778 réponses à ce sujet

[Maclimes]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

That doesn't even make sense. If the driver is forced to follow the route exactly, he has no control, only the illusion of control.

Sure he does.  The bus goes because he presses a pedal.  That he's required to press it doesn't change the fact that he's the one doing it.

So, in the old model, Hawke would jump in front of an arrow or something in a cutscene. You are advocating that, instead, have an icon that says "Press A to jump in front of arrow", and the cutscene doesn't progress until you do? That seems much worse than before. If we're forced to do it anyway, I'd just assume not to have to do a QT event.

A better solution would be to scrap the bus driver analogy. Taxi cab, instead.

A taxi can choose his route, his speed, his rate, and even his adherence to the law. If he wants to "win the game", he still has to get to the same destination. But he can choose HOW he gets there. Some ways are better, some are faster, some are more scenic, some are more legal. But you get to choose. What you CAN'T choose to do is just not go to the destination. You have to go. But you decide how you get there.

That's how I see it.

In DA:O. You're a taxi driver. In DA2, you're a bus driver.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maclimes wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

That doesn't even make sense. If the driver is forced to follow the route exactly, he has no control, only the illusion of control.

Sure he does.  The bus goes because he presses a pedal.  That he's required to press it doesn't change the fact that he's the one doing it.

So, in the old model, Hawke would jump in front of an arrow or something in a cutscene. You are advocating that, instead, have an icon that says "Press A to jump in front of arrow", and the cutscene doesn't progress until you do? That seems much worse than before. If we're forced to do it anyway, I'd just assume not to have to do a QT event.

A better solution would be to scrap the bus driver analogy. Taxi cab, instead.

A taxi can choose his route, his speed, his rate, and even his adherence to the law. If he wants to "win the game", he still has to get to the same destination. But he can choose HOW he gets there. Some ways are better, some are faster, some are more scenic, some are more legal. But you get to choose. What you CAN'T choose to do is just not go to the destination. You have to go. But you decide how you get there.

That's how I see it.

In DA:O. You're a taxi driver. In DA2, you're a bus driver.

I like the taxi analogy.  But I would argue that in DA2 you're actually the passenger, not the driver.  DA2 doesn't let you drive the narrative.  It accepts and completes quests automatically.  It never tells you why Hawke is doing anything, and if you try to decide yourself it will later contradict you.

I would much rather be the taxi driver.

[AmstradHero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
This all implies that you as a character and/or roleplayer have no empathy or understanding of the NPCs with which you are interacting.

Neither do you.  What you call empathy is just you projecting your own emotions onto others and misidentifying that as you perceiving their emotions.  People who are relevantly different from you in how they experience or express emotions - and I do tend to use either psychopaths or the autistic as examples of this - break the system, thus demonstrating that it isn't doing what you think it is doing.

Yes, but saying a system is broken because outliers don't conform to it is like saying a process is broken because it fails in 0.001% of cases. Nothing ever works perfectly and flawlessly. To claim that empathy is a misappropriation of emotions and perception would suggest that people never gain joy from things like the recounting of shared experiences and emotional states.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
As I stated before, this would be strongly indicative of someone with asperger's or autism.

Again with the internet diagnosis.  I hope you're not a doctor, because this would be hugely unprofessional.

I'm not a doctor, but I recognise this type of communication issue because I've known a number of people in my life with one or the other. Communicating with them requires me to rework my communication model because they don't react as the majority of people do. Expecting to be able to roleplay a character with one of these traits is fairly unrealistic and I would say too niche and demanding, especially since it would be likely to come at the expense of the enjoyment of the experience for people who did not want to create such a character.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
This results in the character lacking the necessary social skill or understanding to communicate in parameters that would be considered normal by the majority of society.

First fo all, you've just made an implicit argumentum ad popularum - that interacting in a particular way is better simply because more people do it.  Second, the method of "communication" (which I put in quotes because I'm not at all confident communication even exists) being described as the majority approach here cannot work without you people reading each other's minds, which you can't do.

