95 réponses à ce sujet

[wsandista]

robertthebard wrote...

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.

I was thinking less along the lines of camera angles adjusted to the PC's body and more player control. It is much harder(if not impossible) to have complete control of the PC in a cinematic game. The closest you can get to that are interrupts like in ME2 and ME3. So I would prefer a fixed PC, because they can't do anything that breaks their character in a cinematic, because every line and action have been written with that character in mind. With a player-generated, not every line available is able to work with them, actions are the same. So in a cinematic game, the PC moves around and perform actions independent of player control(except for interrupts, even though you never know exactly what those will do) and there is a chance of them doing something the player doesn't consent to, which could very easily break the character.

[robertthebard]

DuskWarden wrote...

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? 

Sure.  I expected the player agency to let Denerim burn to the ground before I killed the Archdemon as a City Elf, why the hell would I want to save it:?  A "Oo, look, Denerim got purged now!!!" line would have rocked.  I would have loved the option to tell the factions in the treaties to work their crap out on their own, and send a messenger when you're ready to fulfill your obligation, instead of having to negotiate for aid that was my right, due to being a Grey Warden, and having a treaty that said I could get help.  It didn't say "come solve our problems and maybe we'll send an army".  I would have loved to be able to Murder Knife Alistair before we ever got out of Ostagar.  Having gathered my armies, I would have loved to be able to go to the Landsmeet and say "Either put me in charge of the armies, or burn, send a messenger when you decide" and left.  Political struggle, I'm not supposed to be involved in those, that's exactly how Wardens got expelled from Ferelden in the first place.

So there were lots of things I would have loved to be able to do, depending on which Origin I was running, I've barely scratched the tip of a very large iceberg, and I could continue, but I won't.

[robertthebard]

wsandista wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

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.

I was thinking less along the lines of camera angles adjusted to the PC's body and more player control. It is much harder(if not impossible) to have complete control of the PC in a cinematic game. The closest you can get to that are interrupts like in ME2 and ME3. So I would prefer a fixed PC, because they can't do anything that breaks their character in a cinematic, because every line and action have been written with that character in mind. With a player-generated, not every line available is able to work with them, actions are the same. So in a cinematic game, the PC moves around and perform actions independent of player control(except for interrupts, even though you never know exactly what those will do) and there is a chance of them doing something the player doesn't consent to, which could very easily break the character.

Until we get actual AI in games, it's always going to be impossible to have complete control.  While some of the dialog choices left me flat due to the paraphrasing sometimes seeming to be a stretch to get to what actually got said, or how, overall, it wasn't that bad.  It could have been much better.  Having a fixed PC, while it may seem to address it, it really won't.  If the system isn't refined a bit better, you'll still be left with "where did that come from" moments.

[AkiKishi]

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.  

As a Warden you were already suffering the taint and it was either that or death. Hawke has nothing tying him to Kirkwall or the plot beyond there not being anything else on offer.

By the time you even get into the city the blight is already over.

Either way , it's not really a counter arguement to a fixed PC is it?

Modifié par BobSmith101, 27 juin 2012 - 08:23 .

[robertthebard]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.  

As a Warden you were already suffering the taint and it was either that or death. Hawke has nothing tying him to Kirkwall or the plot beyond there not being anything else on offer.

By the time you even get into the city the blight is already over.

Either way , it's not really a counter arguement to a fixed PC is it?

That, or death in about 30 years, which, assuming you don't die killing the Archdemon, is what's going to happen anyway.  Now here's where the timeline gets pretty tricky though, since it couldn't take very long to get to Lothering from Ostagar; according to the guard at the Gallows, Kirkwall has been taking in refugees for months.  It only took 2 weeks to get from Gwaren to Kirkwall by ship.  Just how long did it really take to get to Gwaren?  We know that the Blight is ended because Varric tells us, and he tells us it ended during the first year in Kirkwall, while we're working off our debt to get in.  However, since the bribes are paid before we go into that missing year, we're already in the city when the Blight is ended.  We don't know for a fact that this is the first time the PC has been in Gamlen's home, all we do know is that it's our first time in, as a player.  Since Origins covers about a year, it must have taken a very long time to get to Gwaren from where we meet Flemeth.

