95 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkDragon777]

If the PC is going to be voiced, then they might as well have a fixed PC.

[RedArmyShogun]

Given EA's massed market and DLC heavy path, all signs say yes.

[wsandista]

In Exile wrote...

The PC most certainly does. Let me drag out my oft-quoted DA:O example (though it's been so long, I'm going to have to paraphrase): 

Morrigain and the Warden, at one conversationt tree, can talk about what it was like for Morrigain growing up.

Morrigan: And what was up with all the touching?

Warden: Did the naughty touching make you uncomfortable? [my read: Oh noes! Poor Morrigain had to shake hands. Stop whinning <_<]
Morrigain: That kind of touching I understand.

Right then and there, the game outright told me that either Morrigan was an idiot that couldn't detect sarcasm (which is just so out of character as to be ridiculous) or the line didn't mean what I thought it did.

And this has been a nice lesson in pragmatics. Because; 

Did the naughty touching make you uncomfortable? 

is not:

Did the naught touching make you uncomfortable? <_<

No, Morrigan's reaction suprised you, not the PC. 

And without emphasis, intent and pragmatics, a blunt line of text does nothing for me.

With a player-generated PC, those are supposed to come from the player.

That's why books have things like "... Joe said sharply, anger flashing visibly on his face" instead of being long series of statements back and forth.

Books, yes; Conversations, no. You are having a conversation, not reading a book.

[In Exile]

hussey 92 wrote...
What are you talking about?  Morrigan was just responding to your sargasm with a witty remark.  

Not in this universe. My sarcasm wasn't sexual. Her "sarcasm" hinges on my possibly making a dirty comment, which isn't the case at all.

[In Exile]

wsandista wrote...

No, Morrigan's reaction suprised you, not the PC. 

The PC's did. Becuase that statement did not mean what I thought it did. It was not conveyed with my intent, but it was some hook for the writers to get a line off.

With a player-generated PC, those are supposed to come from the player.

Whatever fan fiction you want to invent for yourself, a character's response still has to flow off what you said.

And if the game (i) fails to convey what the choices mean; so that (ii) the outcomes from my dialogue choices don't make meta-game sense to me, then you've got that "PC's lines surprise me" problem that you so seriously rail against.

Books, yes; Conversations, no. You are having a conversation, not reading a book.

... Are you for real? In conversations, we have facial expressions, tone, body language...a  wealth of information that is badly imitated in writing to convey the same thing.

What you're talking about is what we have right now - exchanges of written words back and forth.

Could you guess what I tone I would have said any of the things I typed in this post as (except where, for example, I italicized words for emphasis)? 

No, this VO = freedom is a just your preference for fan fiction.

[Wulfram]

Fixed characters make it less interesting for me to replay. A new character gives a freshness to a playthrough. Different takes on the situations because they're coming at it from a different perspective. Different dialogue choices that stop the conversations from being the same thing all over again. And, hey, it's nice to see the face I created for them in the various cutscenes, and that gives a bit of novelty to them too.

You could say that this is something of an illusion, that you can have as much really important choices and a lot of variety of playthroughs with a fixed character with a fixed name and voice, like Adam Jensen or Geralt, and you'd have a point. But it's an important illusion to me and my enjoyment of the game - playing wildly different versions of the same character doesn't feel so much fresh and new, so much as it feels like I'm twisting them out of character and thus "doing it wrong".

[wsandista]

In Exile wrote...

The PC's did. Becuase that statement did not mean what I thought it did. It was not conveyed with my intent, but it was some hook for the writers to get a line off.

The statement was said and meant exactly what you wanted it to, the NPC in question just did not respond exactly how you expected them to. You don't know why Morrigan reacted that way because you aren't playing Morrigan.

Whatever fan fiction you want to invent for yourself, a character's response still has to flow off what you said.

Never said it didn't, however I have stated the NPC's reaction is not up to me. I am only responsible for what the PC says, not how NPCs react to what the PC says.

And if the game (i) fails to convey what the choices mean

It shouldn't provide any meaning, intent, or tone(unless clearly marked intimidate or other dialogue skill) to the lines. You should decide what the line means.

so that (ii) the outcomes from my dialogue choices don't make meta-game sense to me, then you've got that "PC's lines surprise me" problem that you so seriously rail against.

Again, you were surprised by the NPC's reaction to what the PC said, not what the PC said.

