307 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

Terror_K wrote...

Blastback wrote...

And keep working to make the Voiced PC more accesible to Silent PC fans.

Not gonna happen. The voiced PC will always restrict roleplaying far too much, and nothing any developer can do will stop that. It's always going to reduce dialogue choices and put voice, tone and inflection on the player character, so the player can never fully make them their own. The dialogue wheel doesn't help either, also restricting dialogue choices.

It's a shame that BioWare is so damn stubborn about this issue, especially considering that during DAO development they were defending the silent protagonist for many of the same reasons RPG fans want one, only to more recently do an about face on the issue because of their precious cinematic flow and design, which is apparently far more crucial to their game than being able to properly roleplay and fully define a character.

Again, more proof of BioWare stubbornness, inability to make changes where they really need to, pandering to mainstream audiences and trends and the fact they no longer want to make true RPGs, but merely cinematic, story-driven action games.

which they always were. Hell, Baldurs gate you played a PC that was always the same character in the story. The cosmetic changes to class and race were irrelevent because in the end you were the Bhaalspawn, you fight your brother, and solve several disputes that lead to the same location.  Kotor had you as Revan, Dragon Age the Warden, and Mass Effect you were Shepard. I have bad news to tell you, but none of those characters were ever fully yours. They were hybrid characters that followed a linear story, that you manipulated the events in. The voice has nothing to do with it, other than giving the characters an outside personality in terms of tone, inflection, and sound, something that a lot of Role-players seem to loathe, because they can't control it. 

Which they never really controlled to begin with. You can control words and your response to most situations yeah, but never the story, from its starting point to completion. Choices in-game, barely matter at all other than to adhere to the schema created for your character, something, I might add, that you only manipulate in-game through choices. So the voice is not the problem. Truthfully, the linearity, the fact that it is a story-driven experience, is, because that limits you fully in what role-playing can be. 

The role-playing experience you want is what Bethesda attempts to offer to people with Elder Scrolls. Other than the fact that their role-playing elements beyond giving total freedom and a sense of exploration are broken all of the time, maybe you should look into that, because BioWare has never given you what you wanted fully. So frankly, I don't know what the hell you are complaining about. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 août 2012 - 04:34 .

[Terror_K]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Blastback wrote...

And keep working to make the Voiced PC more accesible to Silent PC fans.

Not gonna happen. The voiced PC will always restrict roleplaying far too much, and nothing any developer can do will stop that. It's always going to reduce dialogue choices and put voice, tone and inflection on the player character, so the player can never fully make them their own. The dialogue wheel doesn't help either, also restricting dialogue choices.

It's a shame that BioWare is so damn stubborn about this issue, especially considering that during DAO development they were defending the silent protagonist for many of the same reasons RPG fans want one, only to more recently do an about face on the issue because of their precious cinematic flow and design, which is apparently far more crucial to their game than being able to properly roleplay and fully define a character.

Again, more proof of BioWare stubbornness, inability to make changes where they really need to, pandering to mainstream audiences and trends and the fact they no longer want to make true RPGs, but merely cinematic, story-driven action games.

which they always were. Hell, Baldurs gate you played a PC that was always the same character in the story. The cosmetic changes to class and race were irrelevent because in the end you were the Bhaalspawn, you fight your brother, and solve several disputes that lead to the same location.  Kotor had you as Revan, Dragon Age the Warden, and Mass Effect you were Shepard. I have bad news to tell you, but none of those characters were ever fully yours. They were hybrid characters that followed a linear story, that you manipulated the events in. The voice has nothing to do with it, other than giving the characters an outside personality in terms of tone, inflection, and sound, something that a lot of Role-players seem to loathe, because they can't control it. 

Which they never really controlled to begin with. You can control words and your response to most situations yeah, but never the story, from its starting point to completion. Choices in-game, barely matter at all other than to adhere to the schema created for your character, something, I might add, that you only manipulate in-game through choices. So the voice is not the problem. Truthfully, the linearity, the fact that it is a story-driven experience, is, because that limits you fully in what role-playing can be. 

The role-playing experience you want is what Bethesda attempts to offer to people with Elder Scrolls. Other than the fact that their role-playing elements beyond giving total freedom and a sense of exploration are broken all of the time, maybe you should look into that, because BioWare has never given you what you wanted fully. So frankly, I don't know what the hell you are complaining about. 

Of course there are certain restrictions when it comes to story and quests, even in a P&P RPG, but an RPG should give players as much control as it can given the restrictions in place. The point of a roleplaying game is to roleplay a character, and the more control and customisation a player is given of a character, the stronger the roleplaying experience is. Yes, in BG, NWN, KotOR, etc. we were still given a story to follow, but we were given many different ways to carry out that story, many different choices and many chances to diversify our characters. The way BioWare is going with this reliance on cinematic flow and defining our characters for us more and more, we're only a hop, skip and a jump away from just being given Nathan Drake, Kratos, Batman, Ezio Auditore, etc. who isn't even ours in any way at all. The way they're going with the complete lack of choices and proper consequences is that we may as well not be given them at all and just be sent on a completely linear story like the protagonists from the examples above, because we're not being given much more, since BioWare's latest efforts find some weak excuse to always put things on the same damn rails anyway.

It's all about player agency and giving as much control as possible. a CRPG can never replicate a P&P one, but it should at least try to do what it can. With Dragon Age we've already gone from being able to choose our race, choose our background, a complete list of dialogue choices and a voice we can choose ourselves to being a set human named Hawke with a limited dialogue wheel and a set voice and mannerisms. What's next? No face creator? No class choices?

The basic point is, the more freedom a player has, the more personal they can make their character, and the more they can define that character themselves. In BG, NWN and DAO I could give my character their own backgrounds, personality traits, voice and mannerisms, as well as motivations, beliefs, opinions, etc. With a dialogue wheel and a voice protagonist, the character is always going to be a certain way and restricted. If I choose an option with a silent PC I can imagine how my character said a line, but that disappears with a voiced one. It also greatly restricts the options as a whole, due partly to voice-over budget and also to a wheel giving you less than a list. Sometimes the only real difference is intent when the outcome is largely the same, but that's a big difference in a roleplaying game. That's often where ME3 fell down in restricting dialogue options so much, often only offering two choices at any one time and then padding it with autodialogue.

The more defined and set a player character is, the less they are the player's, the less personal they are, and the less freedom the player has.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Emzamination wrote...

coles4971 wrote...

emzamination is female btw

just sayin

Oh he knows, I've had my share of run-ins with this tr- 'poster' before.I put as much emphasis into reading his refuse as he does to accurately acknowledge my gender.

Sorry... don't think I remember you.

[Spicen]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

coles4971 wrote...

emzamination is female btw

just sayin

Oh he knows, I've had my share of run-ins with this tr- 'poster' before.I put as much emphasis into reading his refuse as he does to accurately acknowledge my gender.

Sorry... don't think I remember you.

I read ur post. Well about the story, i put a lot of importance in it. Apart from that ur mostly correct, im also fearing the direction of the franchise. And it is true that more female gamers like DA 2 more than DAO becoz of romances, thats their opinion let them enjoy making love with npcs, its non of our concern. My concern is that the game needs a tactical combat, a great story, a good hero, more control and decisions, epic feelings ofcourse and finally Cole, he totally rokz i always wanted a cold calculating companion, infact Cole sounds exactly like me.

Fisto, u shud read about DA 3 info& spec. thread. i think u might like it.

[LinksOcarina]

Terror_K wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Blastback wrote...

And keep working to make the Voiced PC more accesible to Silent PC fans.

Not gonna happen. The voiced PC will always restrict roleplaying far too much, and nothing any developer can do will stop that. It's always going to reduce dialogue choices and put voice, tone and inflection on the player character, so the player can never fully make them their own. The dialogue wheel doesn't help either, also restricting dialogue choices.

It's a shame that BioWare is so damn stubborn about this issue, especially considering that during DAO development they were defending the silent protagonist for many of the same reasons RPG fans want one, only to more recently do an about face on the issue because of their precious cinematic flow and design, which is apparently far more crucial to their game than being able to properly roleplay and fully define a character.

Again, more proof of BioWare stubbornness, inability to make changes where they really need to, pandering to mainstream audiences and trends and the fact they no longer want to make true RPGs, but merely cinematic, story-driven action games.

which they always were. Hell, Baldurs gate you played a PC that was always the same character in the story. The cosmetic changes to class and race were irrelevent because in the end you were the Bhaalspawn, you fight your brother, and solve several disputes that lead to the same location.  Kotor had you as Revan, Dragon Age the Warden, and Mass Effect you were Shepard. I have bad news to tell you, but none of those characters were ever fully yours. They were hybrid characters that followed a linear story, that you manipulated the events in. The voice has nothing to do with it, other than giving the characters an outside personality in terms of tone, inflection, and sound, something that a lot of Role-players seem to loathe, because they can't control it. 