...and no, it's not an arguement either way regarding a fixed PC.  All a fixed PC would accomplish is further reducing choices.

[AkiKishi]

[quote]robertthebard wrote...
As a Warden you were already suffering the taint and it was either that or death. Hawke has nothing tying him to Kirkwall or the plot beyond there not being anything else on offer.

By the time you even get into the city the blight is already over.

Either way , it's not really a counter arguement to a fixed PC is it?[/quote]
That, or death in about 30 years, which, assuming you don't die killing the Archdemon, is what's going to happen anyway.  Now here's where the timeline gets pretty tricky though, since it couldn't take very long to get to Lothering from Ostagar; according to the guard at the Gallows, Kirkwall has been taking in refugees for months.  It only took 2 weeks to get from Gwaren to Kirkwall by ship.  Just how long did it really take to get to Gwaren?  We know that the Blight is ended because Varric tells us, and he tells us it ended during the first year in Kirkwall, while we're working off our debt to get in.  However, since the bribes are paid before we go into that missing year, we're already in the city when the Blight is ended.  We don't know for a fact that this is the first time the PC has been in Gamlen's home, all we do know is that it's our first time in, as a player.  Since Origins covers about a year, it must have taken a very long time to get to Gwaren from where we meet Flemeth.

...and no, it's not an arguement either way regarding a fixed PC.  All a fixed PC would accomplish is further reducing choices.[/quote]

You would have been dead before the end of the prologue.

Depends on the choice. A fixed PC removes character creation but unless you consider first names which are never used and an appearence that means nothing as meaningful it's not that significant.
Choices within the game itself ? No , no effect on those at all. If anything you get more with a fixed PC since you can focus on real choice and not 3 different ways to reach the same result.

[wsandista]

robertthebard wrote...

wsandista wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

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.

I was thinking less along the lines of camera angles adjusted to the PC's body and more player control. It is much harder(if not impossible) to have complete control of the PC in a cinematic game. The closest you can get to that are interrupts like in ME2 and ME3. So I would prefer a fixed PC, because they can't do anything that breaks their character in a cinematic, because every line and action have been written with that character in mind. With a player-generated, not every line available is able to work with them, actions are the same. So in a cinematic game, the PC moves around and perform actions independent of player control(except for interrupts, even though you never know exactly what those will do) and there is a chance of them doing something the player doesn't consent to, which could very easily break the character.

Until we get actual AI in games, it's always going to be impossible to have complete control.  While some of the dialog choices left me flat due to the paraphrasing sometimes seeming to be a stretch to get to what actually got said, or how, overall, it wasn't that bad.  It could have been much better.  Having a fixed PC, while it may seem to address it, it really won't.  If the system isn't refined a bit better, you'll still be left with "where did that come from" moments.

I think you're missing the point. With a fixed PC, it doesn't matter if they do something unexpected because every line and action is written with that character in mind. With player-generated, a line or action that doesn't fit the PC can and often does occur in a cinematic game with voiced PC. Fixed PC can't be broken in a cinematic game, while a player-generated can, so it is best just to have a fixed PC to avoid this.

[wsandista]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Depends on the choice. A fixed PC removes character creation but unless you consider first names which are never used and an appearence that means nothing as meaningful it's not that significant.
Choices within the game itself ? No , no effect on those at all. If anything you get more with a fixed PC since you can focus on real choice and not 3 different ways to reach the same result.

Exactly, in a cinematic game a fixed PC has more options because they aren't trying to appear to be a player-generated character. Instead real options are provided for the PC, not just three different tones to say yes in.

Silent PC can provide choice and be player-generated, but silent PCs don't work in these cinematic games.

[Mark of the Dragon]

No, absolutly NOT! I want control over my character. I think the voiced PC worked well for Hawke in DA2 and Shepard in Mass Effect. No this would totally ruin the game for me.

