224 réponses à ce sujet

[TonberryFeye]

[quote]ianvillan wrote...
Heres what I don't understand, one minute Bioware says their going to take notes from Skyrim. Then the next minute they decide to do away with race selection...[/quote]

Bioware came out with the reason of like 80% (cant remember the exact number) of players were human in DAO and only 20% of players finished the game.
[/quote]
Part of that is likely how race and class are linked.

Any race can be a Warrior or Rogue, but as I recall the Dalish Elf Warrior assumes you want to be an archer, and so wastes a talent on archery. Also, Elves just make bad characters. Just look at their racial bonus - +2 willpower, +2 magic. Great if you want to play a mage, but Elves are meant to be agile! The fact is you can make a better archer by playing a Dwarf than an Elf!

Next, we look at Mages. They all have the same origin story, so again it doesn't seem to make a difference; you might as well play Human. Dwarfs can't be mages, so that excludes them.

Origins just needed to tidy things up a bit - Elves felt too much like they were thrown in because "meh, let's have a magic race" but then nothing about them screams magic. We almost never see Elves in the circle, and the Dalish weren't given their own unique 'Dalish Mage' origin either.

The Dwarfs were done well, particularly the Dwarf Noble, but again they are limited in that they can't use the third class, and we all know how devastating Mages are when you get the right build.

Lastly... Ferelden is a Human land. That much is obvious. Most of what we see of Elves shows them as poverty-stricken and unwanted; a servantile species unworthy of note. The Dwarfs keep to themselves, so we don't see them outside of Orzammar save for the odd trader. Humans, on the other hand, are everywhere. Perhaps part of the problem lies in that - if people could see Elves and Dwarfs around more often in the game, and thus given a sense that these races belong in the setting (ie: they weren't just tacked on so that Bioware can say 'look, it's a fantasy game!') then maybe they'd be used more.

Thus, it is not that we don't want to choose our own race; the problem is the game subtly pushes us to playing as Human over the other races.

[Emzamination]

hussey 92 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Hawke's origin story was richer then all Da:origins combined because it was only one origin story and they could put more resources into it to enrich it.

No.  Just no.

What do you mean?

[Emzamination]

wsandista wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

No race is not important to me.The only thing race gave you in origins was the ability to use different models, npcs rarely treated you differently.Get a mod to change models if you want race but its not something to waste resources over.Not to mention that having many diverse origin stories would only dilute them.Hawke's origin story was richer then all Da:origins combined because it was only one origin story and they could put more resources into it to enrich it.

Then they should also make the PC a fixed gender and class. Gender only gives you a different model and NPcs don't treat you differently if you are a mage. Not to mention having 2 genders and 3 classes only dilutes them.

Wow...first time I ever cringed at a retort.That is staggering with stupid.

[TonberryFeye]

He means you couldn't be more wrong if you stated the sky was neon green.

Hawke's backstory is not rich. It is actually quite flat and bland. Allow me to compare:

Hawke (DA2): You are a human from Lothering fleeing the [incredibly stupid looking] Darkspawn. As you retreat you encounter a Templar and his wife, who have a trivial exchange about the fact there's [at least one] mage and who decide to side with you. Hawke's personality is dictated by conversations here, but there's no real development - it's just 'nice, smart-mouthed or angry'. The problem with that, of course, is that the situation is not exactly... normal. Just because Hawke is snappish right now doesn't mean (s)he is always snappish - it means (s)he can't believe his/her family is so stupid as to stop and have an argument when they're being hounded by monsters! Even the Templar conversation can be dismissed as unimportant; everyone carries on as though it never happened anyway.
In due course the templar dies, as does a family member, during a 'climactic' battle and you are then saved via a cameo by Flemeth, who serves no further part in the story.
No explanation is given as to who Hawke is, what (s)he did in Lothering, or anything else; you are just "there".