Which they never really controlled to begin with. You can control words and your response to most situations yeah, but never the story, from its starting point to completion. Choices in-game, barely matter at all other than to adhere to the schema created for your character, something, I might add, that you only manipulate in-game through choices. So the voice is not the problem. Truthfully, the linearity, the fact that it is a story-driven experience, is, because that limits you fully in what role-playing can be. 

The role-playing experience you want is what Bethesda attempts to offer to people with Elder Scrolls. Other than the fact that their role-playing elements beyond giving total freedom and a sense of exploration are broken all of the time, maybe you should look into that, because BioWare has never given you what you wanted fully. So frankly, I don't know what the hell you are complaining about. 

Of course there are certain restrictions when it comes to story and quests, even in a P&P RPG, but an RPG should give players as much control as it can given the restrictions in place. The point of a roleplaying game is to roleplay a character, and the more control and customisation a player is given of a character, the stronger the roleplaying experience is. Yes, in BG, NWN, KotOR, etc. we were still given a story to follow, but we were given many different ways to carry out that story, many different choices and many chances to diversify our characters. The way BioWare is going with this reliance on cinematic flow and defining our characters for us more and more, we're only a hop, skip and a jump away from just being given Nathan Drake, Kratos, Batman, Ezio Auditore, etc. who isn't even ours in any way at all. The way they're going with the complete lack of choices and proper consequences is that we may as well not be given them at all and just be sent on a completely linear story like the protagonists from the examples above, because we're not being given much more, since BioWare's latest efforts find some weak excuse to always put things on the same damn rails anyway.

It's all about player agency and giving as much control as possible. a CRPG can never replicate a P&P one, but it should at least try to do what it can. With Dragon Age we've already gone from being able to choose our race, choose our background, a complete list of dialogue choices and a voice we can choose ourselves to being a set human named Hawke with a limited dialogue wheel and a set voice and mannerisms. What's next? No face creator? No class choices?

The basic point is, the more freedom a player has, the more personal they can make their character, and the more they can define that character themselves. In BG, NWN and DAO I could give my character their own backgrounds, personality traits, voice and mannerisms, as well as motivations, beliefs, opinions, etc. With a dialogue wheel and a voice protagonist, the character is always going to be a certain way and restricted. If I choose an option with a silent PC I can imagine how my character said a line, but that disappears with a voiced one. It also greatly restricts the options as a whole, due partly to voice-over budget and also to a wheel giving you less than a list. Sometimes the only real difference is intent when the outcome is largely the same, but that's a big difference in a roleplaying game. That's often where ME3 fell down in restricting dialogue options so much, often only offering two choices at any one time and then padding it with autodialogue.

The more defined and set a player character is, the less they are the player's, the less personal they are, and the less freedom the player has.

And yet, you are given many different ways to play as Hawke and Shepard and it objectionable because of changes to the formula. Your basic point is noble but misguided, because freedom in a video game is always restrictive. Intent via imagining the voices vs intent from the tone of the voice in-game are not the same thing, no, but they still offer a role-playing experience that has been done since Baldur's Gate. Having a voice, mannerisms, beliefs, opinions all in your mind are great tools when playing a game, having some of those aspects show up depending upon your style of play, depending on the tone of the choices made (which was always made clear) to synch up with what you wanted to role-play as, is the same thing.

If its a personal preference than thats fine, but it hardly restricts role-playing as many believe. It is no-where near the theshold of what guys like Kratos and Nathan Drake do, since they are never your character to begin with. Like I said at the top, characters such as Hawke, Shepard, the Warden, the Bhaalspawn, Revan, and so forth are both yours and BioWares at the same times. Its like a contract almost, they control the characters story, you fill in the blanks as they go. Its been the m.o for BioWare for years, and the inclusion of voices has not changed that. The freedom your character had was always restricted by BioWare's storytelling. Yes you can do stuff in-game and go any which way, but it was always secondary to the main plot for a reason. Role-playing for BioWare follows the bard tradition of telling a story, not allowing full, creative freedom to the players.

In many ways, BioWare games have more in common with Final Fantasy and Chrono Trigger in that regard; mechanically they are western-styled games, but overall they share more traits with story-driven, light RPGs. The power fantasy, do anything you want with your own character type of game is stuff like Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Kingdoms of Amalur, and World of Warcraft. 

[Fisto The Sexbot]

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, you are given many different ways to play as Hawke and Shepard 

What? Good cop/bad cop Shepard? Wimpy Hawke/Pissed at the world Hawke/LowInt Hawke? Yeah, it's more than playing as one predefined character, but being able to choose from three (weak) characters isn't what I'd call roleplaying.

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, you are given many different ways to play as Hawke and Shepard and it objectionable because of changes to the formula. Your basic point is noble but misguided, because freedom in a video game is always restrictive. Intent via imagining the voices vs intent from the tone of the voice in-game are not the same thing, no, but they still offer a role-playing experience that has been done since Baldur's Gate. Having a voice, mannerisms, beliefs, opinions all in your mind are great tools when playing a game, having some of those aspects show up depending upon your style of play, depending on the tone of the choices made (which was always made clear) to synch up with what you wanted to role-play as, is the same thing.

 


How was it made clear? The only people I can assume it was made clear to what Hawke would say would be the people who wrote dialogue lines for him, the tone icons only being representative of what the writers' character(s) would say in any given situation. If my desired way to roleplay is not in line with what BioWare is trying to do with three different dialogue choices then what is the point of having the game trying to guess what I'd like to say? BioWare's carefully written dialogue lines (lol) are only relevant to the people who wrote them.

Finally, what are the merits (in terms of roleplaying) of having the game 'guess' what my character is trying to say over choosing the responses myself? I see none. 

[LinksOcarina]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, you are given many different ways to play as Hawke and Shepard 

What? Good cop/bad cop Shepard? Wimpy Hawke/Pissed at the world Hawke/LowInt Hawke? Yeah, it's more than playing as one predefined character, but being able to choose from three (weak) characters isn't what I'd call roleplaying.

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, you are given many different ways to play as Hawke and Shepard and it objectionable because of changes to the formula. Your basic point is noble but misguided, because freedom in a video game is always restrictive. Intent via imagining the voices vs intent from the tone of the voice in-game are not the same thing, no, but they still offer a role-playing experience that has been done since Baldur's Gate. Having a voice, mannerisms, beliefs, opinions all in your mind are great tools when playing a game, having some of those aspects show up depending upon your style of play, depending on the tone of the choices made (which was always made clear) to synch up with what you wanted to role-play as, is the same thing.

 


How was it made clear? The only people I can assume it was made clear to what Hawke would say would be the people who wrote dialogue lines for him, the tone icons only being representative of what the writers' character(s) would say in any given situation. If my desired way to roleplay is not in line with what BioWare is trying to do with three different dialogue choices then what is the point of having the game trying to guess what I'd like to say? BioWare's carefully written dialogue lines (lol) are only relevant to the people who wrote them.

Finally, what are the merits (in terms of roleplaying) of having the game 'guess' what my character is trying to say over choosing the responses myself? I see none. 

Simple, there is no difference between them, so the merits are the same. 

Having them say a line and go about the dialouge through a choice in tone is no different than having you choose out a line from a listing without a voice. You discern the tone of what the line is, and it goes from there based upon the reaction of those you are speaking too.

the only change is that we don't get the full line. Would it be nice? Yeah. I agree, I would like to see what I say sometimes. But is it necessary? No, because intent and tone of the chosen option on the dialogue wheel is supposed to reflect the line given by the character. It functions the same way as a list of lines fully written out, the only difference is that instead of reading and discerning the tone, were told it through audio. 

So really, the merits are this: you choose an option, a line is said back to you in response to that said option, characters around you react positively or negatively, the games flow is rarely broken. It seems to me the only time people object is when they either feel the tone of the said line takes them out of the experience (which frankly, is a poor excuse because the game tells you what the tone of inflection is before the line is spoken) or when they can't control the lines fully by knowing what is said. 

If that is the only real issue, that you can't control what is actually said, I guess I can't understand the outrage because on a fundamental level of it being both a RPG and a game, it is just another way to skin a cat. 

[Fisto The Sexbot]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

BioWare can take their time with Dragon Age and make it last 5,6 games if were lucky. 

No they can't. They couldn't even make two games before they completely ruined the series by deliberately turning their backs on the original source material, deliberately going against the grain of pretty much everything the original game stood for and stabbed their old fans in the back for the sake of pandering to the mainstream masses.

As long as BioWare has still got this cancer that's it's had for the last two years that it doesn't appear to be even trying to get rid of, there's no way we're going to get anything remotely decent from them. Pointing out the faults of DA2 and how to fix them is a complete waste of time when all we're pointing at are symptoms of a far bigger problem that encompasses all of BioWare's recent games, and not just this thing they now call "Dragon Age" but isn't.