[Gibb_Shepard]

I would. A protagonist that has a fixed name, personality and background, like TW2, would be perfect. Also like TW2, leave the character motivations, ideals and thought processes to the player. They're the only thing I ever shape in any RPG anyway.

I don't see why gender has to be fixed.

[robertthebard]

BobSmith101 wrote...

You would have been dead before the end of the prologue.

Depends on the choice. A fixed PC removes character creation but unless you consider first names which are never used and an appearence that means nothing as meaningful it's not that significant.
Choices within the game itself ? No , no effect on those at all. If anything you get more with a fixed PC since you can focus on real choice and not 3 different ways to reach the same result.

As to why first names aren't used, that's been covered; and no, with cinematic games, it won't work, barring going to fixed names for the PC.  However, that element does add an illusion of choice that some players appreciate.  Of course, for me, the default name often wound up being the name I chose anyway, especially on games where I thought "gee, maybe I should have played that out this way, instead of the way I did it", and subsequently rerolled to try it that way.

However, I was bored with my installed games yesterday, and reinstalled The Witcher, and I can't seem to get into it, even though the dialog choices are exactly what is spoken.  It's all perfectly clear, and yet, being an extension of a writer's concept of a character isn't all that appealing to me.  Despite issues I had with the paraphrasing, I felt more in control of Hawke than I do Geralt.  Let alone any of my Wardens.

[AkiKishi]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I would. A protagonist that has a fixed name, personality and background, like TW2, would be perfect. Also like TW2, leave the character motivations, ideals and thought processes to the player. They're the only thing I ever shape in any RPG anyway.

I don't see why gender has to be fixed.

Well there are plenty of names that work equally for both genders. Even if that is not the case, then what you save on writing redundant dialogue should still more than cover it.

[AkiKishi]

robertthebard wrote...
However, I was bored with my installed games yesterday, and reinstalled The Witcher, and I can't seem to get into it, even though the dialog choices are exactly what is spoken.  It's all perfectly clear, and yet, being an extension of a writer's concept of a character isn't all that appealing to me.  Despite issues I had with the paraphrasing, I felt more in control of Hawke than I do Geralt.  Let alone any of my Wardens.

I'll tell you the same thing that someone told me when playing my first JRPG. "Stop looking for what is not there an enjoy what is".

[robertthebard]

BobSmith101 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
However, I was bored with my installed games yesterday, and reinstalled The Witcher, and I can't seem to get into it, even though the dialog choices are exactly what is spoken.  It's all perfectly clear, and yet, being an extension of a writer's concept of a character isn't all that appealing to me.  Despite issues I had with the paraphrasing, I felt more in control of Hawke than I do Geralt.  Let alone any of my Wardens.

I'll tell you the same thing that someone told me when playing my first JRPG. "Stop looking for what is not there an enjoy what is".

I actually had this problem with it the first time I installed it, just can't seem to get out of that first little village.  I have concluded that it's just one game that's not for me, it just doesn't click.  Ironically, despite my dislike of shooter type games, my first run of ME ran for about 5 hours.  I've finished it 3 times, and finished ME 2 twice as well.  While it's easy to blame "fixed protagonist", there's probably more to it than that.  I played all the original versions of Doom, and Quake, and their early spin offs, sometimes as Freeware, for a scope of how long ago that was.

[LolaLei]

If you mean fixed in terms of not being able to create the characters appearance from scratch, or choose it's gender, sexual preference and the choices made throughout the story, then no. One of the reasons I play Bioware games is because I can shape the protagonist in the way I see fit.

[Sylvianus]

David Gaider has already said and repeated that it isn't going to happen, and the same with the silent protagonist. This isn't what they are going to do with the next DA.

It amazes me how we see the same discussions over and over here theses times. ( romance, silent protagonist VS voiced protagonist, fixed PC, and here we go again )

[AkiKishi]

LolaLei wrote...