Dwarf Noble (Origins): You are the middle child of the Lord Aeducan, ruler of Orzammar. You are to attend a ceremony held in your honour, and in the meantime have the opportunity to flesh out your character. Specifically, your relationship with Gorim, your loyal second (you can be formal, informal or [if female] romantically involved) and how you deal with others. This includes a debate about whether to distort the truth for the sake of a family name, or whether you will even allow someone of a lesser caste to address you directy ("Gorim, tell the man I am ready to leave.").
You are made aware of the Grey Wardens, and that they are respected. Another chance to determine your personality is presented, along with a Chenkhov's Gun - the political intrigue of the Noble class. It is this intrigue that, just minutes later, will doom you.
Long story short, your youngest brother sets you up during a quest into the Aeducan Thaig. Whether you went along with it and killed Trian or resisted and 'stumbled upon' Trian's dead body does not seem to matter - you're framed either way - but it does get referenced later if you confront Bhelin during the Orzammar section.
You are now sentenced to walk the Deep Roads until you die, whereupon you meet with Duncan and the other Grey Wardens. This is not a Deus Ex Machina in the way Flemeth's arrival is; we meet Duncan beforehand, and are told he is going into the Deep Roads. Again, unlike [DA2's] Flemeth, Duncan has a role to play in the story; he becomes our mentor, guiding us through becoming a Grey Warden.

That is just one of the origin stories in Origins. The idea that Hawke's is better than all of them combined is insulting to anyone whose IQ reaches triple digits.

[Emzamination]

TonberryFeye wrote...

He means you couldn't be more wrong if you stated the sky was neon green.

Hawke's backstory is not rich. It is actually quite flat and bland. Allow me to compare:

Hawke (DA2): You are a human from Lothering fleeing the [incredibly stupid looking] Darkspawn. As you retreat you encounter a Templar and his wife, who have a trivial exchange about the fact there's [at least one] mage and who decide to side with you. Hawke's personality is dictated by conversations here, but there's no real development - it's just 'nice, smart-mouthed or angry'. The problem with that, of course, is that the situation is not exactly... normal. Just because Hawke is snappish right now doesn't mean (s)he is always snappish - it means (s)he can't believe his/her family is so stupid as to stop and have an argument when they're being hounded by monsters! Even the Templar conversation can be dismissed as unimportant; everyone carries on as though it never happened anyway.
In due course the templar dies, as does a family member, during a 'climactic' battle and you are then saved via a cameo by Flemeth, who serves no further part in the story.
No explanation is given as to who Hawke is, what (s)he did in Lothering, or anything else; you are just "there".

Dwarf Noble (Origins): You are the middle child of the Lord Aeducan, ruler of Orzammar. You are to attend a ceremony held in your honour, and in the meantime have the opportunity to flesh out your character. Specifically, your relationship with Gorim, your loyal second (you can be formal, informal or [if female] romantically involved) and how you deal with others. This includes a debate about whether to distort the truth for the sake of a family name, or whether you will even allow someone of a lesser caste to address you directy ("Gorim, tell the man I am ready to leave.").
You are made aware of the Grey Wardens, and that they are respected. Another chance to determine your personality is presented, along with a Chenkhov's Gun - the political intrigue of the Noble class. It is this intrigue that, just minutes later, will doom you.
Long story short, your youngest brother sets you up during a quest into the Aeducan Thaig. Whether you went along with it and killed Trian or resisted and 'stumbled upon' Trian's dead body does not seem to matter - you're framed either way - but it does get referenced later if you confront Bhelin during the Orzammar section.
You are now sentenced to walk the Deep Roads until you die, whereupon you meet with Duncan and the other Grey Wardens. This is not a Deus Ex Machina in the way Flemeth's arrival is; we meet Duncan beforehand, and are told he is going into the Deep Roads. Again, unlike [DA2's] Flemeth, Duncan has a role to play in the story; he becomes our mentor, guiding us through becoming a Grey Warden.

That is just one of the origin stories in Origins. The idea that Hawke's is better than all of them combined is insulting to anyone whose IQ reaches triple digits.

