76 réponses à ce sujet

[slashthedragon]

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...


That's kind of what I was getting at. There just seems to be a sense of elitism for RPGs that let you make your own character and how, no matter what, they are inifintely better than those that don't do that. I find that to be irritating and frustrating, especially with how too many people like to put down those who don't view it that way. Both forms are valid (and fun) forms of RPGs with strengths and weaknesses. They're both valid forms of roleplaying and can lead to the existence of some absolutely amazing games.

Well, as a female gamer, I have played numerous games in the role of a guy.
Yes, DA does offer male/female choices.  But as someone who had NO choice
all these years, preset characters seem like a drawback for me.

[ChaosAgentLoki]

slashthedragon wrote...

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...


That's kind of what I was getting at. There just seems to be a sense of elitism for RPGs that let you make your own character and how, no matter what, they are inifintely better than those that don't do that. I find that to be irritating and frustrating, especially with how too many people like to put down those who don't view it that way. Both forms are valid (and fun) forms of RPGs with strengths and weaknesses. They're both valid forms of roleplaying and can lead to the existence of some absolutely amazing games.

Well, as a female gamer, I have played numerous games in the role of a guy.
Yes, DA does offer male/female choices.  But as someone who had NO choice
all these years, preset characters seem like a drawback for me.

Why is it that none of the responses to my comment seem to get my point. You opinion is fair, and you're not acting like an elitist. You've brought up a valid point that explains why you feel that way. It's the attitude that if the game is not based off of the style of classic cRPGs, then it's worthless and that fans of these other RPGs are not true RPG fans that is frustrating me and leading to my claims of elitism. Just because someone does not like preset characters or Japanese made RPGs does not make these games worthless. It also does not make someone a greater fan of RPGs for disliking them or for liking them. That is what I mean by elitism and what I'm getting frustrated with. You just mentioned a valid point for why you prefer the Dragon Age style and why you feel that preset characters aren't as good. You're not bashing fans of those style of RPGs or going around calling them lesser fans (or not fans at all) for enjoying these other games from the RPG genre. It's when this bashing happens that I get frustrated and find fuel to my complaint of elitism. Your view is valid, perfectly fine and makes sense without attacking someone. In other words, you are not being an elitist.

Modifié par ChaosAgentLoki, 26 mai 2012 - 05:02 .

[slashthedragon]

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

slashthedragon wrote...

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...


That's kind of what I was getting at. There just seems to be a sense of elitism for RPGs that let you make your own character and how, no matter what, they are inifintely better than those that don't do that. I find that to be irritating and frustrating, especially with how too many people like to put down those who don't view it that way. Both forms are valid (and fun) forms of RPGs with strengths and weaknesses. They're both valid forms of roleplaying and can lead to the existence of some absolutely amazing games.

Well, as a female gamer, I have played numerous games in the role of a guy.
Yes, DA does offer male/female choices.  But as someone who had NO choice
all these years, preset characters seem like a drawback for me.

Why is it that none of the responses to my comment seem to get my point. You opinion is fair, and you're not acting like an elitist. You've brought up a valid point that explains why you feel that way. It's the attitude that if the game is not based off of the style of classic cRPGs, then it's worthless and that fans of these other RPGs are not true RPG fans that is frustrating me and leading to my claims of elitism. Just because someone does not like preset characters or Japanese made RPGs does not make these games worthless. It also does not make someone a greater fan of RPGs for disliking them or for liking them. That is what I mean by elitism and what I'm getting frustrated with. You just mentioned a valid point for why you prefer the Dragon Age style and why you feel that preset characters aren't as good. You're not bashing fans of those style of RPGs or going around calling them lesser fans (or not fans at all) for enjoying these other games from the RPG genre. It's when this bashing happens that I get frustrated and find fuel to my complaint of elitism. Your view is valid, perfectly fine and makes sense without attacking someone. In other words, you are not being an elitist.

Gotcha
One interesting note -- when JRPGs really became big in the USA, some RPG game review/discussion/news sites debated whether or not to cover them because they had preset characters.  I don't think they said that the JRPGs were worse, but they didn't know if they could really be considered RPGs. 

[Rabid Rooster]

BobSmith101 wrote...

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Agreed. And it scares me to see pople want it.  RPGS are not supposed to be that way.

And there is the elitist attitude that seems to exist here towards RPGs that are not cRPG style. A preset protagonist does not mean the game is not an RPG. A game where you play as a former NPC, does not mean that the game is not an RPG. Just because the game does not give you the ability to customize a personal avatar for the game world, does not mean that the game is not an RPG. This may not be a form of RPG that everyone enjoys, but it exists, it works well for many people (myself being one of them) and it is just as valid a form of RPG as what Bioware has released. Playing the role of a preset character is just as much roleplaying as creating one, it just means that the player has to place themselves in the role of that character, not create the personality from scratch.