Until they can admit to and deal with the faults at the very heart of their studio and see that this mass pandering and reliance on cinematic design and mass appeal is the problem, there's nothing that can be done to save Dragon Age, or any other BioWare IP. Not when they're deliberately retconning and retooling their IPs and turning them into something they shouldn't be just, not because it's a natural evolution or it's better for the series, but just to make more dosh.

As opposed to pandering to you specifically, yes? and before we start acting doe eyed and surprised, it's right there in black and white at the top of your demands.Save your preaching, you don't care about the fans, all you care about is getting what you want, how you want it, when you want it.Bioware is free to alter their creations when and how they see fit, don't like it? goodbye, that game copy you don't buy, someone else will.The company is interested in hearing feedback about what the fans want added, not your incessant bad mouthing.It's not bioware who betrayed you, it's you who stabbed bioware in the back, you offer 'feedback' with one hand, then turn around and call them cancerous with the other, real loyalty there hmm? You're right about one thing, there is a cancer making the rounds and it's called Entitlement, but it's not Bioware that's harboring that parasite.I'm glad the company takes a hard stand against such bullying.With fans like you, who needs enemies?

While I doubt the sincerity of your post sir, I myself do not (have to) care about what the fans want. If they support the way BioWare is going now, then they are part of the problem, sir. The fans would only care about romances, immersion, or the story, sir. They may not care about roleplaying at all. If that is so, then they are helping BioWare lower the bar, sir, and I cannot endorse that.

You may dislike us 'haters' sir, but believe it or not, we are fighting for the good of all RPGs. We only wish to educate you on what is proper. We only want good games, sir. Whereas you would be content with so-called 'gigglesquees', we wish the industry to be able to give more than that. We wish to show you greener pastures.
We are like the parents you say you never wanted, but that you will thank later on. We want...



... a better future for you, and for ourselves. But mostly for ourselves.

Allow me to make a prediction.

Wasteland 2 will fail. Yep. I said it. Sad too, because I bought a physical copy of it on the kickstarter. But Brian Fargo is one guy that doesn't get it, sadly. He may want to make a game for his audience, the type of game he likes. He may want to cater to their whims and hate the system, but ironically he just gave the keys to the kingdom instead. Now, instead of one publisher asking ten things, he now has 1,000 fans asking 10,000 things. And too many of these fans have no clue what they want either.

Hell, the first inkling of this is the alpha screen they showed. All I see is a sea of complaints; the colors are too vibrant, it doesn't look real, it looks cartoonish, the isometric view is crap, there is no detail in the screenshot, there is not enough color in-game. This and that, complaints and threats to remove their kickstarter pledge, because that is how fans are. No offense, I am one too, but we have a schema of what it should be. Always. And we are always dissapointed by the most banal things that make it a nerd nitpick in the end.

No wonder people see us as having our heads in the sand...but I digress.

The sad truth, is that real RPG fans don't have to fight a good fight. That noble quest doesn't exist. Real RPG fans realize that the artificial labels seperating the genres are bogus, that RPGs can come in all shapes and sizes, that a story and a gameplay mechanic never have to cater to one specific, narrow ideal. And lastly, that RPGs will never be mainstream. The last one makes me laugh the most as a major charge by angry cynics. Dragon Age II is no where near the mainstream. That is the biggest joke of all.

If Wasteland 2 does turn out to be crap, I really doubt it's because the fans ruined it. Yeah I'm sure I could personally see fans as a nuisance if I were to be put in developers' shoes, but you don't have to answer to 10,000 different requests to make a game the fans would want, only the most widespread.

The sad truth, is that real RPG fans don't have to fight a good fight. That noble quest doesn't exist. Real RPG fans realize that the artificial labels seperating the genres are bogus

So real RPG fans realize that there are no such thing as RPGs?

that RPGs can come in all shapes and sizes, that a story and a gameplay mechanic never have to cater to one specific, narrow ideal.

But most importantly, that they shouldn't stray too far from their PnP roots, right?

And lastly, that RPGs will never be mainstream. The last one makes me laugh the most as a major charge by angry cynics. Dragon Age II is no where near the mainstream. That is the biggest joke of all.  

Dragon Age was always a mainstream franchise, and BioWare was pretty much as mainstream as it got for a CRPG developer. Even the Baldur's Gate series sold well.

[LinksOcarina]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

If Wasteland 2 does turn out to be crap, I really doubt it's because the fans ruined it. Yeah I'm sure I could personally see fans as a nuisance if I were to be put in developers' shoes, but you don't have to answer to 10,000 different requests to make a game the fans would want, only the most widespread.

The sad truth, is that real RPG fans don't have to fight a good fight. That noble quest doesn't exist. Real RPG fans realize that the artificial labels seperating the genres are bogus

So real RPG fans realize that there are no such thing as RPGs?

that RPGs can come in all shapes and sizes, that a story and a gameplay mechanic never have to cater to one specific, narrow ideal.

But most importantly, that they shouldn't stray too far from their PnP roots, right?

And lastly, that RPGs will never be mainstream. The last one makes me laugh the most as a major charge by angry cynics. Dragon Age II is no where near the mainstream. That is the biggest joke of all.  

Dragon Age was always a mainstream franchise, and BioWare was pretty much as mainstream as it got for a CRPG developer. Even the Baldur's Gate series sold well.

If wasteland 2 turns out bad, it will be due to fan outcry. it is easy to ignore 10,000 people and cater to only a few sensible requests, but when all 10,000 people invested in your game, and all of them have a say, pretty much, on how it would look and play, it is  a task that I don't think anyone is equipped to handle. That is what worries me about this kickstarter, although Wasteland 2 I think will get out of it. It's other kickstarters, like the Shadowrun game, that will fall flat on their face for the same reasons, plus the lack of content from the dev team there disturbs me more. 

As for what I was referring to in terms of labels, I mean things like Light RPG, Console RPG, Computer RPG, Western-RPG, JRPG, Dungeon crawler, Roguelike, RTS, MMORPG, co-op RPG, and so on, and so forth. Its nice to categorize games based on mechanics, how story driven they are, how open the world is, or what country they come from, but ultimately the label doesn't matter because Role-playing games of all stripes are played by Role-playing gamers. It doesn't matter if the pen and paper roots are there are not, in fact its irrelevent, because you don't need a foundation like that to make an RPG. 

As for BioWare, they are not mainstream, sorry to say. Popular, yes, and usually the fan favorite, but Square-Enix, Bethesda, and Lionhead had the much higher mainstream successes over BioWare over the years. Mass Effect 2 was BioWare's best selling game at around 6-7 million I believe. Skyrim has over 10-12 million at this point, and thats just one game in the series.

BioWare is liked by fans because they are character and story driven RPGs, using vulgar labels again to discern the differences. That is why they were always popular, because they were different than most companies out there by focusing on that style. But that style was always closer to FF than to Elder Scrolls, but it was ok because it was from the west and a CRPG.

To which I say, personally, is ignorance on the part of the fanbase. But that is a bad generalization, so I apologize if its offensive. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 août 2012 - 04:07 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, you are given many different ways to play as Hawke and Shepard 

What? Good cop/bad cop Shepard? Wimpy Hawke/Pissed at the world Hawke/LowInt Hawke? Yeah, it's more than playing as one predefined character, but being able to choose from three (weak) characters isn't what I'd call roleplaying.

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, you are given many different ways to play as Hawke and Shepard and it objectionable because of changes to the formula. Your basic point is noble but misguided, because freedom in a video game is always restrictive. Intent via imagining the voices vs intent from the tone of the voice in-game are not the same thing, no, but they still offer a role-playing experience that has been done since Baldur's Gate. Having a voice, mannerisms, beliefs, opinions all in your mind are great tools when playing a game, having some of those aspects show up depending upon your style of play, depending on the tone of the choices made (which was always made clear) to synch up with what you wanted to role-play as, is the same thing.

 


How was it made clear? The only people I can assume it was made clear to what Hawke would say would be the people who wrote dialogue lines for him, the tone icons only being representative of what the writers' character(s) would say in any given situation. If my desired way to roleplay is not in line with what BioWare is trying to do with three different dialogue choices then what is the point of having the game trying to guess what I'd like to say? BioWare's carefully written dialogue lines (lol) are only relevant to the people who wrote them.

Finally, what are the merits (in terms of roleplaying) of having the game 'guess' what my character is trying to say over choosing the responses myself? I see none. 

Simple, there is no difference between them, so the merits are the same. 

Having them say a line and go about the dialouge through a choice in tone is no different than having you choose out a line from a listing without a voice. You discern the tone of what the line is, and it goes from there based upon the reaction of those you are speaking too.

the only change is that we don't get the full line. Would it be nice? Yeah. I agree, I would like to see what I say sometimes. But is it necessary? No, because intent and tone of the chosen option on the dialogue wheel is supposed to reflect the line given by the character. It functions the same way as a list of lines fully written out, the only difference is that instead of reading and discerning the tone, were told it through audio. 