Hawkes origin story was much more than fleeing lothering, in fact that was pretty minor.You're only stating basic trivial things.I'm talking about the important aspects of his origin story, whether he/she fought in the battle of ostagar,family,family name,blood line,relatives past and present, these things follow you and help shape events through out the story.With origins, lets use the human noble for example, you're the noble son/daughter of the teryn of highever... *skipping ahead* once your origin story is done, it's rarely ever mentioned again and is completely irrelavant to the over all course of the story.Whether you are mage,dalish,dwarf,elf..ect some people may have a few dialogue lines to acknowlege a connection to you but that is the extent of it, you complete their quest like every other warden,rewarded the same as every other warden,thanked and told to move on like every other warden.The origin stories were nothing more than hour long tutorials and that's not worth wasting resources over.You're just blinded with bias.

Note: might want to edit the spoilers out your post

Modifié par Emzamination, 30 juin 2012 - 01:30 .

[wsandista]

Emzamination wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

No race is not important to me.The only thing race gave you in origins was the ability to use different models, npcs rarely treated you differently.Get a mod to change models if you want race but its not something to waste resources over.Not to mention that having many diverse origin stories would only dilute them.Hawke's origin story was richer then all Da:origins combined because it was only one origin story and they could put more resources into it to enrich it.

Then they should also make the PC a fixed gender and class. Gender only gives you a different model and NPcs don't treat you differently if you are a mage. Not to mention having 2 genders and 3 classes only dilutes them.

Wow...first time I ever cringed at a retort.That is staggering with stupid.

It uses the same logic as you did. I think you have a problem with you're own justifications.

Modifié par wsandista, 30 juin 2012 - 03:15 .

[DarthEmpress]

I loved the Origin backgrounds and thought they were miles better than Hawke's story. I had fun with Hawke but for me there wasn't much desire to replay the game like with DA:O. I mean, female City Elf origin was amazing and seeing the connection to her origins later in the game was perfect, same with all the other origins.

I think it'd be great if they could at least let us pick different races if they still want to go with one background. Then, for me, there'd be more of a want to replay the game :3 I really don't like one, single background but it worked well for Baldur's Gate.

[Vormaerin]

wsandista wrote...
A PC like Geralt when done well easily beats out a "semi-fixed" like Hawke or Shepard. Then again I believe that the
PC should either be player-generated or fixed and never try to be something in between.

The gains going from Shepard to Geralt are minimal in terms of ability to adapt character to story.   Geralt has a bit more fixed of a personality, but I don't think that's necessary to get the value of a fixed PC.

The difficulty with Shepard was the paragon/renegade system making choices difficult.  "Paragade" characters tended to get screwed at certain plot points, because you lost out on the best dialogue options.   That's bad design, imho.

Hawke was somewhat detached from the story, but that wasn't because Hawke could have either sort of plumbing.  It was because of they way the story was written (or, imho, left unfinished due to lack of resources).

[Jerrybnsn]

DA2 could have used a deeper Origin story, but I think the idea was to get everyone as quickly to Kirkwall as possible.....and then keep them there.

[Emzamination]

wsandista wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

No race is not important to me.The only thing race gave you in origins was the ability to use different models, npcs rarely treated you differently.Get a mod to change models if you want race but its not something to waste resources over.Not to mention that having many diverse origin stories would only dilute them.Hawke's origin story was richer then all Da:origins combined because it was only one origin story and they could put more resources into it to enrich it.

Then they should also make the PC a fixed gender and class. Gender only gives you a different model and NPcs don't treat you differently if you are a mage. Not to mention having 2 genders and 3 classes only dilutes them.

Wow...first time I ever cringed at a retort.That is staggering with stupid.

It uses the same logic as you did. I think you have a problem with you're own justifications.

No no, my argument is 'racial diversity' is not important while your retort is 'gender equality' is not important which aside from having nothing to do with my argument is a bit sexist.If you rp'd a woman and were treated like a man in origins and da2, you should get your disc checked, never had this issue.I may be alone in this but it seems to me that combat classes take precedence over racial models in resources in a combat based rpg but again maybe that's just me.

Let me guess, this fixed pc of yours is a heterosexual warrior class male, no? what a coinkydink that would come from one so adamant about removing bi romances but I'm sure that's just my imagination and you in no way,shape or form have any alternative motives for wanting a fixed gender pc.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

He's not arguing for a fixed gender. He's arguing for racial diversity, which you are shooting down. So if having a fixed gender makes him a sexist by your regard because it shoots down gender diversity, then by that logic, you might be a tad racist because "your argument is that racial diversity isn't important".