... Are you for real?

I'm afraid so.

In conversations, we have facial expressions, tone, body language...a  wealth of information that is badly imitated in writing to convey the same thing.

I never said they weren't. I said a conversation isn't a book. I don't tell people I'm angrily yelling at them, I angrily yell at them.

What you're talking about is what we have right now - exchanges of written words back and forth.

I don't think I've mentioned internet communication between two people.

Could you guess what I tone I would have said any of the things I typed in this post as (except where, for example, I italicized words for emphasis)?

I could, and I could be very wrong. It isn't your responsibility to determine my reaction or perception. You are only responsible for the intent behind your words, not how others perceive your intent.

No, this VO = freedom is a just your preference for fan fiction.

That isn't what I've been arguing. I've usually stated that Silent PC=Control, while VO=restriction. It isn't so much fanfiction as determining what my PC says with total control and certainty.

Modifié par wsandista, 26 juin 2012 - 01:49 .

[hussey 92]

In Exile wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...
What are you talking about?  Morrigan was just responding to your sargasm with a witty remark.  

Not in this universe. My sarcasm wasn't sexual. Her "sarcasm" hinges on my possibly making a dirty comment, which isn't the case at all.

I don't understand what your confused about.  When your PC said "naughty touching" Morrigan made a sex joke out of it.  Your PC, while not intending to say something sexual, walked into a joke.  It happens.  Watch Beavis and Butthead some time.

[Allan Schumacher]

No, Morrigan's reaction suprised you, not the PC.

Isn't the player the only person that can determine whether or not the PC is surprised by an action? If the player can be surprised, but not the PC, isn't that an example of the player not having full control over the player?

Books, yes; Conversations, no. You are having a conversation, not reading a book.

You're still just reading text. Unless you wish to imagine that the people all speak in a flat, monotone voice, you're going to read inflection and whatnot into the conversation. If there's no indication of inflection and other non verbal cues, the player will put in their own. If the response to a line ends up behaving completely inappropriately to what the player put in, it's a failure

In a real life conversation, my body language and how I say lines makes it pretty unequivocally clear my intent. If I say to a life long friend "You're stupid" he's not going to take offense. He knows I'm a sarcastic person. It's very dangerous for me to assume that a game will allow me to make such a comment because more often than not it's taken quite literally.

Most of the absurd comments in Fallout are ones that I would actually say but they almost always get taken seriously. In full line text I find it's safest to assume that sarcasm isn't a valid tone.


To further illustrate my point, no one is "reading a book" when posting on the forums. They are having conversations. Yet it's become a common internet convention to make sure you post emoticons to make it clear that you're being playful and sassy when a line could be taken seriously. This is because people routinely misinterpret what is truly being said when just reading lines.

[robertthebard]

BobSmith101 wrote...

wsandista wrote...
Shepard was done correctly, but Hawke was not(IMO). Shepard always had motivation determined, while Hawke has motivation determined for Act 1, but after that, no motivation is given. ME3 had it's problems, but Shepard lacking motivation(s) was not one of them.

Not according to a lot of people who played ME2. They were vehemently pissed at having to work with Cerberus becuse "their Shepard would never do that".

This is the core problem when it comes to trying to balance the idea of someones character vs the real version as intended by the writers.

I am currently having this exact problem in ME2.  I'd love to take the Illusive Man's option of telling him to hit the road after Freedom's Promise, since it wasn't his intel, other than the colony going silent, that leads me to what's going on, but the Quarian's.  He tells me I have a choice, but there is no option to hit the road.  It's not like I begged to be brought back to life or anything.

Regarding no motivation in anything past Act I, I'm not buying it.  The biggest complaints that I see regarding gameplay/motivation can be broken down to:  "I didn't save the world, so I had no motivation".  Unlike with the Warden, where you do save most of the world, the world can't be saved, the events are going to happen and there's no way to prevent them, although in Act II you can minimize the damage somewhat.  I mean, it's entirely possible to not have to duel the Arishok at all, depending on how certain plot elements play out.

Act III could have been handled much better, especially if you sided with the mages, but that's not a lack of motivation, I can see the motivation clearly for doing what's done by Hawke, if the developer's message does seem a bit muddled there.

[robertthebard]

wsandista wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The PC most certainly does. Let me drag out my oft-quoted DA:O example (though it's been so long, I'm going to have to paraphrase): 

Morrigain and the Warden, at one conversationt tree, can talk about what it was like for Morrigain growing up.

