DA:O).  Therefore, all PCs have some background commonalities that can be incorporated into the story and make it richer but there's also variety in dialog every once in awhile due to race.

I know it's not just race, look at my example from earlier in the thread.  Starting as a Templar, mage, Seeker, or commoner.  But the game would split to where depending on your choices you would end up on a templar front somewhere, a mage front somewhere, or part of some faction that was trying to garner peace. 

Of course depending on your Origin, race and job you'll be trusted and accepted more on one front than another, and the game would react accordingly.

I'd say it would be prudent to have those people in your corner if you wanted to gain political power some day.

Hawke is duty bound to Kirkwall and the Warden is to Ferelden.  They have the same mindset and motivations.  I'm the best equipped person to handle this situation, and if I don't ???? is going to hit the fan and chaos is going to ensue.  That's the long and short of it.

[happy_daiz]

alex90c wrote...

Two Worlds. That is all.

Waa, I liked that and Two Worlds 2. Tar and feather me if you must.

Here's one that sucked: Divinity II: Ego Draconis. For XBox. 
I couldn't get past the first hour, it blew so hard. IGN gave it a whopping 4.8, or "Bad". I agree wholeheartedly.

Sorry to railroad. As you were.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 29 novembre 2011 - 07:23 .