It's all nonsense of course, but you failed to see the point of his post and fell hook, line and sinker. You even came up with a homophobia quip, after accusing him of making irrelevant points.



(His point being: you can dismiss race selections for a variety of reasons, but not because "it's not important")

Modifié par CrustyBot, 01 juillet 2012 - 01:19 .

[wsandista]

Emzamination wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

No race is not important to me.The only thing race gave you in origins was the ability to use different models, npcs rarely treated you differently.Get a mod to change models if you want race but its not something to waste resources over.Not to mention that having many diverse origin stories would only dilute them.Hawke's origin story was richer then all Da:origins combined because it was only one origin story and they could put more resources into it to enrich it.

Then they should also make the PC a fixed gender and class. Gender only gives you a different model and NPcs don't treat you differently if you are a mage. Not to mention having 2 genders and 3 classes only dilutes them.

Wow...first time I ever cringed at a retort.That is staggering with stupid.

It uses the same logic as you did. I think you have a problem with you're own justifications.

No no, my argument is 'racial diversity' is not important while your retort is 'gender equality' is not important which aside from having nothing to do with my argument is a bit sexist.If you rp'd a woman and were treated like a man in origins and da2, you should get your disc checked, never had this issue.I may be alone in this but it seems to me that combat classes take precedence over racial models in resources in a combat based rpg but again maybe that's just me.

Let me guess, this fixed pc of yours is a heterosexual warrior class male, no? what a coinkydink that would come from one so adamant about removing bi romances but I'm sure that's just my imagination and you in no way,shape or form have any alternative motives for wanting a fixed gender pc.

You're really clueless aren't you? Look at crusty's post and see if you can figure it out. He explains it well enough so you should be able to understand.

[Emzamination]

CrustyBot wrote...

He's not arguing for a fixed gender. He's arguing for racial diversity, which you are shooting down.

wsandista wrote...
Then they should also make the PC a fixed gender and class.

 
Yup, sounds like a argument for racial diversity to me. oh and before you tell me to 'interpret and read between the lines', no,Post your argument accordingly or don't bother.

So if having a fixed gender makes him a sexist by your regard because it shoots down gender diversity, then by that logic, you might be a tad racist because "your argument is that racial diversity isn't important".

Yes it does, women (who actually exist by the way) are gamers just like men and shouldn't be restricted playing a set gender because you can't play a dwarf, it's a bit sexist as I've said.

I'll be sure to send my woeful apologetic letter to the dwarves of orzamar for my abhorent racism.After all we wouldn't want to lose the dwarven market for game sales.

It's all nonsense of course, but you failed to see the point of his post and fell hook, line and sinker. You even came up with a homophobia quip, after accusing him of making irrelevant points.



(His point being: you can dismiss race selections for a variety of reasons, but not because "it's not important")

No, he just failed to make a valid argument, I think I summed it up quite nicely with "staggering stupidity" but you're entitled to your own opinion.I don't see how stating fact is homophobic? he is a vocal supporter of having no bi romances but w/e I don't feel like drawing that argument out.

[Emzamination]

wsandista wrote...

You're really clueless aren't you? Look at crusty's post and see if you can figure it out. He explains it well enough so you should be able to understand.

Nope he failed, you can't defend your own argument because you had no defense to begin with *sigh*.

[wsandista]

Emzamination wrote...

Nope he failed, you can't defend your own argument because you had no defense to begin with *sigh*.

Emzamination wrote...

No race is not important to me.The only thing race gave you in origins was the ability to use different models, npcs rarely treated you differently.Get a mod to change models if you want race but its not something to waste resources over.Not to mention that having many diverse origin stories would only dilute them.Hawke's origin story was richer then all Da:origins combined because it was only one origin story and they could put more resources into it to enrich it.

Then they should also make the PC a fixed gender and class. Gender only gives you a different model and NPcs don't treat you differently if you are a mage. Not to mention having 2 genders and 3 classes only dilutes them.

You said that race only gave you a different model. I said that Gender only gave you a different model. If "only provides different models" is a reason for removing race, then it is also a reason to remove gender.