If you mean fixed in terms of not being able to create the characters appearance from scratch, or choose it's gender, sexual preference and the choices made throughout the story, then no. One of the reasons I play Bioware games is because I can shape the protagonist in the way I see fit.

The only one you would not be able to do is appearence. But then you play "fake" versions of Shepard or Hawke anyway unless you use the default.

[EricHVela]

I'm okay with maybe one of the future Dragon Age games having a fixed protagonist (assuming the next Dragon Age isn't the last -- hoping, but trilogies are so chic right now, it's depressing).

Given how we didn't play the same protagonist in Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age: Kirkwall, I have no problem playing new protagonists, even if it's another character that we cannot define in detail, but not if all future characters are fixed like that.

[AkiKishi]

ReggarBlane wrote...

I'm okay with maybe one of the future Dragon Age games having a fixed protagonist (assuming the next Dragon Age isn't the last -- hoping, but trilogies are so chic right now, it's depressing).

Given how we didn't play the same protagonist in Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age: Kirkwall, I have no problem playing new protagonists, even if it's another character that we cannot define in detail, but not if all future characters are fixed like that.

What if you like it ?
My view changed after playing Deus Ex and especially Witcher2. What you gain in real terms is well worth the trade off.

[LolaLei]

BobSmith101 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

If you mean fixed in terms of not being able to create the characters appearance from scratch, or choose it's gender, sexual preference and the choices made throughout the story, then no. One of the reasons I play Bioware games is because I can shape the protagonist in the way I see fit.

The only one you would not be able to do is appearence. But then you play "fake" versions of Shepard or Hawke anyway unless you use the default.

They aren't "fake" Hawke/Shepard, they're just not the default appearance, though I like default male Shepard's appearance so I always use him for my male play through lol.

Don't get me wrong, I play games with a fixed PC's too, but given a choice I prefer to have the option to customise the protagonist's appearance, if only to switch things up a bit and make completely different looking PC's depending on the way I play the game each time.

Modifié par LolaLei, 28 juin 2012 - 06:43 .

[TonberryFeye]

Sylvianus wrote...
It amazes me how we see the same discussions over and over here theses times. ( romance, silent protagonist VS voiced protagonist, fixed PC, and here we go again )

Call it stupidity on Bioware's part.

FORUM GOERS: "Hey! We signed up on this forum to talk about what we thought was great about the Dragon Age series. These are the things we all loved, and want to see again."
BIOWARE: "Yeah... **** that. We're doing what we want."

See, I doubt I am the only person out there who does not have time to play every single game to death. I find that most of my time is consumed by 2-3 games tops. Dragon Age takes up the bulk of my gaming time, with the rest going on a handful of quick online bouts of Space Marine or Starcraft 2. Even if I could dedicate 16 hours a day to gaming, there are a lot of games out there. Whenever DA3 comes out it will have competition, and I suspect this game could easily go down the drain. Consider:

Pre-order: "DA3 is out for preorder! But... DA2 was a chore to play. I'd better wait until it comes out so I can make sure it's not as terrible as the last one."
Release: "Oh, DA3 is out! Hmm... but I did pre-order that other game, so will I have time for two new titles? I'll get it later."
Later: "Hmm... I guess I could buy DA3 now, but I might as well wait until the price drops."
When the price drops: "Oh wow, look at all these cool new games that are out now / about to come out in the next few weeks! I'm so going to play those now!"
Dragon Age 3 dies alone and unloved.

This has happened with me and games before. Resistance 3 is a grand example of a game I kept telling myself "I want this so much!" but it came out at exactly the wrong time and I just never got around to it... and once I've had a month or two of not getting around to it I can easily go a year or two, and once you've not bothered for a year or two you can not bother at all.

Again, I am someone who is still playing Origins, and yet what I'd seen and heard of DA2 put me off so much I waited for a bargain bin copy of DA2. How does Bioware expect to win me over after that by telling me over and over "we're really proud of DA2 and want to keep as much stuff from it as we can"?