Again, you're ascribing "better" to the situation. I never granted that value judgement. I simply said "considered normal". That means of communication is more understandable to most people, hence why there are medical terms applied to people who are unable to use it. Arguing that "communication" does not exist is a ridiculous concept, because people do it every day of their lives - it's how you get people who do or don't get along due to different styles of communication and/or background. Communication is the basis for human relationships, and doesn't require the reading of minds. If it did, we would have evolved as a race to do that, or become extinct long ago.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Since roleplaying is predicated on interactions with other people...

I deny that this is the case.  Your conditional is meaningless if you don't justify the precedent.

If we can't agree on this, then there is no point to the rest of the discussion. In short, if you disagree on this point, then we have fundamentally different views on what constitutes roleplaying that are impossible to reconcile.

Roleplaying ultimately comes down to portraying a particular personality onto the protagonist of the game. The player is creating a persona (though sometimes that persona is limited by preset factors), and must use their choices of action and dialogue in game to convey that personality. The primary mechanism by which a character's personality is defined within the world is the way in which they interact with others.

Compare roleplaying in a gold box game to something like BG or NWN. In a gold box game you can imagine your characters with any sort of character you like, but it always remains in your imagination. You can provide justification for their actions internally, but these can never be projected into the game world. BG and NWN (and many more) provide that option through dialogue. Dialogue allows the player to visibly and directly interact with the world through other characters to provide justification and characterisation. The persona moves out of the player's head and into a form that the game can meaningfully interact with.

Without dialogue, you simply don't have scope to roleplay in a meaningful fashion. Furthermore, if you don't believe this then you may as well play a roleplaying game with absolutely zero dialogue, because that removes the aspect of the games/genre that you apparently have a problem with.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 14 juillet 2012 - 12:32 .

[AmstradHero]

Pygmali0n wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

This all implies that you as a character and/or roleplayer have no empathy or understanding of the NPCs with which you are interacting. As I stated before, this would be strongly indicative of someone with asperger's or autism. This results in the character lacking the necessary social skill or understanding to communicate in parameters that would be considered normal by the majority of society.

That goes a bit too far, with strangers, in business and with people I distrust (Bioware marketing for example), I generally follow Sylvius' adversarial model of conversations. With friends or family I try to be more collaborative, as we're calling it.

You take different approaches to different conversations. Why? Because you have some understanding of the aims and goals of the other party. By selectively modifying your approach to a conversation based on prior knowledge and understanding or the other individual(s) involved, you're not taking an adversarial approach, but adapting your communication model to suit the situation. Viewing every conversation through the same lens is problematic; that's what we do as children, but we learn how to adjust as we grow older in order to be able to communicate effectively.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 14 juillet 2012 - 12:21 .

[The_11thDoctor]

Dont agree. Keep cinematics. Just make a better world, gameplay and add epic story with a GREAT way of telling it again and we'll be solid. I want a story on par with the DA books, eps Asunder, but in VG format. DA3 has the potential, but I dont trust BW yet to do so anymore. ME2 was worst than 1 and ME3 was worst than 2. DA2 was tech better than DAO, but only gameplay wise, esp after the dlc. Story telling wise DAO was VASTLY superior and exploration wise. It felt thought out and not rushed unlike DA2 where they tell you something happened and you go, "What?!", and then continue with no feelings toward the world. The story telling in the CG clips isnt the problem, but the game design itself was the problem in both games. They have no clear direction to take the series yet and that's why each game is struggling to find its place in the market. If they can have a vision and carry it out like KOA (Kingdoms of Amalur), but with DA story telling, lure and difficulty settings, it would rape the market and sell like electronics

[Hexoduen]

I disagree with this thread. Sure my favourite Bioware games are Baldur's Gate, KoTOR, DA:O and ME1, but their other games are still A+ quality (minus DA2). I enjoy the new cinematics, and as long as Bioware games combine cinematics with an awesome story/interaction like in DA:O, I'm all thumbs up for Bioware.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AmstradHero wrote...

Yes, but saying a system is broken because outliers don't conform to it is like saying a process is broken because it fails in 0.001% of cases. Nothing ever works perfectly and flawlessly. To claim that empathy is a misappropriation of emotions and perception would suggest that people never gain joy from things like the recounting of shared experiences and emotional states.

No it isn't.  I'm not denying the result; I'm denying the mechanism.  People experience that joy not because they're sharing an emotion, but because they're experiencing relevantly similar emotions.