You said NPCs rarely treated different races differently. I said that they rarely treated different classes differently. If "not treating someone differently" is a reason for removing race, then it is also a reason for removing class.

You said having multiple origin stories dilutes them. I said having multiple gender and class options dilutes them. If "they are diluted" is a reason for removing origins, then it is also a reason to remove class and gender options.

I used your justifications for removing race selection on other options. If you think your own logic stinks then perhaps you should re-examine it.

Modifié par wsandista, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:59 .

[Emzamination]

wsandista wrote...

You said that race only gave you a different model. I said that Gender only gave you a different model. If "only provides different models" is a reason for removing race, then it is also a reason to remove gender.

You said NPCs rarely treated different races differently. I said that they rarely treated different classes differently. If "not treating someone differently" is a reason for removing race, then it is also a reason for removing class.

You said having multiple origin stories dilutes them. I said having multiple gender and class options dilutes them. If "they are diluted" is a reason for removing origins, then it is also a reason to remove class and gender options.

I used your justifications for removing race selection on other options. If you think your own logic stinks then perhaps you should re-examine it.

My argument is about removing a fictional race and you retort with removing a gender? Those races do not exist in reality nor contribute to the developement of this franchise like I don't know...men & women.That argument is fail and if you can't see that, idk what to say.

Because your profession as a ranger/beserker/bard carries the same significance as being foreign race in a foreign land, npcs should take strides to comment on it.

The team only gets a set amount of resources and the more they have to divide that amount into multiple origin stories which means each will be less in content than what it would've been if it had the other's resources therefore dilluted.'A' origin story is required to show the protagonist roots, multiple ones are not.Your argument is they should remove mandatory things like class and gender in favor of optional stories.

My argument consist of removing personal preferences while yours consist of removing mandatory core elements.You used my own argument against me? lol you used a bunch of desperate strawmans.

Modifié par Emzamination, 01 juillet 2012 - 03:15 .

[wsandista]

Emzamination wrote...

My argument is about removing a fictional race and you retort with removing a gender? Those races do not exist in reality nor contribute to the developement of this franchise like I don't know...men & women.That argument is fail and if you can't see that, idk what to say.

In the DA setting those races are as real as gender. I'm simply using your justification for removing race selection as a justification for removing gender selection. Like I said, if you don't like that train of though, you should look at your own, seeing as every reason I gave for removing gender or race options used one of your justifications for removing race options/origins.

Because your profession as a ranger/beserker/bard carries the same significance as being foreign race in a foreign land, npcs should take strides to comment on it.

But they don't. So according to one of justifications of removing race selection (NPCs rarely comment on it) then class options for the PC should be removed, because NPCs rarely comment on that. Same thing with gender.

The team only gets a set amount of resources and the more they have to divide that amount into multiple origin stories which means each will be less in content than what it would've been if it had the other's resources therefore dilluted.'A' origin story is required to show the protagonist roots, multiple ones are not.Your argument is they should remove mandatory things like class and gender in favor of optional stories.

No my argument was that if you use your logic on why to remove origin stories and race selection, then you should also want to remove gender and class selection.

My argument consist of removing personal preferences while yours consist of removing mandatory core elements.You used my own argument against me? lol you used a bunch of desperate strawmans.

Why is class orgender selection a "mandatory core element", but race selection isn't? Using every reason you gave for removing race selection, then gender and class selection should also go.

[LobselVith8]

I think it would be good to see multiple "Origins" return to the franchise. I liked going through the storyline with an elven mage, and there was reaction to the fact that my protagonist wasn't human as well as a mage. I didn't really see any reason for Hawke to be human, aside from the mansion, and I think very little would have changed had Hawke fled the Blight as a dwarf or an elf. The noble background never really factors into the story, and it would remain pretty much the same (aside from the manor) if Hawke could come from a non-human background.

While I think the elves in Dragon Age II had some real hits and misses, I think it would be a good idea to see elves and dwarves become optional races again.

[AkiKishi]

Vormaerin wrote...
The gains going from Shepard to Geralt are minimal in terms of ability to adapt character to story.   Geralt has a bit more fixed of a personality, but I don't think that's necessary to get the value of a fixed PC.