So really, the merits are this: you choose an option, a line is said back to you in response to that said option, characters around you react positively or negatively, the games flow is rarely broken. It seems to me the only time people object is when they either feel the tone of the said line takes them out of the experience (which frankly, is a poor excuse because the game tells you what the tone of inflection is before the line is spoken) or when they can't control the lines fully by knowing what is said. 

No, it's a poor system. The tone icons ascribed to the dialogue lines by the developers are generic, often not indicative enough of what the character would say, primarily relevant to the developers themselves, and are only limited to the one line of dialogue you are able to choose.

If that is the only real issue, that you can't control what is actually said, I guess I can't understand the outrage because on a fundamental level of it being both a RPG and a game, it is just another way to skin a cat. 

I don't understand. If you find no issue with not being able to control what/how your character is saying/acting, how can you say you are roleplaying?

[LinksOcarina]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, you are given many different ways to play as Hawke and Shepard 

What? Good cop/bad cop Shepard? Wimpy Hawke/Pissed at the world Hawke/LowInt Hawke? Yeah, it's more than playing as one predefined character, but being able to choose from three (weak) characters isn't what I'd call roleplaying.

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, you are given many different ways to play as Hawke and Shepard and it objectionable because of changes to the formula. Your basic point is noble but misguided, because freedom in a video game is always restrictive. Intent via imagining the voices vs intent from the tone of the voice in-game are not the same thing, no, but they still offer a role-playing experience that has been done since Baldur's Gate. Having a voice, mannerisms, beliefs, opinions all in your mind are great tools when playing a game, having some of those aspects show up depending upon your style of play, depending on the tone of the choices made (which was always made clear) to synch up with what you wanted to role-play as, is the same thing.

 


How was it made clear? The only people I can assume it was made clear to what Hawke would say would be the people who wrote dialogue lines for him, the tone icons only being representative of what the writers' character(s) would say in any given situation. If my desired way to roleplay is not in line with what BioWare is trying to do with three different dialogue choices then what is the point of having the game trying to guess what I'd like to say? BioWare's carefully written dialogue lines (lol) are only relevant to the people who wrote them.

Finally, what are the merits (in terms of roleplaying) of having the game 'guess' what my character is trying to say over choosing the responses myself? I see none. 

Simple, there is no difference between them, so the merits are the same. 

Having them say a line and go about the dialouge through a choice in tone is no different than having you choose out a line from a listing without a voice. You discern the tone of what the line is, and it goes from there based upon the reaction of those you are speaking too.

the only change is that we don't get the full line. Would it be nice? Yeah. I agree, I would like to see what I say sometimes. But is it necessary? No, because intent and tone of the chosen option on the dialogue wheel is supposed to reflect the line given by the character. It functions the same way as a list of lines fully written out, the only difference is that instead of reading and discerning the tone, were told it through audio. 

So really, the merits are this: you choose an option, a line is said back to you in response to that said option, characters around you react positively or negatively, the games flow is rarely broken. It seems to me the only time people object is when they either feel the tone of the said line takes them out of the experience (which frankly, is a poor excuse because the game tells you what the tone of inflection is before the line is spoken) or when they can't control the lines fully by knowing what is said. 

No, it's a poor system. The tone icons ascribed to the dialogue lines by the developers are generic, often not indicative enough of what the character would say, primarily relevant to the developers themselves, and are only limited to the one line of dialogue you are able to choose.

If that is the only real issue, that you can't control what is actually said, I guess I can't understand the outrage because on a fundamental level of it being both a RPG and a game, it is just another way to skin a cat. 

I don't understand. If you find no issue with not being able to control what/how your character is saying/acting, how can you say you are roleplaying?

Because I am controlling what/how the character is saying/acting. I chose the tone, the infection, and path in which to say something to an NPC or companion. I choose to be nice, to lie, to be agressive, and so forth. My brother may hate my guts, my dwarf friend may find me funny, and my lover may want to lob my head off every time I say mages must be free, but I made that choice. And I also dictate how consistant it is too; Maybe, by act III, after all that has happened with mages in Kirkwall, I would be against them despite being a mage myself. Or maybe I would work to keep Mages safe, instead of killing them outright to sedate the paranoia behind the templars. 

My point is it's the same damn thing as no dialouge and having it spelled out for you. It's role-playing because I am choosing how to play the role, just like you choose how to play the Bhaalspawn or the Warden. The only difference is that Hawke has a voice and I can hear my choices played out, instead of it being spelled out for me. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 août 2012 - 04:21 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, you are given many different ways to play as Hawke and Shepard 

What? Good cop/bad cop Shepard? Wimpy Hawke/Pissed at the world Hawke/LowInt Hawke? Yeah, it's more than playing as one predefined character, but being able to choose from three (weak) characters isn't what I'd call roleplaying.

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, you are given many different ways to play as Hawke and Shepard and it objectionable because of changes to the formula. Your basic point is noble but misguided, because freedom in a video game is always restrictive. Intent via imagining the voices vs intent from the tone of the voice in-game are not the same thing, no, but they still offer a role-playing experience that has been done since Baldur's Gate. Having a voice, mannerisms, beliefs, opinions all in your mind are great tools when playing a game, having some of those aspects show up depending upon your style of play, depending on the tone of the choices made (which was always made clear) to synch up with what you wanted to role-play as, is the same thing.

 


How was it made clear? The only people I can assume it was made clear to what Hawke would say would be the people who wrote dialogue lines for him, the tone icons only being representative of what the writers' character(s) would say in any given situation. If my desired way to roleplay is not in line with what BioWare is trying to do with three different dialogue choices then what is the point of having the game trying to guess what I'd like to say? BioWare's carefully written dialogue lines (lol) are only relevant to the people who wrote them.

Finally, what are the merits (in terms of roleplaying) of having the game 'guess' what my character is trying to say over choosing the responses myself? I see none. 

Simple, there is no difference between them, so the merits are the same. 

Having them say a line and go about the dialouge through a choice in tone is no different than having you choose out a line from a listing without a voice. You discern the tone of what the line is, and it goes from there based upon the reaction of those you are speaking too.

the only change is that we don't get the full line. Would it be nice? Yeah. I agree, I would like to see what I say sometimes. But is it necessary? No, because intent and tone of the chosen option on the dialogue wheel is supposed to reflect the line given by the character. It functions the same way as a list of lines fully written out, the only difference is that instead of reading and discerning the tone, were told it through audio. 

So really, the merits are this: you choose an option, a line is said back to you in response to that said option, characters around you react positively or negatively, the games flow is rarely broken. It seems to me the only time people object is when they either feel the tone of the said line takes them out of the experience (which frankly, is a poor excuse because the game tells you what the tone of inflection is before the line is spoken) or when they can't control the lines fully by knowing what is said. 

No, it's a poor system. The tone icons ascribed to the dialogue lines by the developers are generic, often not indicative enough of what the character would say, primarily relevant to the developers themselves, and are only limited to the one line of dialogue you are able to choose.

If that is the only real issue, that you can't control what is actually said, I guess I can't understand the outrage because on a fundamental level of it being both a RPG and a game, it is just another way to skin a cat. 

I don't understand. If you find no issue with not being able to control what/how your character is saying/acting, how can you say you are roleplaying?

Because I am controlling what/how the character is saying/acting. I chose the tone, the infection, and path in which to say something to an NPC or companion. I choose to be nice, to lie, to be agressive, and so forth. My brother may hate my guts, my dwarf friend may find me funny, and my lover may want to lob my head off every time I say mages must be free, but I made that choice. And I also dictate how consistant it is too; Maybe, by act III, after all that has happened with mages in Kirkwall, I would be against them despite being a mage myself. Or maybe I would work to keep Mages safe, instead of killing them outright to sedate the paranoia behind the templars. 

My point is it's the same damn thing as no dialouge and having it spelled out for you. It's role-playing because I am choosing how to play the role, just like you choose how to play the Bhaalspawn or the Warden. The only difference is that Hawke has a voice and I can hear my choices played out, instead of it being spelled out for me. 

And my point is that this only works if the Hawke you play is envisioned as the character you want to play. I personally see no merit in this because you can do the exact same with a silent protagonist that can have multiple, more ambiguous/concise, less personality-overflowing dialogue lines which could allow for playing someone like Hawke and many other personality varieties. You see roleplaying as a possibility because you still have some control, others see roleplaying as disastrous because they have less control. It's not the same.

The voice acting itself, like I said, is not the biggest problem for me. It's the focus on cinematics, and having a more defined player character.

[LinksOcarina]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Because I am controlling what/how the character is saying/acting. I chose the tone, the infection, and path in which to say something to an NPC or companion. I choose to be nice, to lie, to be agressive, and so forth. My brother may hate my guts, my dwarf friend may find me funny, and my lover may want to lob my head off every time I say mages must be free, but I made that choice. And I also dictate how consistant it is too; Maybe, by act III, after all that has happened with mages in Kirkwall, I would be against them despite being a mage myself. Or maybe I would work to keep Mages safe, instead of killing them outright to sedate the paranoia behind the templars. 