If your theory of gravity fails to describe 0.001% of freefall events, then your theory of gravity is incorrect.  Empathy is falsifiable.

I'm not a doctor, but I recognise this type of communication issue because I've known a number of people in my life with one or the other. Communicating with them requires me to rework my communication model because they don't react as the majority of people do. Expecting to be able to roleplay a character with one of these traits is fairly unrealistic and I would say too niche and demanding, especially since it would be likely to come at the expense of the enjoyment of the experience for people who did not want to create such a character.

We shouldn't all have to want the same type of character - that's my point.  BioWare's pre-voice games allowed these sorts of extreme designs.  Their voiced games do not.

Arguing that "communication" does not exist is a ridiculous concept, because people do it every day of their lives - it's how you get people who do or don't get along due to different styles of communication and/or background. Communication is the basis for human relationships, and doesn't require the reading of minds. If it did, we would have evolved as a race to do that, or become extinct long ago.

Expression and interpretation are required as you describe.  Communication, as some sort of extra layer of existence, isn't a necessary supposition.  I would argue that communication exists in name only, as it is nothing more than a combination of its constituent parts expression and interpretation.

If we can't agree on this, then there is no point to the rest of the discussion. In short, if you disagree on this point, then we have fundamentally different views on what constitutes roleplaying that are impossible to reconcile.

Perhaps, but...

Roleplaying ultimately comes down to portraying a particular personality onto the protagonist of the game. The player is creating a persona (though sometimes that persona is limited by preset factors), and must use their choices of action and dialogue in game to convey that personality.

...I agree entirely with this.  Where you go wrong is in your next sentence:

The primary mechanism by which a character's personality is defined within the world is the way in which they interact with others.

I don't concede that interaction exists any more than communication does.  The primary mechanism by which the character's personality is defined within the game's setting is his through process, which doesn't actually exist within the game at all.  The only part of that that extends into the game is the character's expression (something over which the player didn't actually have control in DA2).  The character's interpretation of the others around him - the other constituent part of communication (possibly interaction - I don't know how you're defining that) - isn't in the game, either, and also exists only within the player's imagination, just like all of the character's thoughts.

Compare roleplaying in a gold box game to something like BG or NWN. In a gold box game you can imagine your characters with any sort of character you like, but it always remains in your imagination. You can provide justification for their actions internally, but these can never be projected into the game world. BG and NWN (and many more) provide that option through dialogue. Dialogue allows the player to visibly and directly interact with the world through other characters to provide justification and characterisation.

But there's no necessary connection between that dialogue and the actual justification for what the character does.  The character need not express his thoughts through dialogue.  He could deceive.  He could deflect.

The dialogue offered in BG and NWN gives the player more opportunities to express his character's personality both internally and within the game, but never did the game itself define that personality.

The persona moves out of the player's head and into a form that the game can meaningfully interact with.

And there's the difference between us.  The persona of my character's never moved out of my head.  As such, the game was never able to interact with it meaningfully.  But that allowed me to maintain total control of my character's persona, something the voiced PC games have taken away by denying me control over my character's expression.

As I see it, BioWare's silent PC games merely refined the Gold Box approached, but never baandoned it.  Only with the voiced PC did their games become incompatible with that playstyle (and I'm not even sure the voiced PC is necessarily incompatible with that playstyle - it just has been in every example so far)

Without dialogue, you simply don't have scope to roleplay in a meaningful fashion.

Sure you can.  As long as you're making in-character decisions, then you're roleplaying.  That's all I want: in-character decision-making.  I haven't managed to make that work in DA2 at all.

Furthermore, if you don't believe this then you may as well play a roleplaying game with absolutely zero dialogue, because that removes the aspect of the games/genre that you apparently have a problem with.

That would significantly reduce the opportunities for roleplaying (since every dialogue event is an opportunity to make an in-character decision).  But BioWare's implementation of the voiced PC actually robs the player of control over his character.  No longer can I design the character's personality and have the game not contradict it.  No longer am I able to choose dialogue options with any confidence that the character won't behave in a character-breaking way.

The voice robs us of freedom.  The paraphrase robs us of control.

[AkiKishi]

aang001 wrote...