The difficulty with Shepard was the paragon/renegade system making choices difficult.  "Paragade" characters tended to get screwed at certain plot points, because you lost out on the best dialogue options.   That's bad design, imho.

Hawke was somewhat detached from the story, but that wasn't because Hawke could have either sort of plumbing.  It was because of they way the story was written (or, imho, left unfinished due to lack of resources).

The gains are multiple. You get a fixed look which the world can then comment on. You get a fixed identity which the world can then comment on.
My favourite Shepard meeting his mom example "Shepard....no .. Commander.... Heck what did I name you again"? 

But perhaps the most important is that you get rid of this idea of "My character would never do that".

If Hawke is your character and you don't want to side with anyone just leave Kirkwall, that's a valid view. Geralt on the other hand has his own ideas and while you can choose which you will follow , in far more depth than that DA2 offered. They are still applicable to Geralt and if you don't accept them, then you are not in character.

At a stroke you completely remove the "My Shepard would never work for Cerberus" or "My Hawke would never let Bethany get taken away".

[Jerrybnsn]

I see we are back to the argument that the DA team doesn't have enough resources to give multiple race options. I can't find the quote by David Gaider, but he did say that, while there are costs for making optional races, doing away with them in DAII was not the reason but for an over all deeper story. Take that for what you will.

[bloodmage13]

I am willing to accept a no origins but only if we get a story longer than DAO and player choice makes a return.

[wsandista]

bloodmage13 wrote...

I am willing to accept a no origins but only if we get a story longer than DAO and player choice makes a return.

All we will get is a voiced PC and moar cinematics.

[mad_mac_hl]

Should race be an option? Absolutely. I think the human only character of DA2 detracted massively from the good base that was established in DA:O. Don't get me wrong, I liked the character generator in DA2. The subtleties in how your appearance affected your families appearance etc was very good. But why it couldn't carry across to another two races who are integral to the world setting as a whole was a bit strange to me.

I note a few comments about the voices for characters and not being able to do different ones for all race options. Honestly, it doesn't bother me. I liked that DA:O had spoken dialogue at you and detailed written lines for you to respond with. I don't need to hear my character say what I've just selected. I know what I chose so let me here the response. It shouldn't interfere with the playability of the game.

That's my two pence for what its worth.

[withneelandi]

I think the loss of the option to play as an Elf, Human or Dwarf was one of the many backwards steps that Dragon Age 2 took from Origins.

It allowed the player to experience the main narative from different perspectives and allowed the player to become more famailiar with different cultures within the dragon age universe. Dragon Age Orgins was so good because it had a clear idea of its own identity, it was a role playing game, and gave player the chance to role play different character within a rich universe.

In contrast in dragon age 2 I felt I was simply experiencing the story from the perspective of someone elses pre-defined character, that is very much how I saw the Mass Effect series and I enjoyed it, but I enjoyed the different experience provided by Dragon Age Origins.

The Race selection is part of the played through DA:O more times than I can count and DA2 far less.

[WardenWade]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I see we are back to the argument that the DA team doesn't have enough resources to give multiple race options. I can't find the quote by David Gaider, but he did say that, while there are costs for making optional races, doing away with them in DAII was not the reason but for an over all deeper story. Take that for what you will.

I believe this thread may address this...  

http://social.biowar...dex/12615734/11

It's still up in the air but as Mr. Gaider himself states in the source thread, "who doesn't like additional options?"  I'm heartened that the issue is still in discussion (for more "emotional" rather than financial reasons, I'm glad to see) and hasn't been dismissed. 

It would be easier at this point, I imagine, to simply say "no, we won't be having race options in the third game" if they were determined not to, but the devs have not done so.  Likewise they acknowledge the importance of options in general (origins as well being included in this, I like to think), and Mr. Gaider appears to feel a need to respond to the wish of many (not all, of course) gamers for a return of this option...a wish that seems less and less, IMO, in the minority from what I can see on these forums.

IMO the deeper story intended for DA3 requires the unique and vital perspectives race options and origins can bring.

Modifié par WardenWade, 02 juillet 2012 - 02:19 .