Morrigan: And what was up with all the touching?

Warden: Did the naughty touching make you uncomfortable? [my read: Oh noes! Poor Morrigain had to shake hands. Stop whinning <_<]
Morrigain: That kind of touching I understand.

Right then and there, the game outright told me that either Morrigan was an idiot that couldn't detect sarcasm (which is just so out of character as to be ridiculous) or the line didn't mean what I thought it did.

And this has been a nice lesson in pragmatics. Because; 

Did the naughty touching make you uncomfortable? 

is not:

Did the naught touching make you uncomfortable? <_<

No, Morrigan's reaction suprised you, not the PC. 

And without emphasis, intent and pragmatics, a blunt line of text does nothing for me.

With a player-generated PC, those are supposed to come from the player.

That's why books have things like "... Joe said sharply, anger flashing visibly on his face" instead of being long series of statements back and forth.

Books, yes; Conversations, no. You are having a conversation, not reading a book.

I don't understand what you mean.  If it's your character, when you're surprised doesn't that mean that your PC is surprised too?  It is your character, afterall, and should be an extension of you in the game world.  Isn't that why you think voiced PC's are bad?

[Reznore57]

Sure Shepard is motivated ...but you have no choice over his/her motivation.In ME3 , Shepard is all about "we should save earth! "I thought it was out of place , since i was playing a character who i thought was motivated to save the galaxy as a whole.And i couldn't voice that.

Hawke was lacking some drive , even in act 1. I never felt like the hawke familly was extremely poor and in any kind of danger .I don't think the pc is at fault ,i think it's the environement that fails to provide clear threats that set in motion motivation for money/survival/power.
The threats were there , templars , nobles who are offended by Hawke gaining an estate , all the bad thing Hawke did to rise could have come back to bite him in the a **.
And they also fail to explain and show the status of a champion, it felt like it was just a fancy title.
The specter status for ME was easier to understand.

About a fixed pc , I really don't want that.I like Hawke more than Shep or the Warden.Because it felt like a free guy who' spart of no group (army / warden...i don't like that type of thing)
It seems harder to attach such a pc to a dynamic storyline thought ,but i appreciate the effort the DA team made .
But overall I think it lacks clear threat that would have provided motivations , it lacks meaningful choices, most of your pc personality is driving by tone and reply and little by what he/she does.
And mostly the pc is reflected by the rival/friend thing with companions .But the others npc doesn't react much .
The "Arishok reputation" was cool , depending on how you act , he would react in a different manner to Hawke .i'd like to see more of that in npc. But if it doesn't rely on a fixed reputation bar , it's probably kind of tricky .

[robertthebard]

Reznore57 wrote...

Sure Shepard is motivated ...but you have no choice over his/her motivation.In ME3 , Shepard is all about "we should save earth! "I thought it was out of place , since i was playing a character who i thought was motivated to save the galaxy as a whole.And i couldn't voice that.

Hawke was lacking some drive , even in act 1. I never felt like the hawke familly was extremely poor and in any kind of danger .I don't think the pc is at fault ,i think it's the environement that fails to provide clear threats that set in motion motivation for money/survival/power.
The threats were there , templars , nobles who are offended by Hawke gaining an estate , all the bad thing Hawke did to rise could have come back to bite him in the a **.
And they also fail to explain and show the status of a champion, it felt like it was just a fancy title.
The specter status for ME was easier to understand.

About a fixed pc , I really don't want that.I like Hawke more than Shep or the Warden.Because it felt like a free guy who' spart of no group (army / warden...i don't like that type of thing)
It seems harder to attach such a pc to a dynamic storyline thought ,but i appreciate the effort the DA team made .
But overall I think it lacks clear threat that would have provided motivations , it lacks meaningful choices, most of your pc personality is driving by tone and reply and little by what he/she does.
And mostly the pc is reflected by the rival/friend thing with companions .But the others npc doesn't react much .
The "Arishok reputation" was cool , depending on how you act , he would react in a different manner to Hawke .i'd like to see more of that in npc. But if it doesn't rely on a fixed reputation bar , it's probably kind of tricky .

The Arishok's thing could have been fixed to him, and we just don't know what it is, which is appropriate.  Doing it that way, it could apply to any NPC using the same script set.