Dont agree. Keep cinematics. Just make a better world, gameplay and add epic story with a GREAT way of telling it again and we'll be solid. I want a story on par with the DA books, eps Asunder, but in VG format. DA3 has the potential, but I dont trust BW yet to do so anymore. ME2 was worst than 1 and ME3 was worst than 2. DA2 was tech better than DAO, but only gameplay wise, esp after the dlc. Story telling wise DAO was VASTLY superior and exploration wise. It felt thought out and not rushed unlike DA2 where they tell you something happened and you go, "What?!", and then continue with no feelings toward the world. The story telling in the CG clips isnt the problem, but the game design itself was the problem in both games. They have no clear direction to take the series yet and that's why each game is struggling to find its place in the market. If they can have a vision and carry it out like KOA (Kingdoms of Amalur), but with DA story telling, lure and difficulty settings, it would rape the market and sell like electronics

That's because it's a BOOK. It's pre-written in every respect from start to finish. It does not have to allow for any variability at all.
Take FFXIII ,not Squares finest hour by any means , but it outsold DA 2-1(or more) and even it's less well performing addon outsold DA2.

[jillabender]

AmstradHero wrote…

NPC reactions are predictable because they display particular character traits that informs the player how they will react to the player's actions and dialogue. e.g. being snarky or acting illegally will almost always earn the ire of Aveline. You can track exactly the same issues back to BG and BG2, where characters voice their disapproval if the character is too good/evil and does(n't) perform certain actions. These characters are written such that the player is given indications of their preferences and attitudes, meaning they can consider those when interacting with the character. Writers give NPCs a personality and then display it with in-game information. It is this characterisation that makes them memorable for players, because they have a consistent personality with which the player can empathise or admire (or love to hate). That's what writers do.

It sounds as though you, as someone who enjoys writing for games, look at character interactions from the perspective of a writer, whose goal is to convey the distinct emotions and motivations of the characters, and to evoke similar emotions in the reader (or in this case, the player). Like you, I tend to look at the way a scene plays out and analyze it in terms whether it flows coherently as a story. If it doesn't quite feel coherent to me, I tend to revise my vision until it feels more in sync with that of the writers – even though, as Sylvius points out, it's metagaming.

Like Sylvius, I found it frustrating that DA2 sometimes had my character express himself or herself in ways that didn't fit with how I imagined the character (something that I rarely, if ever, found to be a problem in DA:O). But what I found more frustrating was that I the fact that I wasn't allowed to know some of the characters well enough to understand why they did or said the things they did.

Modifié par jillabender, 15 juillet 2012 - 07:52 .

[Redcoat]

I don't often post here anymore, but I feel like giving my two cents' worth:

When playing DA2, there was one overriding thought going through my head: "Why am I even playing this game? What does the game even need me for?" I asked this, because the game did bugger-all to involve me.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You are making a game, not a movie, not a TV show, not a novel. The focus should not be on the writers "telling the story they want to tell" but involving the player in that story (even if it's something as simple as "Rescue the princess!") But recent BioWare seem to go against this idea, treating the player as something to be dealt with at best, and the enemy at worst. DA2 (and ME3) feel like the products of developers who considered themselves writers first and game makers a very, VERY distant second.

Just look at DA2's "gameplay." The entirety of it is combat, and with the removal of all non-combat skills, all of the PC's skills, attributes, and other qualities do nothing except determine how well he or she makes things go from "alive" to "dead." And the gameplay might as well exist in an entirely different universe than the story. There are no speech checks in dialogue, no alternate solutions of quests based on non-combat skills, no way of playing Hawke is anything but a brutish thug who's only solution is violence. And the combat in DA2 is so repetitive and dull that I feel charitable calling it "filler." It's literally a time-sink between cutscenes. Hell, forget "Push a button and something awesome happens!", DA2's motto might as well have been "Kill Enemies, Watch Cutscene!"

And you never actually do anything in those cutscenes. Sure, you have some dialogue options, but nothing you pick really matters, and it's not at all helped by how the response are hidden behind obfuscatory paraphrases that bear no resemblance to what Hawke actually says. BioWare might as well have put a tick box on the character creation screen with options labelled "Nice/Funny/Jerkwad" and been done with it. And voicing the PC...why? This might make sense if the PC's personality is firmly in the hands of the writers (such as in The Witcher), but if the game is going to have some pretense of letting the player control the PC's personality, then all the voiced protagonist does is limit your options and make each PC sound the same.