My point is it's the same damn thing as no dialouge and having it spelled out for you. It's role-playing because I am choosing how to play the role, just like you choose how to play the Bhaalspawn or the Warden. The only difference is that Hawke has a voice and I can hear my choices played out, instead of it being spelled out for me. 

And my point is that this only works if the Hawke you play is envisioned as the character you want to play. I personally see no merit in this because you can do the exact same with a silent protagonist that can have multiple, more ambiguous/concise, less personality-overflowing dialogue lines which could allow for playing someone like Hawke and many other personality varieties. You see roleplaying as a possibility because you still have some control, others see roleplaying as disastrous because they have less control. It's not the same.

The voice acting itself, like I said, is not the biggest problem for me. It's the focus on cinematics, and having a more defined player character.

But the type of character Hawke, and to that extant, every BioWare protagonist, are portrayed as, always was a compromise between more or less control. Let's be honest here, did you really control the Bhaalspawn and how his or her story progressed? The choices and consequences in-game were always who do you align with, who you helped out for side missions, and how you finished main questlines. The entire first half of Baldurs Gate was fantastic because it was a choice between two mercenary groups over an iron mine. Simple, effective, and changes the story slightly in the end because it reflects alignment and stops Sarevrok from gaining so much power early on.

It is also unavoidable, mind you. You need to clear the iron mine. How you clear it is a different story...

As for Hawke, it boils down to the fact that he needed to pick a side. Templars, or mages. How that choice reflects the rest of Dragon Age we can't say, because we didn't play Dragon Age III yet, but it is just like how you clear the mines, it reflects the tones of the character in the end.  Companins will hate your choice, and depending on how you played can leave you, even fight you, over this. You have the option of killing friends, betraying family, and slaughtering a group to defend another. In the end you still run off because of your actions, you still fight Meredith in a grand battle, and you still become a legendary story that is anything but, but that is kind of the point of the game, isen't it, to get to the bare truth of the legend behind the character. 

So it is the same. Mechanically both the Bhaalspawn and Hawke are the same type of character, a player character that is both BioWares, and the players. They both play the same role, as the avatar to the player, and as the main character in the storyline by the writers. They are always different from each other because of class, class builds, companion favoritism, and dialouge options. There is no difference except the presentation through voices, through cinematics, and if that really is restrictive to role-playing, then I am just confused by that notion because it has little, if anything, to do with the role-playing because mechanically, the same effect occurs with or without the cinematics. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 août 2012 - 05:38 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Because I am controlling what/how the character is saying/acting. I chose the tone, the infection, and path in which to say something to an NPC or companion. I choose to be nice, to lie, to be agressive, and so forth. My brother may hate my guts, my dwarf friend may find me funny, and my lover may want to lob my head off every time I say mages must be free, but I made that choice. And I also dictate how consistant it is too; Maybe, by act III, after all that has happened with mages in Kirkwall, I would be against them despite being a mage myself. Or maybe I would work to keep Mages safe, instead of killing them outright to sedate the paranoia behind the templars. 

My point is it's the same damn thing as no dialouge and having it spelled out for you. It's role-playing because I am choosing how to play the role, just like you choose how to play the Bhaalspawn or the Warden. The only difference is that Hawke has a voice and I can hear my choices played out, instead of it being spelled out for me. 

And my point is that this only works if the Hawke you play is envisioned as the character you want to play. I personally see no merit in this because you can do the exact same with a silent protagonist that can have multiple, more ambiguous/concise, less personality-overflowing dialogue lines which could allow for playing someone like Hawke and many other personality varieties. You see roleplaying as a possibility because you still have some control, others see roleplaying as disastrous because they have less control. It's not the same.

The voice acting itself, like I said, is not the biggest problem for me. It's the focus on cinematics, and having a more defined player character.

But the type of character Hawke, and to that extant, every BioWare protagonist, are portrayed as, always was a compromise between more or less control. 

Then why support the Dragon Age 2 approach unless you support less control, and therefore less roleplaying freedom? Hawke has three dialogue options to choose from that very rarely change the way an encounter plays out; it's very unlike conventional avatars that allow you to react to each situation with as many options as possible. Whereas a CRPG with a conventional avatar would allow you to react on a case by case basis, Hawke reacts according to three predefined personalities the player gets to choose from.

If Hawke gives me as much freedom as a conventional avatar, then why does he say all those things I tell him not to? Why am I forced to play as the Champion of Kirkwall and nothing else? Why am I given three dialogue options? I know if you're gonna play as Hawke, you'll get to choose between a snarky/diplomatic/aggressive attitude in most conversations; I can gather as much because you're forced into it. Now can you tell me what kind of personality my avatar from say, Arcanum would have?

If you admit that Hawke basically does things the player does not choose, then how can you tell me that I am roleplaying the character I want to?

[Fisto The Sexbot]

[quote]LinksOcarina wrote...

[quote]Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

[quote]LinksOcarina wrote...

Because I am controlling what/how the character is saying/acting. I chose the tone, the infection, and path in which to say something to an NPC or companion. I choose to be nice, to lie, to be agressive, and so forth. My brother may hate my guts, my dwarf friend may find me funny, and my lover may want to lob my head off every time I say mages must be free, but I made that choice. And I also dictate how consistant it is too; Maybe, by act III, after all that has happened with mages in Kirkwall, I would be against them despite being a mage myself. Or maybe I would work to keep Mages safe, instead of killing them outright to sedate the paranoia behind the templars. 

My point is it's the same damn thing as no dialouge and having it spelled out for you. It's role-playing because I am choosing how to play the role, just like you choose how to play the Bhaalspawn or the Warden. The only difference is that Hawke has a voice and I can hear my choices played out, instead of it being spelled out for me. 

[/quote]
 the same effect occurs with or without the cinematics. 

[/quote]

No, not if the cinematics make you do something you didn't choose, as they often do. You said things like mannerisms, reactivity are OK because they reflect the tone of your previous responses. That's not roleplaying, because the game assumes what my whole personality is like based on previous responses and the most prevalent tone. The tone icon is meaningless; the actual lines of dialogue are what's actually important to roleplaying.

[LinksOcarina]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Because I am controlling what/how the character is saying/acting. I chose the tone, the infection, and path in which to say something to an NPC or companion. I choose to be nice, to lie, to be agressive, and so forth. My brother may hate my guts, my dwarf friend may find me funny, and my lover may want to lob my head off every time I say mages must be free, but I made that choice. And I also dictate how consistant it is too; Maybe, by act III, after all that has happened with mages in Kirkwall, I would be against them despite being a mage myself. Or maybe I would work to keep Mages safe, instead of killing them outright to sedate the paranoia behind the templars. 

My point is it's the same damn thing as no dialouge and having it spelled out for you. It's role-playing because I am choosing how to play the role, just like you choose how to play the Bhaalspawn or the Warden. The only difference is that Hawke has a voice and I can hear my choices played out, instead of it being spelled out for me. 

And my point is that this only works if the Hawke you play is envisioned as the character you want to play. I personally see no merit in this because you can do the exact same with a silent protagonist that can have multiple, more ambiguous/concise, less personality-overflowing dialogue lines which could allow for playing someone like Hawke and many other personality varieties. You see roleplaying as a possibility because you still have some control, others see roleplaying as disastrous because they have less control. It's not the same.

The voice acting itself, like I said, is not the biggest problem for me. It's the focus on cinematics, and having a more defined player character.

But the type of character Hawke, and to that extant, every BioWare protagonist, are portrayed as, always was a compromise between more or less control. 

Then why support the Dragon Age 2 approach unless you support less control, and therefore less roleplaying freedom? Hawke has three dialogue options to choose from that very rarely change the way an encounter plays out; it's very unlike conventional avatars that allow you to react to each situation with as many options as possible. Whereas a CRPG with a conventional avatar would allow you to react on a case by case basis, Hawke reacts according to three predefined personalities the player gets to choose from.

If Hawke gives me as much freedom as a conventional avatar, then why does he say all those things I tell him not to? Why am I forced to play as the Champion of Kirkwall and nothing else? Why am I given three dialogue options? I know if you're gonna play as Hawke, you'll get to choose between a snarky/diplomatic/aggressive attitude in most conversations; I can gather as much because you're forced into it. Now can you tell me what kind of personality my avatar from say, Arcanum would have?

If you admit that Hawke basically does things the player does not choose, then how can you tell me that I am roleplaying the character I want to?

Because that is the story decision to play the Champion of Kirkwall, just like you are forced to be a Warden, or a chosen one, or Revan, or the Bhaalspawn, and so forth. A "CRPG" character had the same restrictions as Hawke, the difference is that you get a few more options and fill in the blanks yourself because you get dialouge choices through written word over voice over. 