[mopotter]

To me, a "fixed" character is Laura Croft, or Snake, Link or ummm Mario. This type of fixed character would mean I'm not interested in the game.

As long as I have control over whether I play male or female and what my character looks like, I don't have to have choices in race or origin. Those are nice, but not necessary for my enjoyment. i enjoyed the different origins in DA:O but I also enjoyed playing Hawke.

[hussey 92]

Emzamination wrote...

What? Hake voicing "I love you merril" gave me a far deeper game immersion than me voicing the "I love you morrigan" text in my head during origins.No more text chat, I need to have conversations with people of the realm using sound and words like everyone-else, not telepathy.

I disagree.  Pressing the heart icon in DA2 and then watching Hawke tell an Li he loves her did not make me feel that immersed in the game at all.  I got a much deeper feeling from Origins text chats.

[Wulfram]

The freedom you have from no VO is effectively the freedom to cast and, to an extent, direct your own voice actor.

Which isn't insignificant. After all, a lot of people seem to have preferences between Hale's Shepard and Meer's Shepard, despite their speaking (mostly) the same lines, (I assume) recieving the same sort of direction and there being no recognition of any difference by other characters in the story.

Or to go more high brow, a lot of analysis is devoted to different actors interpretations of Hamlet

(Also, I'm still annoyed that my Hawke couldn't say "I love you, Merrill", just because they were generally snarky.)

[CuriousArtemis]

wsandista wrote...

Fixed looks are not absolutely necessary for a fixed PC. A fixed background, personality, and motivations are. Hawke, Michael Thorton, and Shepard were fixed PCs just as much as Geralt or Adam Jensen, and you could change the first three's appearances.

I loved Hawke and Shepard (although did not like Shepard's VA) so whatever term is used to refer to these guys, that's fine.  I liked them 

Corvus I wrote...

Unfortunately a voiced PC is limiting to the imagination. DA 2's Hawke sounded nothing like me even in my wildest dreams and I ended up watching an interactive movie.

 

I had no idea people pretended they were their game character o.o I guess that would make it hard to play a character with a voice then, although the character is never going to look like you either, right?  

MrSaberTooth wrote...

I loved Hawke and playing a fixed PC, i played the game as a funny guy. i liked it. i found the silent traveller thing from da1 to be rediculous. as far as the PC goes i like the voice acting more than anything i hope the trend continues. You can always customize your characters looks hopefully in the future tho without DLC

 

I agree with all of this; I also played sarcastic Hawke and love him sooo much <3 I've played him a million times, although every now and then I'll play a diplo!Hawke, too.  And again, I do love my Wardens, but unless they are mute and communicating via sign language, I don't understand how they are managing to communicate.  It's bizarre.  People talk about breaking game immersion ... a guy standing there, communicating telepathically is not breaking game immersion?

Reznore57 wrote...

Hawke was lacking some drive , even in act 1. I never felt like the hawke familly was extremely poor and in any kind of danger .I don't think the pc is at fault ,i think it's the environement that fails to provide clear threats that set in motion motivation for money/survival/power.

 

:-O But Gamlen's house was a sh!thole.  I think Hawke, his/her sibling, and Leandra all slept in that tiny room at the end because there was a rickety old bunkbed with three levels.  It was disgusting.  

The templar threat was a problme; it didn't really exist.  We should not have been allowed to play as a mage if the other characters were not going to react to that... at all.

mopotter wrote...

As long as I have control over whether I play male or female and what my character looks like, I don't have to have choices in race or origin. Those are nice, but not necessary for my enjoyment. i enjoyed the different origins in DA:O but I also enjoyed playing Hawke.

 

Ditto 

[AkiKishi]

Reznore57 wrote...

Sure Shepard is motivated ...but you have no choice over his/her motivation.In ME3 , Shepard is all about "we should save earth! "I thought it was out of place , since i was playing a character who i thought was motivated to save the galaxy as a whole.And i couldn't voice that.

Hawke was lacking some drive , even in act 1. I never felt like the hawke familly was extremely poor and in any kind of danger .I don't think the pc is at fault ,i think it's the environement that fails to provide clear threats that set in motion motivation for money/survival/power.
The threats were there , templars , nobles who are offended by Hawke gaining an estate , all the bad thing Hawke did to rise could have come back to bite him in the a **.
And they also fail to explain and show the status of a champion, it felt like it was just a fancy title.
The specter status for ME was easier to understand.

