29 réponses à ce sujet

[blindchaos]

I understand that the Origin system was fairily well recieved in DA:O, and that it's removal in DA2 was a major error for fans.  However, after playing through both games recently, I have to ask:  Are Origins critical.

As far I can tell the origins in DA:O were just slightly personalized prologues.  They offered no real choice for the player, and served only to give a slightly more in depth look at the culture of the player's starting zone.  However, none of the information gathered is particularly vital.  I can understand the Dwarven culture without playing either Dwarf Origin. 

While I understand the appeal of having an extra level of customization to the player's avatar, I can't help but feel they are less substantial then many people admit.  For example my City Elf never really had to deal with racism.  Despite claims that Elves are a persecuted minority that live in the slums, I rarely had to confront this element of society.  Everyone I talked to fell in line from Knight Commanders to Arls.  The persecution of City Elves never seemed to extend past the city I lived in. 

I don't mean to say that Origins are a bad thing.  I don't think they are vital to the series, despite Origins being in the title of the first game.  If Origins could be given a real impact, then maybe I would consider them more interesting.

This is my first post in the Dragon Age Community, and I mean offense with my opinions.  I realize that others might have seen increased value in the Origin system, and if so, I am very interested to hear what it was. 

[Dave of Canada]

Nope, the majority barely touched anything outside of Human Noble and they served little purpose after reaching Ostagar. Some value elves and dwarves more--such as myself loving the dwarven protagonist--though it really meant nothing beside creating difficulty for cinematics and creating the odd line or two throughout.

[batlin]

They added a good amount of replayability, and while the paths all coalesced, there were some differences between them throughout the game.

It comes back down to player agency. In D&D you get to choose your background, but of course the DM ultimately decides what the story will be. More options like that are what add to player agency, something that DA2 mostly did away with.

Modifié par batlin, 30 juin 2012 - 06:45 .

[Zanallen]

Nope. Not at all.

[blindchaos]

batlin wrote...

They added a good amount of replayability, and while the paths all coalesced, there were some differences between them throughout the game.

It comes back down to player agency. In D&D you get to choose your background, but of course the DM ultimately decides what the story will be. More options like that are what add to player agency, something that DA2 mostly did away with.

I appreciate your point.  Personally  I never found the origins to increase replayability, outside of the origin itself.  I saw them more as just as a series of prologues to establish the various settings and cultures.  Interesting, and enjoyable to play sure, but nothing that wasn't later provided in the game proper.

As for the concept of player agency, I agree with you to a degree.  Though I feel I must ask, are origins Player agency, or Player customization?  The origins never really allowed me to do anything, except choose how I looked and whatt my class could be.  Granted it was more choice then DA2, but it wasn't really anything outside of character customization for me.

I have never played D&D before, but isn't that experience somewhat reactionary.  IE, the DM adjusts the narative and experience based on how the palyers perform and react to the situations he presents them?  I only ask because I don't think games are flexible enough to really provide the freedom that a true D&D game might allow.   I could be wrong however, and if so I would appreciate clarification.

[batlin]

blindchaos wrote...

I appreciate your point.  Personally  I never found the origins to increase replayability, outside of the origin itself.  I saw them more as just as a series of prologues to establish the various settings and cultures.  Interesting, and enjoyable to play sure, but nothing that wasn't later provided in the game proper.

As for the concept of player agency, I agree with you to a degree.  Though I feel I must ask, are origins Player agency, or Player customization?  The origins never really allowed me to do anything, except choose how I looked and whatt my class could be.  Granted it was more choice then DA2, but it wasn't really anything outside of character customization for me.

The identity a player creates is part of their agency within the game and can alter the player's perspective on the game's events. A Dalish elf would probably be more concerned with what's going on with the Brecillian woods than a dwarf would, and indeed if you are a dalish elf you will get different options and dialogue accordingly. That's an example of the player being empowered according to the intention of the choice of race they made.

I have never played D&D before, but isn't that experience somewhat reactionary.  IE, the DM adjusts the narative and experience based on how the palyers perform and react to the situations he presents them?  I only ask because I don't think games are flexible enough to really provide the freedom that a true D&D game might allow.   I could be wrong however, and if so I would appreciate clarification.

It's true that there's no way a video game could offer the same agency that a game like D&D could, but that's not to say a video game can't represent it well. Longer campaigns in D&D are usually done with a pre-planned story that the DM thought up, or through a published module. It's not too often players aren't being railroaded into a quest.