I mean, I can ask you the same thing, what stops you from being nice to some people, but lying behind their backs? Or being sarcastic all time except around family. The mere fact that you can choose the response in the moment when speaking to someone is mechanically the same as choosing a sentence and thinking how you would say it in your head. You are role-playing the character you want by choosing what Hawke says and does in a given situation, but some things Hawke has to do, because its a story driven game. Maybe you are not paying attention, but that is the modus operandi of BioWare. You were never in full control of a BioWare protagonist.

I sound like a broken record, why is this so hard to understand? 

Arcanum you can control more, because its open world and the main quest-line is not the focus. Same with Elder Scrolls and Fallout, but games like Return to Krondor, Mass Effect, Planescape Torment, Witcher and the later Ultima titles, you had to follow a linear progession masked behind a non-linear shell, mostly due to side-missions and quest lines. In the end, the gmae you want is Arcanum, is Elder Scrolls. It is not Baldur's Gate. It is not Dragon Age. 

[Nefla]

Free kitten with purchase! Otherwise I will wait for fan reviews and youtube footage to decide.

[Massa FX]

Nothing. I buy all BW games... I just don't admit to buying some of thrm

[Fisto The Sexbot]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Because I am controlling what/how the character is saying/acting. I chose the tone, the infection, and path in which to say something to an NPC or companion. I choose to be nice, to lie, to be agressive, and so forth. My brother may hate my guts, my dwarf friend may find me funny, and my lover may want to lob my head off every time I say mages must be free, but I made that choice. And I also dictate how consistant it is too; Maybe, by act III, after all that has happened with mages in Kirkwall, I would be against them despite being a mage myself. Or maybe I would work to keep Mages safe, instead of killing them outright to sedate the paranoia behind the templars. 

My point is it's the same damn thing as no dialouge and having it spelled out for you. It's role-playing because I am choosing how to play the role, just like you choose how to play the Bhaalspawn or the Warden. The only difference is that Hawke has a voice and I can hear my choices played out, instead of it being spelled out for me. 

And my point is that this only works if the Hawke you play is envisioned as the character you want to play. I personally see no merit in this because you can do the exact same with a silent protagonist that can have multiple, more ambiguous/concise, less personality-overflowing dialogue lines which could allow for playing someone like Hawke and many other personality varieties. You see roleplaying as a possibility because you still have some control, others see roleplaying as disastrous because they have less control. It's not the same.

The voice acting itself, like I said, is not the biggest problem for me. It's the focus on cinematics, and having a more defined player character.

But the type of character Hawke, and to that extant, every BioWare protagonist, are portrayed as, always was a compromise between more or less control. 

Then why support the Dragon Age 2 approach unless you support less control, and therefore less roleplaying freedom? Hawke has three dialogue options to choose from that very rarely change the way an encounter plays out; it's very unlike conventional avatars that allow you to react to each situation with as many options as possible. Whereas a CRPG with a conventional avatar would allow you to react on a case by case basis, Hawke reacts according to three predefined personalities the player gets to choose from.

If Hawke gives me as much freedom as a conventional avatar, then why does he say all those things I tell him not to? Why am I forced to play as the Champion of Kirkwall and nothing else? Why am I given three dialogue options? I know if you're gonna play as Hawke, you'll get to choose between a snarky/diplomatic/aggressive attitude in most conversations; I can gather as much because you're forced into it. Now can you tell me what kind of personality my avatar from say, Arcanum would have?

If you admit that Hawke basically does things the player does not choose, then how can you tell me that I am roleplaying the character I want to?

Because that is the story decision to play the Champion of Kirkwall, just like you are forced to be a Warden, or a chosen one, or Revan, or the Bhaalspawn, and so forth. A "CRPG" character had the same restrictions as Hawke, the difference is that you get a few more options and fill in the blanks yourself because you get dialouge choices through written word over voice over. 

I mean, I can ask you the same thing, what stops you from being nice to some people, but lying behind their backs? Or being sarcastic all time except around family. The mere fact that you can choose the response in the moment when speaking to someone is mechanically the same as choosing a sentence and thinking how you would say it in your head. You are role-playing the character you want by choosing what Hawke says and does in a given situation, but some things Hawke has to do, because its a story driven game. Maybe you are not paying attention, but that is the modus operandi of BioWare. You were never in full control of a BioWare protagonist.

I sound like a broken record, why is this so hard to understand? 

Arcanum you can control more, because its open world and the main quest-line is not the focus. Same with Elder Scrolls and Fallout, but games like Return to Krondor, Mass Effect, Planescape Torment, Witcher and the later Ultima titles, you had to follow a linear progession masked behind a non-linear shell, mostly due to side-missions and quest lines. In the end, the gmae you want is Arcanum, is Elder Scrolls. It is not Baldur's Gate. It is not Dragon Age. 

The fact that I can only apply Hawke's sense of diplomacy, or sarcasm. I can't develop a sense of my character's own. Want to play a diplomatic Hawke? Then you have to settle for "You never know how much one can learn from pillow-talk." Want to play a sarcastic Hawke, you have to settle for "I want to be a dragon." Now, this may be what your character would have wanted to say, but for many others, including myself, it's not. I may want to play as a diplomatic character,  just not Hawke, etc.

It's not a matter of full, absolute control, but more control vs. less control. If you admit that Hawke gives you less control, which he obviously does, and if you think roleplaying should be the primary ingredient in an RPG, what's stopping you from trying out the tried and true formula of the silent avatar? If you at some point are able to recognize that yes, there are only three dialogue options at any given time, arbitrarily governed by three personalities, then why is that preferable over the previously mentioned method that is able to give more roleplaying options?

You obviously must have seen people complain that Hawke does not provide adequate roleplaying opportunities. 

I don't know why you'd say that Dragon Age or Baldur's Gate are not the games I want, since they very well succeed at giving me what I want, the possibility to roleplay what is more or less a blank slate, and that has nothing to do with TES games, or Dragon Age 2 -- especially Dragon Age 2.

Being forced to complete X main quest is not my problem here, how I arrive at that is. I may be forced to play as a Warden, but I can also be a dwarven commoner, a noble, or a noble-turned-thief. In Dragon Age 2 you can only be the Champion of Kirkwall; I don't know why it's so hard for anyone, even the most staunch defenders of Dragon Age 2, to recognize the difference. 


This is why I see no merit in Dragon Age 2's approach in terms of roleplaying. If one prefers the Dragon Age 2 approach, I can only assume he also prefers roleplaying secondary to one of the following:

1)Cinematics.
2)Story.
3)'Immersion'.

Anything else related to roleplaying can already be done with a conventional avatar.

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 28 août 2012 - 04:46 .

[Spicen]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Because I am controlling what/how the character is saying/acting. I chose the tone, the infection, and path in which to say something to an NPC or companion. I choose to be nice, to lie, to be agressive, and so forth. My brother may hate my guts, my dwarf friend may find me funny, and my lover may want to lob my head off every time I say mages must be free, but I made that choice. And I also dictate how consistant it is too; Maybe, by act III, after all that has happened with mages in Kirkwall, I would be against them despite being a mage myself. Or maybe I would work to keep Mages safe, instead of killing them outright to sedate the paranoia behind the templars. 

My point is it's the same damn thing as no dialouge and having it spelled out for you. It's role-playing because I am choosing how to play the role, just like you choose how to play the Bhaalspawn or the Warden. The only difference is that Hawke has a voice and I can hear my choices played out, instead of it being spelled out for me. 

And my point is that this only works if the Hawke you play is envisioned as the character you want to play. I personally see no merit in this because you can do the exact same with a silent protagonist that can have multiple, more ambiguous/concise, less personality-overflowing dialogue lines which could allow for playing someone like Hawke and many other personality varieties. You see roleplaying as a possibility because you still have some control, others see roleplaying as disastrous because they have less control. It's not the same.

The voice acting itself, like I said, is not the biggest problem for me. It's the focus on cinematics, and having a more defined player character.

But the type of character Hawke, and to that extant, every BioWare protagonist, are portrayed as, always was a compromise between more or less control. 

Then why support the Dragon Age 2 approach unless you support less control, and therefore less roleplaying freedom? Hawke has three dialogue options to choose from that very rarely change the way an encounter plays out; it's very unlike conventional avatars that allow you to react to each situation with as many options as possible. Whereas a CRPG with a conventional avatar would allow you to react on a case by case basis, Hawke reacts according to three predefined personalities the player gets to choose from.

If Hawke gives me as much freedom as a conventional avatar, then why does he say all those things I tell him not to? Why am I forced to play as the Champion of Kirkwall and nothing else? Why am I given three dialogue options? I know if you're gonna play as Hawke, you'll get to choose between a snarky/diplomatic/aggressive attitude in most conversations; I can gather as much because you're forced into it. Now can you tell me what kind of personality my avatar from say, Arcanum would have?

If you admit that Hawke basically does things the player does not choose, then how can you tell me that I am roleplaying the character I want to?