Depends what you want in your RPGs. In DA2 you got to choose what you looked like and your attitude. Then you got led around having no impact on the game.
In Witcher2 you had Geralt, but at one point in the game your choice led you off to an entirely different game (as well as numerous others that were less dramatic, but were part of the ending).

I'd take Witcher2 over DA2 any day.

While i loved the story of the Witcher 1&2 it would have been better IMO if i could have played my own character.

The failing of DA2 was not that it didnt have a premade character like the witcher but on the Devs poor exicution of a disjointed story.

[silentspec111]

At best we could get a teaser trailer....but i doubt if there will be any news at all....

[nightcobra]

i'd like a continuation of PAX's dragon age conference where they talk a little bit more on what they'll try to do for DA3, no trailers yet, let them have more time this time around instead of rushing through development. DA2 was a good game, not great and it showed signs of it being rushed so let's have that part covered with more development time.

[silentspec111]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i'd like a continuation of PAX's dragon age conference where they talk a little bit more on what they'll try to do for DA3, no trailers yet, let them have more time this time around instead of rushing through development. DA2 was a good game, not great and it showed signs of it being rushed so let's have that part covered with more development time.

Agreed...DA2 took approximately 2 years to make. DA3 should then atleast take 3 years to make a solid comeback and iron out all the issue that plagued DA2. Given it takes 3years atleast it wont be done before march 2014. I truly wish that is the case, but I am starting to fear EA wont wait that long or wont let BIOWARE take such a long time to release DA3 and we may end up getting a rushed product again

[nightcobra]

silentspec111 wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i'd like a continuation of PAX's dragon age conference where they talk a little bit more on what they'll try to do for DA3, no trailers yet, let them have more time this time around instead of rushing through development. DA2 was a good game, not great and it showed signs of it being rushed so let's have that part covered with more development time.

Agreed...DA2 took approximately 2 years to make. DA3 should then atleast take 3 years to make a solid comeback and iron out all the issue that plagued DA2. Given it takes 3years atleast it wont be done before march 2014. I truly wish that is the case, but I am starting to fear EA wont wait that long or wont let BIOWARE take such a long time to release DA3 and we may end up getting a rushed product again

it's the triforce of development (generalizing as it isn't as simple as this) as i like to call it:

- development time

- team talent and size

- game budget


if development time has to be 2 years at least then the other two factors have to be ramped up to meet the required standards.

[AkiKishi]

Rabid Rooster wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Agreed. And it scares me to see pople want it.  RPGS are not supposed to be that way.

And there is the elitist attitude that seems to exist here towards RPGs that are not cRPG style. A preset protagonist does not mean the game is not an RPG. A game where you play as a former NPC, does not mean that the game is not an RPG. Just because the game does not give you the ability to customize a personal avatar for the game world, does not mean that the game is not an RPG. This may not be a form of RPG that everyone enjoys, but it exists, it works well for many people (myself being one of them) and it is just as valid a form of RPG as what Bioware has released. Playing the role of a preset character is just as much roleplaying as creating one, it just means that the player has to place themselves in the role of that character, not create the personality from scratch.

Depends what you want in your RPGs. In DA2 you got to choose what you looked like and your attitude. Then you got led around having no impact on the game.
In Witcher2 you had Geralt, but at one point in the game your choice led you off to an entirely different game (as well as numerous others that were less dramatic, but were part of the ending).

I'd take Witcher2 over DA2 any day.

While i loved the story of the Witcher 1&2 it would have been better IMO if i could have played my own character.

The failing of DA2 was not that it didnt have a premade character like the witcher but on the Devs poor exicution of a disjointed story.

Without Geralt the story of the Witcher would never have worked. A lot of the atmosphere of the game comes from knowing who the character is ,what he does, what he looks like etc. It's the same with HR, while you could get the broad story with any character. It only works completely for Adam Jensen.

I can't say whether DA2's story would have been better had it been written for a specfic Hawke, but It's highly likely that would be the case.

[wsandista]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Without Geralt the story of the Witcher would never have worked. A lot of the atmosphere of the game comes from knowing who the character is ,what he does, what he looks like etc. It's the same with HR, while you could get the broad story with any character. It only works completely for Adam Jensen.

I can't say whether DA2's story would have been better had it been written for a specfic Hawke, but It's highly likely that would be the case.

That is the problem with DA2, it attempts to be a story where the protagonist can be anyone, yet is written with the motives of the protagonist already written. Witcher and HR( as well as ME I would argue) all rely on a Protagonist whose motives are very clearly defined without input from the player. DA2 is the same way, however it attempts to also be a story where the player can have dictate who the PC is. It is impossible to do both, the DA team needs to decide which they want to do and stop trying to stand on a middle ground that doesn't exist.

[AkiKishi]

wsandista wrote...

That is the problem with DA2, it attempts to be a story where the protagonist can be anyone, yet is written with the motives of the protagonist already written. Witcher and HR( as well as ME I would argue) all rely on a Protagonist whose motives are very clearly defined without input from the player. DA2 is the same way, however it attempts to also be a story where the player can have dictate who the PC is. It is impossible to do both, the DA team needs to decide which they want to do and stop trying to stand on a middle ground that doesn't exist.