So if they want me to buy DA3 (and that's a real long-shot at this point) then BioWare will have to convince that they're making a game, not a movie.

[schalafi]

Redcoat wrote...

I don't often post here anymore, but I feel like giving my two cents' worth:

When playing DA2, there was one overriding thought going through my head: "Why am I even playing this game? What does the game even need me for?" I asked this, because the game did bugger-all to involve me.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You are making a game, not a movie, not a TV show, not a novel. The focus should not be on the writers "telling the story they want to tell" but involving the player in that story (even if it's something as simple as "Rescue the princess!") But recent BioWare seem to go against this idea, treating the player as something to be dealt with at best, and the enemy at worst. DA2 (and ME3) feel like the products of developers who considered themselves writers first and game makers a very, VERY distant second.

Just look at DA2's "gameplay." The entirety of it is combat, and with the removal of all non-combat skills, all of the PC's skills, attributes, and other qualities do nothing except determine how well he or she makes things go from "alive" to "dead." And the gameplay might as well exist in an entirely different universe than the story. There are no speech checks in dialogue, no alternate solutions of quests based on non-combat skills, no way of playing Hawke is anything but a brutish thug who's only solution is violence. And the combat in DA2 is so repetitive and dull that I feel charitable calling it "filler." It's literally a time-sink between cutscenes. Hell, forget "Push a button and something awesome happens!", DA2's motto might as well have been "Kill Enemies, Watch Cutscene!"

And you never actually do anything in those cutscenes. Sure, you have some dialogue options, but nothing you pick really matters, and it's not at all helped by how the response are hidden behind obfuscatory paraphrases that bear no resemblance to what Hawke actually says. BioWare might as well have put a tick box on the character creation screen with options labelled "Nice/Funny/Jerkwad" and been done with it. And voicing the PC...why? This might make sense if the PC's personality is firmly in the hands of the writers (such as in The Witcher), but if the game is going to have some pretense of letting the player control the PC's personality, then all the voiced protagonist does is limit your options and make each PC sound the same.

So if they want me to buy DA3 (and that's a real long-shot at this point) then BioWare will have to convince that they're making a game, not a movie.

Did you play DA2 more than once? You, of course are entitled to your opinion, and that's fine, but a few of your statements are inaccurate. There *were* options to find non-violent solutions to quests. Since there are no spoilers allowed here I can't go into detail, but I'll just say that having Aveline and Varric along helped avoid violence in several quests.

As far as the paraphrasing goes, if you played the game more than once you would quite possibly learn which responses you liked, and which you should avoid.

I agree there were a lot of things in DA2 that could/should have been done better, but the npcs, the banter, the dialogue, and a lot of the quests made up for that imo. I have to admit that I liked act 1 and act 2 better than act 3, and I attribute that to having the game cut short, but in your analysis you are "throwing the baby out with bathwater" when you condemn the entire game.

I've been gaming for a long time, and believe me, I've played many games far worse than DA2, so I'm not condemning what you said, just giving my perspective on the game.

Modifié par schalafi, 15 juillet 2012 - 04:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

BioWare explicitly said that they weren't considering replayability when designing DA2 because the vast majority of players don't finish it even once. As such, suggesting that replaying the game is the way to get more out of it seems somehow off-message.

And regardless, we shouldn't have to replay it to find out what the dialogue options are. The game should be able to tell us the first time.

[schalafi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BioWare explicitly said that they weren't considering replayability when designing DA2 because the vast majority of players don't finish it even once. As such, suggesting that replaying the game is the way to get more out of it seems somehow off-message.

And regardless, we shouldn't have to replay it to find out what the dialogue options are. The game should be able to tell us the first time.

I've played DA:O about 10 times, and DA2 5 times. Every time I find something new that I missed on the previous play through.  You have different requirements for what makes a good game than I have, and I'm not trying to give a wrong message to anyone, just giving my opinion of the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I've played DAO many times as well. But I didn't manage to finish DA2 even once.

[Realmzmaster]

I have played both DAO and DA2 many times. In fact I am on my tenth DA2 playthrough. So what constitutes a good game will always be up for interpretation.