Modifié par batlin, 30 juin 2012 - 07:11 .

[Samuel_Valkyrie]

I don't believe Origins are necessary. If I look at the Mass Effect series, I never got to play a Quarian, or a Krogan, or any other species but human. However, I did got to experience their plights, to understand what it meant to be such a character in such a world. As long as DAIII accomplishes that, there is no need for Origins.

However, as said before, Origins was something from DA:O that was taken away in DA2. and people dislike their features being taken away.

[blindchaos]

batlin wrote...

The identity a player creates is part of their agency within the game and can alter the player's perspective on the game's events. A Dalish elf would probably be more concerned with what's going on with the Brecillian woods than a dwarf would, and indeed if you are a dalish elf you will get different options and dialogue accordingly. That's an example of the player being empowered according to the intention of the choice of race they made.

That's a fair point.   Increasing player's connections with their characters can be a great thing, and I can see how the Origin system helps that.  

I don't mean to sound like I am against the Oirigin system.  I just find the impact to be inconsistent, or at best fairly minimal.  It seems to me that, as they have been implemented in the past, they are a half measure.  If Origin choices could have more obvious and harsher impacts in the narrative I would find them more interesting

To me, Origins need to evolve past their superfical impact.  Each Origin should provide a more unique experience in order to justify it's role as a core feature.   As it was previously implemented though, I just find the origin system to be a fun, but not vital feature of the franchise.

batlin wrote...
It's true that there's no way a video game could offer the same agency that a game like D&D could, but that's not to say a video game can't represent it well. Longer campaigns in D&D are usually done with a pre-planned story that the DM thought up, or through a published module. It's not too often players aren't being railroaded into a quest.

I appreciate this information.  I really don't know much about classic roleplays like D&D, and it is always fun to learn a bit more about the processes that go into them.

Modifié par blindchaos, 30 juin 2012 - 07:48 .

[batlin]

blindchaos wrote...

That's a fair point.  I don't want to say I'm against origins.  I do find them inconsistent, and their impact fairly minimal.  To me they are a half measure, a way to create a more personal attachment to your character, but provide little significance.  If Origin choices could have more and harsher impacts in the narrative I would say they were a vital part of the franchise.  Say for example an Elf has a harder time gaining allies among nobles, but an easier time in the slums, that would be a cool concequence.  As it was previously implemented though, I just find the origin system to be a fun feature, but not a defining one for Dragon Age.

True, origins didn't have as big an impact on the game as they probably should have, but fixing that problem is clearly a more ideal a solution than removing it entirely. Undertsandably they really couldn't do it in DA2 since they had such restricted development time and resources, but since they're presumably being given more for DA3 it would be a shame if they just left the origins idea behind in the dust.

[WotanAnubis]

Necessary? No,

What the Origins were primarily good for was introducing the various societies and the the social roles and rules that exist within those societies. They were also good for biasing the player towards certain outcomes (how likely would it be for a Noble Dwarf to support Bhelen? How likely would it be for a Casteless Dwarf to support Harrowmont?).

Technically, Dragon Age 2 presented us with a new Origin (Apostate Mage - or the family of one), but it wasn't really presented very well.

So, you know, having already done all that groundwork, I don't think Origins are necessary. Fun to have, yes, and I would be happy to see them back, but not necessary.

The only thing I really want for Dragon Age 3 in this regard is a background for the PC we haven't seen before (non-Qunari kossith, for example).

[Scott Sion]

Adding color to a game isn't necessary though the game would be bland without it. It isn't necessary to have origins, but it was and interesting concept and one I would like to see return if possible.

I'm more interested in seeing different player races returning.

[Jerrybnsn]

Someone did a parody on here over a year ago of what Origins would have been like had it followed the DA2 formula. The game would have opened up with the Warden and Alistair fighting to light the fire at the Battle of Ostegar. I'll have to spend the rest of the morning looking for it.

Anyway, if you chose a particular race that came from a certain society that would play an important role in the DA game, wouldn't you like more of a connection with that society? Being a city elf from the alienage in Denerim wouldn't have meant much if you only learned about your father, cousin and the disastorous wedding that changed your life at the end of the end of the game. Would you have been diplomatic about the where abouts of your father to the Tevinterian slavers or would have been more confrontational?

edit: Found it!  It wasn't too hard of a search since it was buried on page 23 of the General DA2 forum.  social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6927245

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 30 juin 2012 - 10:49 .