Because that is the story decision to play the Champion of Kirkwall, just like you are forced to be a Warden, or a chosen one, or Revan, or the Bhaalspawn, and so forth. A "CRPG" character had the same restrictions as Hawke, the difference is that you get a few more options and fill in the blanks yourself because you get dialouge choices through written word over voice over. 

I mean, I can ask you the same thing, what stops you from being nice to some people, but lying behind their backs? Or being sarcastic all time except around family. The mere fact that you can choose the response in the moment when speaking to someone is mechanically the same as choosing a sentence and thinking how you would say it in your head. You are role-playing the character you want by choosing what Hawke says and does in a given situation, but some things Hawke has to do, because its a story driven game. Maybe you are not paying attention, but that is the modus operandi of BioWare. You were never in full control of a BioWare protagonist.

I sound like a broken record, why is this so hard to understand? 

Arcanum you can control more, because its open world and the main quest-line is not the focus. Same with Elder Scrolls and Fallout, but games like Return to Krondor, Mass Effect, Planescape Torment, Witcher and the later Ultima titles, you had to follow a linear progession masked behind a non-linear shell, mostly due to side-missions and quest lines. In the end, the gmae you want is Arcanum, is Elder Scrolls. It is not Baldur's Gate. It is not Dragon Age. 

The fact that I can only apply Hawke's sense of diplomacy, or sarcasm. I can't develop a sense of my character's own. Want to play a diplomatic Hawke? Then you have to settle for "You never know how much one can learn from pillow-talk." Want to play a sarcastic Hawke, you have to settle for "I want to be a dragon." Now, this may be what your character would have wanted to say, but for many others, including myself, it's not. I may want to play as a diplomatic character,  just not Hawke, etc.

It's not a matter of full, absolute control, but more control vs. less control. If you admit that Hawke gives you less control, which he obviously does, and if you think roleplaying should be the primary ingredient in an RPG, what's stopping you from trying out the tried and true formula of the silent avatar? If you at some point are able to recognize that yes, there are only three dialogue options at any given time, arbitrarily governed by three personalities, then why is that preferable over the previously mentioned method that is able to give more roleplaying options?

You obviously must have seen people complain that Hawke does not provide adequate roleplaying opportunities. 

I don't know why you'd say that Dragon Age or Baldur's Gate are not the games I want, since they very well succeed at giving me what I want, the possibility to roleplay what is more or less a blank slate, and that has nothing to do with TES games, or Dragon Age 2 -- especially Dragon Age 2.

Being forced to complete X main quest is not my problem here, how I arrive at that is. I may be forced to play as a Warden, but I can also be a dwarven commoner, a noble, or a noble-turned-thief. In Dragon Age 2 you can only be the Champion of Kirkwall; I don't know why it's so hard for anyone, even the most staunch defenders of Dragon Age 2, to recognize the difference. 


This is why I see no merit in Dragon Age 2's approach in terms of roleplaying. If one prefers the Dragon Age 2 approach, I can only assume he also prefers roleplaying secondary to one of the following:

1)Cinematics.
2)Story.
3)'Immersion'.

Anything else related to roleplaying can already be done with a conventional avatar.

Story: thats where ur wrong DA 2 is the last place u want to be if u like stories, it was the worst and the crappiest story of the century, even Diablo 3 looked world class when u cmpare to DA 2.

My personal advice: If u like bisexual characterless NPC romance, Da 2 is the spot for it.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Spicen wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Because I am controlling what/how the character is saying/acting. I chose the tone, the infection, and path in which to say something to an NPC or companion. I choose to be nice, to lie, to be agressive, and so forth. My brother may hate my guts, my dwarf friend may find me funny, and my lover may want to lob my head off every time I say mages must be free, but I made that choice. And I also dictate how consistant it is too; Maybe, by act III, after all that has happened with mages in Kirkwall, I would be against them despite being a mage myself. Or maybe I would work to keep Mages safe, instead of killing them outright to sedate the paranoia behind the templars. 

My point is it's the same damn thing as no dialouge and having it spelled out for you. It's role-playing because I am choosing how to play the role, just like you choose how to play the Bhaalspawn or the Warden. The only difference is that Hawke has a voice and I can hear my choices played out, instead of it being spelled out for me. 

And my point is that this only works if the Hawke you play is envisioned as the character you want to play. I personally see no merit in this because you can do the exact same with a silent protagonist that can have multiple, more ambiguous/concise, less personality-overflowing dialogue lines which could allow for playing someone like Hawke and many other personality varieties. You see roleplaying as a possibility because you still have some control, others see roleplaying as disastrous because they have less control. It's not the same.

The voice acting itself, like I said, is not the biggest problem for me. It's the focus on cinematics, and having a more defined player character.

But the type of character Hawke, and to that extant, every BioWare protagonist, are portrayed as, always was a compromise between more or less control. 

Then why support the Dragon Age 2 approach unless you support less control, and therefore less roleplaying freedom? Hawke has three dialogue options to choose from that very rarely change the way an encounter plays out; it's very unlike conventional avatars that allow you to react to each situation with as many options as possible. Whereas a CRPG with a conventional avatar would allow you to react on a case by case basis, Hawke reacts according to three predefined personalities the player gets to choose from.

If Hawke gives me as much freedom as a conventional avatar, then why does he say all those things I tell him not to? Why am I forced to play as the Champion of Kirkwall and nothing else? Why am I given three dialogue options? I know if you're gonna play as Hawke, you'll get to choose between a snarky/diplomatic/aggressive attitude in most conversations; I can gather as much because you're forced into it. Now can you tell me what kind of personality my avatar from say, Arcanum would have?

If you admit that Hawke basically does things the player does not choose, then how can you tell me that I am roleplaying the character I want to?

Because that is the story decision to play the Champion of Kirkwall, just like you are forced to be a Warden, or a chosen one, or Revan, or the Bhaalspawn, and so forth. A "CRPG" character had the same restrictions as Hawke, the difference is that you get a few more options and fill in the blanks yourself because you get dialouge choices through written word over voice over. 

I mean, I can ask you the same thing, what stops you from being nice to some people, but lying behind their backs? Or being sarcastic all time except around family. The mere fact that you can choose the response in the moment when speaking to someone is mechanically the same as choosing a sentence and thinking how you would say it in your head. You are role-playing the character you want by choosing what Hawke says and does in a given situation, but some things Hawke has to do, because its a story driven game. Maybe you are not paying attention, but that is the modus operandi of BioWare. You were never in full control of a BioWare protagonist.

I sound like a broken record, why is this so hard to understand? 

Arcanum you can control more, because its open world and the main quest-line is not the focus. Same with Elder Scrolls and Fallout, but games like Return to Krondor, Mass Effect, Planescape Torment, Witcher and the later Ultima titles, you had to follow a linear progession masked behind a non-linear shell, mostly due to side-missions and quest lines. In the end, the gmae you want is Arcanum, is Elder Scrolls. It is not Baldur's Gate. It is not Dragon Age. 

The fact that I can only apply Hawke's sense of diplomacy, or sarcasm. I can't develop a sense of my character's own. Want to play a diplomatic Hawke? Then you have to settle for "You never know how much one can learn from pillow-talk." Want to play a sarcastic Hawke, you have to settle for "I want to be a dragon." Now, this may be what your character would have wanted to say, but for many others, including myself, it's not. I may want to play as a diplomatic character,  just not Hawke, etc.

It's not a matter of full, absolute control, but more control vs. less control. If you admit that Hawke gives you less control, which he obviously does, and if you think roleplaying should be the primary ingredient in an RPG, what's stopping you from trying out the tried and true formula of the silent avatar? If you at some point are able to recognize that yes, there are only three dialogue options at any given time, arbitrarily governed by three personalities, then why is that preferable over the previously mentioned method that is able to give more roleplaying options?

You obviously must have seen people complain that Hawke does not provide adequate roleplaying opportunities. 

I don't know why you'd say that Dragon Age or Baldur's Gate are not the games I want, since they very well succeed at giving me what I want, the possibility to roleplay what is more or less a blank slate, and that has nothing to do with TES games, or Dragon Age 2 -- especially Dragon Age 2.

Being forced to complete X main quest is not my problem here, how I arrive at that is. I may be forced to play as a Warden, but I can also be a dwarven commoner, a noble, or a noble-turned-thief. In Dragon Age 2 you can only be the Champion of Kirkwall; I don't know why it's so hard for anyone, even the most staunch defenders of Dragon Age 2, to recognize the difference. 


This is why I see no merit in Dragon Age 2's approach in terms of roleplaying. If one prefers the Dragon Age 2 approach, I can only assume he also prefers roleplaying secondary to one of the following:

1)Cinematics.
2)Story.
3)'Immersion'.

Anything else related to roleplaying can already be done with a conventional avatar.

Story: thats where ur wrong DA 2 is the last place u want to be if u like stories, it was the worst and the crappiest story of the century, even Diablo 3 looked world class when u cmpare to DA 2.

My personal advice: If u like bisexual characterless NPC romance, Da 2 is the spot for it.