About a fixed pc , I really don't want that.I like Hawke more than Shep or the Warden.Because it felt like a free guy who' spart of no group (army / warden...i don't like that type of thing)
It seems harder to attach such a pc to a dynamic storyline thought ,but i appreciate the effort the DA team made .
But overall I think it lacks clear threat that would have provided motivations , it lacks meaningful choices, most of your pc personality is driving by tone and reply and little by what he/she does.
And mostly the pc is reflected by the rival/friend thing with companions .But the others npc doesn't react much .
The "Arishok reputation" was cool , depending on how you act , he would react in a different manner to Hawke .i'd like to see more of that in npc. But if it doesn't rely on a fixed reputation bar , it's probably kind of tricky .

It's just a case of luck that your idea of the character and the designers are more insync. In Hawkes case you are lumbered with a family,which is then removed for plot purposes. You have no option to just tell everyone to solve their own problems and walk out of the gates. Even though there is nothing keeping you in Kirkwall.

This is why fixed characters with their own motivations and no pretence of being anything but pre-generated work better in this kind of game. It eliminates the conflict of what the player is imagining the character to be, and what the character actually is.

[CuriousArtemis]

BobSmith101 wrote...

It's just a case of luck that your idea of the character and the designers are more insync. In Hawkes case you are lumbered with a family,which is then removed for plot purposes. You have no option to just tell everyone to solve their own problems and walk out of the gates. Even though there is nothing keeping you in Kirkwall.

As a Warden, you had no option to just say, screw this, and escape to Orlais or Tevinter or hell, head back into the Dales if you're an elf.  It's really the same difference.  

[wsandista]

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...

Isn't the player the only person that can determine whether or not the PC is surprised by an action? If the player can be surprised, but not the PC, isn't that an example of the player not having full control over the player?[/quote]

[quote]robertthebard wrote...

I don't understand what you mean.  If it's your character, when you're surprised doesn't that mean that your PC is surprised too?  It is your character, afterall, and should be an extension of you in the game world.  Isn't that why you think voiced PC's are bad?[/quote]

To answer both of you, I was responding to InExile's statement that the Warden surprised because Morrigan responded in a certain way to a statement. I asserted that it wasn't the PC that surprised him by doing something he did not consent to, but Morrigan who responded in a way he didn't expect.

[quote
You're still just reading text. Unless you wish to imagine that the people all speak in a flat, monotone voice, you're going to read inflection and whatnot into the conversation. If there's no indication of inflection and other non verbal cues, the player will put in their own. If the response to a line ends up behaving completely inappropriately to what the player put in, it's a failure[/quote]

The PC doesn't know how Morrigan would respond though, the PC isn't Morrigan. Just like I don't know why some people react certain ways to witty statements make.

[quote]In a real life conversation, my body language and how I say lines makes it pretty unequivocally clear my intent. If I say to a life long friend "You're stupid" he's not going to take offense. He knows I'm a sarcastic person. It's very dangerous for me to assume that a game will allow me to make such a comment because more often than not it's taken quite literally.

Most of the absurd comments in Fallout are ones that I would actually say but they almost always get taken seriously. In full line text I find it's safest to assume that sarcasm isn't a valid tone.[/quote]

Misunderstandings happen all the time. Certain gestures and tones done by one person can be completely misunderstood by someone he is talking to. In a game, your sarcasm might not be registered by NPCs, but IRL does everyone always know your being sarcastic?


[quote]To further illustrate my point, no one is "reading a book" when posting on the forums. They are having conversations. Yet it's become a common internet convention to make sure you post emoticons to make it clear that you're being playful and sassy when a line could be taken seriously. This is because people routinely misinterpret what is truly being said when just reading lines.[/quote]

I really wasn't clear on that book/conversation comparison. In a book all the descriptive words are there, while in a conversation they come from body language and tone. The thing is both tone and body language can easily be misread by people, which means a statement can be taken very differently than how it was intended. For instance, when I'm being sarcastic, I'm usually deadpan. Some people have read this as "serious" and freaked out. With a book(or on the forums) there is an indication of the tone being used, which can reduce misunderstandings.