[batlin]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Someone did a parody on here over a year ago of what Origins would have been like had it followed the DA2 formula. The game would have opened up with the Warden and Alistair fighting to light the fire at the Battle of Ostegar. I'll have to spend the rest of the morning looking for it.

Anyway, if you chose a particular race that came from a certain society that would play an important role in the DA game, wouldn't you like more of a connection with that society? Being a city elf from the alienage in Denerim wouldn't have meant much if you only learned about your father, cousin and the disastorous wedding that changed your life at the end of the end of the game. Would you have been diplomatic about the where abouts of your father to the Tevinterian slavers or would have been more confrontational?

edit: Found it!  It wasn't too hard of a search since it was buried on page 23 of the General DA2 forum.  social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6927245

God damn you. And I told myself I would go to bed soon. Now I'll be up for at LEAST another hour reading that.

Modifié par batlin, 30 juin 2012 - 11:30 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I think the PC requires a background which helps to form the motivations of the PC. Now you can rationalize the need away for different races, but I think it is wrong to help BW in every attempt to create games more economically. It is fun to play a different race with its own background.

Remember fun? You know, that old fashioned idea which shaped the different types of games over the years?

BW has gone another route. Its main focus is to produce a game as fast and as cheap as possible. If they could then they would poop out a Dragon Age title every year. It is not reason that removed the ability to play as a different race. It is just that it is cheaper to do so.

But if we condone their drive for simplification then in the end we end up with bad games that were once RPGs, but are now indistinguishable from point and click adventures. Playing different origins is expensive, so it has to go. Playing different races is expensive, so it has to go. Free form customization is expensive, so it has to go. Complex interactive dialogue is expensive, so it is severely cut by an ME-type dialogue wheel. Creating conditional content is expensive, so every location on the map has to be visited, no matter what the story. Creating boss fights is expensive, so you have to fight them all, no matter what the story. Any idea why we ended up with simplified game mechanics? The one of DA:O was too buggy. So it was decided to recreate it from scratch. In technical software engineering jargon this is called refactoring. But of course that takes time, so it is cheaper to simplify it.

In short, for all the "improvements" in the game there is only one drive: To create the game as cheap and as fast as they can.

Fun has nothing to do with it.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 30 juin 2012 - 12:51 .

[TonberryFeye]

WotanAnubis wrote...
What the Origins were primarily good for was introducing the various societies and the the social roles and rules that exist within those societies. They were also good for biasing the player towards certain outcomes (how likely would it be for a Noble Dwarf to support Bhelen? How likely would it be for a Casteless Dwarf to support Harrowmont?).

You say that, but I am currently playing as a Dwarf Noble and I am supporting Bhelen!

The reasoning is quite simple. He says I would have backstabbed him if he didn't do it to me first. I denied that... and he reminded me just how easily I turned on Trian. That, for me as a player, was a wake up call. I did turn on my brother, and Bhelen turned on me the same way. I was left agreeing with the option the game presented me; "I can't blame you for playing the better hand."
It struck me that this is how Dwarven politics work. That, combined with the fact that Bhelen was the last Aeducan standing, convinced me to back him; I may not like the guy, but it'll keep my family on the throne and (again, from an RP'er perspective) he knows I will not hesitate to bury a blade into his skull if he tries to doublecross me again.

That kind of awesome is why we need origin stories; it's amazing how a seemingly unimportant thing can totally reshape how you view the game.

[Swordfishtrombone]

I think that the origins provided something that people who like to replay good games really want - content that is of the "either/or" type, meaning that you can take one path, and it'll provide you with unique content, and another path, and it will provide you with other, different unique content.

This personalized prologue of having multiple possible origin stories that you could play through might just be the only time Bioware has properly done something like that - the closest I can remember was in BG2, where you could take two different routes to the underdark. But even there, only one of the routes actually provided you with extra, unique content - the other route was just a shortcut that bypassed this content.

What I'd like to see is more content that you have to choose between - actual content, where you cannot possibly play through everything available in the game in one playthrough.

The vast majority of time, choises between two options lead to nearly identical paths, which both use the same areas, often the same events, only from a different perspective.

Of course it is labor intensive to do separate content for different paths, but I think it is richly rewarded in player reception of the game.

So I'd say that the origins weren't necessary, but for a truly great game, something LIKE that, a point of true divergence, at some point in the game, should be there. Doesn't matter if the paths converge again later, as long as the paths truly were different and don't overtly resemble eachother.