I like games that many thought were failures and disliked games people thought were great. The game has to fit my preference which I am sure is the standard most people have. I acknowledge that my preferences may not match up with others.

I will continue to voice what I want to see in a game and I am sure others will do the same. It is up to the developers to satisfy the largest part of their audience. If some are lost on the way (maybe including myself) then that happens. I will spend my money on games that come hit or come closest to my expectations. The rest I will leave on the shelf.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

It is up to the developers to satisfy the largest part of their audience.

Yes it is.

I'm trying to move the audience.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

It is up to the developers to satisfy the largest part of their audience.

Yes it is.

I'm trying to move the audience.

As others try to move it in a different direction. A part of the audience will be disappointed. A part of the audience will pick up their money and move to a developer that carters to their preferences. That is the way it will be. Either way I hope Bioware makes enough profit to keep making DA games otherwise would the last person turn out the lights on the series.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

It is up to the developers to satisfy the largest part of their audience.

Yes it is.

I'm trying to move the audience.

As others try to move it in a different direction.

I don't see anyone else actively trying to change public opinion around here.

[Cyberarmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

It is up to the developers to satisfy the largest part of their audience.

Yes it is.

I'm trying to move the audience.

I really like what you are trying to do here mate but "the audience" (like me and my little RP gang) already moved
to other franchies/games/developers.

Bioware clearly stated their intent for future projects, i dont think so they will roll back even a little(even its after too late)

[Sylvius the Mad]

BioWare will follow the audience. Or if they won't, someone else will. But that audience needs to exist. Too many people are blindly accepting the loss of quality features. I keep those features in the public eye.

[Chromie]

Cyberarmy wrote...
I really like what you are trying to do here mate but "the audience" (like me and my little RP gang) already moved
to other franchies/games/developers.

Bioware clearly stated their intent for future projects, i dont think so they will roll back even a little(even its after too late)

Pretty much this. Why should I hope they go back when other studios are gladly going to fill the void well not really a void I'm not a Bioware fanboy.

[schalafi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BioWare will follow the audience. Or if they won't, someone else will. But that audience needs to exist. Too many people are blindly accepting the loss of quality features. I keep those features in the public eye.

There is nothing wrong with protesting the things in a game that you think should have been fixed, or not have been there at all. I understand what you're trying to do, and I hope it works. I play DA2 "in spite" of it's flaws, because I do find some redeeming qualities, and honestly, I've played Origins so much, I just can't play it again right now. 

Maybe DA3 will rectify all of the mistakes in DA2. One can only hope!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cyberarmy wrote...

I really like what you are trying to do here mate but "the audience" (like me and my little RP gang) already moved
to other franchies/games/developers.

Can you point me to a developer who does what Bioware used to do?

[RobertRBest]

Voiced protagonists are here to stay. To remove them now would feel like a step backward. And mind you, I've been playing CRPG's for a long time. I played the original Wizardry on huge floppy disks (the kind that were actually floppy) when I was a kid. At each stage in the development of the genre, there's a pull between story, characters, and player agency. When Bioware hits a balance between them, like BG2, the results are magic. DA2 felt awkward at times, but the problem is not the voice or the cinematics themselves. It's a question of balance, and DA2 wobbled a bit sometimes.

Furthermore, to act like Hawke was that more pre-set than any of the Warden templates is a bit silly. How much do you really know about Hawke? She's got a brother and sister and a mom. They live in Lothering. Her dead dad was an apostate mage. That's not much more than you knew about your protagonist in BG or BG2. And as the game goes on, more details are revealed, but that's too be expected. Did you throw up your hands in BG2 and go "I was head-canoning a romance with Imoen and BW made her my sister! Completely breaks my roleplay."

I guess my rambling point is that BG2 had plenty of locked-in aspects of your character. The game just did a better job of balancing that with player control than DA2 did.

All that said, I actually quite liked DA2 and think that with more development time it might have been a better game than DAO.

[Cyberarmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cyberarmy wrote...

I really like what you are trying to do here mate but "the audience" (like me and my little RP gang) already moved
to other franchies/games/developers.

Can you point me to a developer who does what Bioware used to do?

For starters Obsidian and İnExile and maybe Harebrained Schemes.
Troika was on the right track but got closed...R.I.P.
Irontower Studios are making Age of Decandence, you may like it.