[robertthebard]

wsandista wrote...
I really wasn't clear on that book/conversation comparison. In a book all the descriptive words are there, while in a conversation they come from body language and tone. The thing is both tone and body language can easily be misread by people, which means a statement can be taken very differently than how it was intended. For instance, when I'm being sarcastic, I'm usually deadpan. Some people have read this as "serious" and freaked out. With a book(or on the forums) there is an indication of the tone being used, which can reduce misunderstandings.

In this same vein, every conversation in DA: O could have had the PC saying "...", since there was no tone being used, and no real body language either.  The worst part of 2 was the paraphrasing that sometimes didn't do a very good job of conveying what you were going to say, or how.  This needs work, imho, but it won't require a fixed PC to do it.

[tishyw]

wsandista wrote...

There seems to be some doubt if a voiced PC can work for a player-generated PC, so I wanted to get an idea what everyone thought about having a fixed PC since DA3 will absolutely feature a voiced PC.

Personally, I think that a voiced PC only works with a fixed PC.

I dread to think of the rage that would happen on the forums if they did this! 
And no, a fixed PC would mean that I wouldn't buy the game because I like playing as a female PC while most fixed PC's are male.  That's why I really didn't get into The Witcher, I'm sure it's a great game but I'm female and I like to play female protagonists.

[wsandista]

robertthebard wrote...

In this same vein, every conversation in DA: O could have had the PC saying "...", since there was no tone being used, and no real body language either.  The worst part of 2 was the paraphrasing that sometimes didn't do a very good job of conveying what you were going to say, or how.  This needs work, imho, but it won't require a fixed PC to do it.

In DAO, the PC could say anything how the player wanted, because there were no indicators of tone.

It isn't just the voiced PC, it is also the cinematic aspect of DA that requires a fixed PC. Look at the cinematics in DAO, if they involve the PC, they are just conversations without much action. In DA2(and ME series) much more goes on in the cinematics. It becomes much harder to retain full control of the PC with so much going on in cinematics, which increases the likelihood of the PC doing something the player doesn't want. With a fixed PC, if the PC does something the player doesn't explicitly consent to, the character isn't broken because the player never had creative control of the PC. I just can't see a player-generated PC working in a cinematic game, which is what DA3 is going to be.

[robertthebard]

wsandista wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

In this same vein, every conversation in DA: O could have had the PC saying "...", since there was no tone being used, and no real body language either.  The worst part of 2 was the paraphrasing that sometimes didn't do a very good job of conveying what you were going to say, or how.  This needs work, imho, but it won't require a fixed PC to do it.

In DAO, the PC could say anything how the player wanted, because there were no indicators of tone.

It isn't just the voiced PC, it is also the cinematic aspect of DA that requires a fixed PC. Look at the cinematics in DAO, if they involve the PC, they are just conversations without much action. In DA2(and ME series) much more goes on in the cinematics. It becomes much harder to retain full control of the PC with so much going on in cinematics, which increases the likelihood of the PC doing something the player doesn't want. With a fixed PC, if the PC does something the player doesn't explicitly consent to, the character isn't broken because the player never had creative control of the PC. I just can't see a player-generated PC working in a cinematic game, which is what DA3 is going to be.

That might make the cinematics easier to do, very true.  Which is probably why this run was fixed with one race choice, to limit camera angle problems due to height, girth etc etc.  However, that doesn't mean that a fixed PC is required, if the time is there to get these camera angles in.  I seem to recall that, in the NWN's toolset, when you were doing cutscenes, you could set the camera based on the PC.  I don't really recall if that's factual or not, but I seem to recall that all my cutscenes worked out for camera angles, regardless of PC race.  Granted that I didn't do very many of them, and it was a long time ago.

[Fallstar]

motomotogirl wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

It's just a case of luck that your idea of the character and the designers are more insync. In Hawkes case you are lumbered with a family,which is then removed for plot purposes. You have no option to just tell everyone to solve their own problems and walk out of the gates. Even though there is nothing keeping you in Kirkwall.

As a Warden, you had no option to just say, screw this, and escape to Orlais or Tevinter or hell, head back into the Dales if you're an elf.  It's really the same difference.  

This argument always makes me laugh. Do you read the back of the box, or the description online, before you buy the game? If the back of the box says "You are a Grey Warden" who is "chosen by fate to unite the shattered lands and slay the archdemon once and for all" then it seems kind of obvious to me that in this game I:

1) Am going to be a grey warden
2) Will have to kill the archdemon

Did you honestly expect something else?