[AkiKishi]

When Orgins came out Thedas was new so the origins played an important role in the game. Now that is not so much the case. Unless things were radically different because of your origin then they don't serve the same purpose anymore.

[wsandista]

They would be nice.

[Pasquale1234]

TonberryFeye wrote...

You say that, but I am currently playing as a Dwarf Noble and I am supporting Bhelen!

The reasoning is quite simple. He says I would have backstabbed him if he didn't do it to me first. I denied that... and he reminded me just how easily I turned on Trian. That, for me as a player, was a wake up call. I did turn on my brother, and Bhelen turned on me the same way. I was left agreeing with the option the game presented me; "I can't blame you for playing the better hand."
It struck me that this is how Dwarven politics work. That, combined with the fact that Bhelen was the last Aeducan standing, convinced me to back him; I may not like the guy, but it'll keep my family on the throne and (again, from an RP'er perspective) he knows I will not hesitate to bury a blade into his skull if he tries to doublecross me again.

That kind of awesome is why we need origin stories; it's amazing how a seemingly unimportant thing can totally reshape how you view the game.

That's a great example of the additional color and character the origins can add to the game.

While I understand that the game world's reactions to the warden's origin were few and far between, my warden's reactions to the world were largely based on their origin.  IOW, I used the different origins heavily in crafting and role-playing my characters.

Here are a few examples:

For my dwarf commoner rogue, joining the wardens represented her only chance to escape a lifetime of servitude to a crime lord, and her social role as a castless throwaway.  All of the sights, sounds, smells of the surface world - including the feel of sunlight on her skin - were brand new experiences for her, and it took her quite some time to adjust to living on the surface.  She was very uncomfortable in the presence of respected authoritative figures, preferring to hide in the shadows, and instinctively kept looking for shinies to swap (the stealth and stealing skills were integral parts of her character definition).  She was also uncomfortable with taking command and making decisions for the group - which is in direct contrast to...

My human noble warrior, highly trained and groomed not only for combat but command.  She took a rather dim view of the idea of putting Alistair on the throne, constantly searching for ways to convey what she had learned during a lifetime of living as nobility to him to prepare him to be an effective ruler.  She was ultra-aware of the qualities and characteristics that she felt would shape Alistair's rule.

I could go on, but hopefully these brief examples will serve as adequate illustrations.  Even though these different playthroughs were mostly the same once they arrived at Ostagar, the characters had very different reactions to those experiences, and saw the various characters and events through very different eyes.  It made each playthrough feel fresh and new to me.

So - no, origins aren't necessary, but they certainly add a lot of color and flavor to role-playing for players who choose to utlize them in that way.

[Fast Jimmy]

It seems to me most people in this thread are stating that origins were kinda cool, but aren't important to have in future games because DA:O didn't do them to a big enough extent.

Okay, I can buy that. I thought the few references we got outside the prologue were pretty cool, but I can understand people not being sold on their level of impact.

But... wouldn't that mean that, since origins are a cool idea, we should push Bioware to make them a bigger factor in the game, not just scrap them altogether? It was one of the signature features of the series (I mean, the game was NAMED Origins), so to say "it could have been done better... so instead of doing it better, let's just scrap the whole idea."

I guess we could say that about a lot of the RPG mechanics that were stripped going from DA:O to DA2... so I guess I just answered my own question.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

It seems to me most people in this thread are stating that origins were kinda cool, but aren't important to have in future games because DA:O didn't do them to a big enough extent.

Okay, I can buy that. I thought the few references we got outside the prologue were pretty cool, but I can understand people not being sold on their level of impact.

But... wouldn't that mean that, since origins are a cool idea, we should push Bioware to make them a bigger factor in the game, not just scrap them altogether? It was one of the signature features of the series (I mean, the game was NAMED Origins), so to say "it could have been done better... so instead of doing it better, let's just scrap the whole idea."

I guess we could say that about a lot of the RPG mechanics that were stripped going from DA:O to DA2... so I guess I just answered my own question.

Yeah. I agree with that. If we stripped everything from DA2 that didn't work then there wouldn't be much of a game left.

[bloodmage13]

I do not think that origins are necessary. The next game would not require them to be a fun experience. However, I think that there is a happy median. Maybe the creators could try making less origins. They could focus on quality and not quantity. Maybe bring the number down to three. OR the origin could start in the same place but characters treat you different.