Well you can't be cinematic and blank that much is clear. And trying to shoehorn a player created character into a completely pre-determined and pre-planned background is a fail too.
Since I can't see DA abondoning cinematic gaming, the only way forward is with set protagaonists. You can still do most of things that DA2 did from what I can see, except you need a fixed male and a fixed female protagonist.

Considering that both Witchers outsold DA2 (not DA) if you are going to stick to cinematics it's not like sales are really at risk if you choose to go fully pre-generated. There are more than enough people out there who like them to cover any loses.

[ScotGaymer]

silentspec111 wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i'd like a continuation of PAX's dragon age conference where they talk a little bit more on what they'll try to do for DA3, no trailers yet, let them have more time this time around instead of rushing through development. DA2 was a good game, not great and it showed signs of it being rushed so let's have that part covered with more development time.

Agreed...DA2 took approximately 2 years to make. DA3 should then atleast take 3 years to make a solid comeback and iron out all the issue that plagued DA2. Given it takes 3years atleast it wont be done before march 2014. I truly wish that is the case, but I am starting to fear EA wont wait that long or wont let BIOWARE take such a long time to release DA3 and we may end up getting a rushed product again

That's... not correct.

Dragon Age 2's development cycle was between 15 and 18 months at most. If they had had the extra 6 to 9 months that you are saying they had they would have delivered an infinately better game.

[wsandista]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Well you can't be cinematic and blank that much is clear. And trying to shoehorn a player created character into a completely pre-determined and pre-planned background is a fail too.
Since I can't see DA abondoning cinematic gaming, the only way forward is with set protagaonists. You can still do most of things that DA2 did from what I can see, except you need a fixed male and a fixed female protagonist.

Considering that both Witchers outsold DA2 (not DA) if you are going to stick to cinematics it's not like sales are really at risk if you choose to go fully pre-generated. There are more than enough people out there who like them to cover any loses.

I'm going to have to correct you, You can do everything DA2 did with a fixedPC.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

You don't like preset characters. That's fine and fair and a plethora of other platitudes that tell you your opinion is valid. However, that does not change the fact that it is still roleplaying. It is a different form of roleplaying, but it is still roleplaying. If that doesn't sit well with you, fine, no one's forcing you to play that style of game. That doesn't change what it is though. Argue against me all you like, but I remain standing by that fact.

But apparently you won't defend it.  You'll reassert your position again and again, but you'll offer no justification for it.

How do you make decisions for your character if you do not know everything about him?

[BioFan (Official)]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Since they've released the map we're looking at exploring for DAIII at Pax, I'm hoping for a bit of teaser information about the cultures we're visiting that we don't know much about (meaning everywhere on the proposed DAIII map that isn't Fereledan, the Free Marches, or Orlais).

After Mark of the Assasin and Asunder I have gotten my fill and then some of Orlaisian society.... 

[Nimpe]

Ghozt66 wrote...

here's some wishful thinking Cassandra as lead protagonist in DA3

No. Maybe she can serve as that unnamed seeker companion that they have hinted at before. 

[Uccio]

Ericander77 wrote...

After Mark of the Assasin and Asunder I have gotten my fill and then some of Orlaisian society.... 

The MotA actually presented Orlesians with way too comedy, would be hard to take them seriously, IMO.

[mp911]

the more about da3 the better, wouldn't feel to confident if gameplay or screen play were already available (would seem rush for a game)
so more info, drawing about the world, characters, class.....

[nightcobra]

i would like to see maybe concept art for Rhys as i'm almost betting that's he's going to be a party member for DA3.

[SirGladiator]

I'm definitely in the 'the more the better' camp, if I have to pick one or two top things it would be that I'd like to hear a bit more about the storyline (obviously nothing spoilerish, I hate those, just a nice general idea of the types of things we might be doing in Orlais, whether there might be an Origin or two this go-round, etc. basic stuff like that), and if we could learn the identity of a potential party member or two, that could be pretty sweet also.

Whatever we do or dont hear specificly, I just hope that we get the same sense from what we hear that we've been getting for a long time now, that they've learned from what they did right and wrong in DAO and DA2, and that through listening to the fans, as well as their own creative abilities, they're well on their way to making DA3 the awesome, epic, greatest game in the series that DA2 had the potential to be (and no doubt would have been if it had been of the same super high quality as the DA2 DLC, ironicly). And if they could announce that the game will be out sooner rather than later, obviously that would be a big plus also .

[FieryDove]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

That's... not correct.

Dragon Age 2's development cycle was between 15 and 18 months at most. If they had had the extra 6 to 9 months that you are saying they had they would have delivered an infinately better game.

11 months if a ex-Biowarian Blog is to be belived, he worked on the project the entire 11 months.

As to e3? Doubtful anything will be said unless the deadlines have been moved up...again.

[VampOrchid]

If they announce a set protagonist, I'm done. I won't buy it.