It's not that I think a semi-defined, voiced protagonist adds to the story, but some do.

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 28 août 2012 - 01:33 .

[LinksOcarina]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Because I am controlling what/how the character is saying/acting. I chose the tone, the infection, and path in which to say something to an NPC or companion. I choose to be nice, to lie, to be agressive, and so forth. My brother may hate my guts, my dwarf friend may find me funny, and my lover may want to lob my head off every time I say mages must be free, but I made that choice. And I also dictate how consistant it is too; Maybe, by act III, after all that has happened with mages in Kirkwall, I would be against them despite being a mage myself. Or maybe I would work to keep Mages safe, instead of killing them outright to sedate the paranoia behind the templars. 

My point is it's the same damn thing as no dialouge and having it spelled out for you. It's role-playing because I am choosing how to play the role, just like you choose how to play the Bhaalspawn or the Warden. The only difference is that Hawke has a voice and I can hear my choices played out, instead of it being spelled out for me. 

And my point is that this only works if the Hawke you play is envisioned as the character you want to play. I personally see no merit in this because you can do the exact same with a silent protagonist that can have multiple, more ambiguous/concise, less personality-overflowing dialogue lines which could allow for playing someone like Hawke and many other personality varieties. You see roleplaying as a possibility because you still have some control, others see roleplaying as disastrous because they have less control. It's not the same.

The voice acting itself, like I said, is not the biggest problem for me. It's the focus on cinematics, and having a more defined player character.

But the type of character Hawke, and to that extant, every BioWare protagonist, are portrayed as, always was a compromise between more or less control. 

Then why support the Dragon Age 2 approach unless you support less control, and therefore less roleplaying freedom? Hawke has three dialogue options to choose from that very rarely change the way an encounter plays out; it's very unlike conventional avatars that allow you to react to each situation with as many options as possible. Whereas a CRPG with a conventional avatar would allow you to react on a case by case basis, Hawke reacts according to three predefined personalities the player gets to choose from.

If Hawke gives me as much freedom as a conventional avatar, then why does he say all those things I tell him not to? Why am I forced to play as the Champion of Kirkwall and nothing else? Why am I given three dialogue options? I know if you're gonna play as Hawke, you'll get to choose between a snarky/diplomatic/aggressive attitude in most conversations; I can gather as much because you're forced into it. Now can you tell me what kind of personality my avatar from say, Arcanum would have?

If you admit that Hawke basically does things the player does not choose, then how can you tell me that I am roleplaying the character I want to?

Because that is the story decision to play the Champion of Kirkwall, just like you are forced to be a Warden, or a chosen one, or Revan, or the Bhaalspawn, and so forth. A "CRPG" character had the same restrictions as Hawke, the difference is that you get a few more options and fill in the blanks yourself because you get dialouge choices through written word over voice over. 

I mean, I can ask you the same thing, what stops you from being nice to some people, but lying behind their backs? Or being sarcastic all time except around family. The mere fact that you can choose the response in the moment when speaking to someone is mechanically the same as choosing a sentence and thinking how you would say it in your head. You are role-playing the character you want by choosing what Hawke says and does in a given situation, but some things Hawke has to do, because its a story driven game. Maybe you are not paying attention, but that is the modus operandi of BioWare. You were never in full control of a BioWare protagonist.

I sound like a broken record, why is this so hard to understand? 

Arcanum you can control more, because its open world and the main quest-line is not the focus. Same with Elder Scrolls and Fallout, but games like Return to Krondor, Mass Effect, Planescape Torment, Witcher and the later Ultima titles, you had to follow a linear progession masked behind a non-linear shell, mostly due to side-missions and quest lines. In the end, the gmae you want is Arcanum, is Elder Scrolls. It is not Baldur's Gate. It is not Dragon Age. 

The fact that I can only apply Hawke's sense of diplomacy, or sarcasm. I can't develop a sense of my character's own. Want to play a diplomatic Hawke? Then you have to settle for "You never know how much one can learn from pillow-talk." Want to play a sarcastic Hawke, you have to settle for "I want to be a dragon." Now, this may be what your character would have wanted to say, but for many others, including myself, it's not. I may want to play as a diplomatic character,  just not Hawke, etc.

It's not a matter of full, absolute control, but more control vs. less control. If you admit that Hawke gives you less control, which he obviously does, and if you think roleplaying should be the primary ingredient in an RPG, what's stopping you from trying out the tried and true formula of the silent avatar? If you at some point are able to recognize that yes, there are only three dialogue options at any given time, arbitrarily governed by three personalities, then why is that preferable over the previously mentioned method that is able to give more roleplaying options?

You obviously must have seen people complain that Hawke does not provide adequate roleplaying opportunities. 

I don't know why you'd say that Dragon Age or Baldur's Gate are not the games I want, since they very well succeed at giving me what I want, the possibility to roleplay what is more or less a blank slate, and that has nothing to do with TES games, or Dragon Age 2 -- especially Dragon Age 2.

Being forced to complete X main quest is not my problem here, how I arrive at that is. I may be forced to play as a Warden, but I can also be a dwarven commoner, a noble, or a noble-turned-thief. In Dragon Age 2 you can only be the Champion of Kirkwall; I don't know why it's so hard for anyone, even the most staunch defenders of Dragon Age 2, to recognize the difference. 

Because the difference is irrelevent to the mechanics. My point is that you never had full control, and how you arrive to that sense of control is meaningless to the mechnaics of the game, meaning that your ability to role-play is always limited by the confines of the story presented. If you like to arrive to a specific conclusion as your character, that is fine, but BioWare does not makes games like that based on their systems. You can be a noble-turned thief in Origins, but it doesn't stop you from shelling that to be a Warden and doing your duty. You are still the Warden over the theif, making the thief part irrelevent 90% of the time to the main plot of Origins. 

Personal taste on achieveing a true role-playing experience is one thing, but to complain that Hawke gives you less control than other BioWare protagonists (and in my mind, it is more or less the same as all the other BioWare games) when it is mechanically set up as previous titles I simply don't understand. Is it better than six pre-determined responses? I don't know. That is personal preference to the player at that time. So if it limits you, it limits you. But it was always limiting int he first place, which makes me scratch my head. 

In the end I honestly don't care because I am playing a game, with a hybrid character I control, to enjoy a storyline I am manipulating events in. And since that is not the only aspect of role-playing to some people, I guess it just puts us on different scales of the Bartle test. It doesn't, however, make the game invalid at all, or the personal tastes that are outside the confines of what you enjoy inexcusable. 

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...
.....
You obviously must have seen people complain that Hawke does not provide adequate roleplaying opportunities. 

I don't know why you'd say that Dragon Age or Baldur's Gate are not the games I want, since they very well succeed at giving me what I want, the possibility to roleplay what is more or less a blank slate, and that has nothing to do with TES games, or Dragon Age 2 -- especially Dragon Age 2.
....
 I don't know why it's so hard for anyone, even the most staunch defenders of Dragon Age 2, to recognize the difference. 

Because the difference is irrelevent to the mechanics. My point is that you never had full control, and how you arrive to that sense of control is meaningless to the mechnaics of the game, meaning that your ability to role-play is always limited by the confines of the story presented.

But what you believe (or claim to believe) about how the games are, is irrelevant to our experience of the games. Even you should be able to see this, so what do you want?
 

If you like to arrive to a specific conclusion as your character, that is fine, but BioWare does not makes games like that based on their systems.

Excuse me, but that's just something you are saying.

You can be a noble-turned thief in Origins, but it doesn't stop you from shelling that to be a Warden and doing your duty. You are still the Warden over the theif, making the thief part irrelevent 90% of the time to the main plot of Origins.

Now here we are getting somewhere, because this is clear evidence about something you have missed: The story that evolves, is the character's story. And to many of us, this is the main meat of the story. And that is entirely dependant upon what is going on inside the character's head and heart. This is where the thief-part is anything but irrelevant.

Personal taste on achieveing a true role-playing experience is one thing, but to complain that Hawke gives you less control than other BioWare protagonists (and in my mind, it is more or less the same as all the other BioWare games) when it is mechanically set up as previous titles I simply don't understand. Is it better than six pre-determined responses? I don't know. That is personal preference to the player at that time. So if it limits you, it limits you. But it was always limiting int he first place, which makes me scratch my head.

Scratching one's head, for any personal reason, is one thing, but arguing against how - rather many - other players experience the games (which is what counts), and continue arguing that they are "mechanically" same, in the face of often reiterated differences in a number of important details, I simply don't understand.

In the end I honestly don't care because I am playing a game, with a hybrid character I control, to enjoy a storyline I am manipulating events in. And since that is not the only aspect of role-playing to some people, I guess it just puts us on different scales of the Bartle test. It doesn't, however, make the game invalid at all, or the personal tastes that are outside the confines of what you enjoy inexcusable. 

For someone that claims to not care, you sure spend an awful lot of time and energy to make the same argument again and again, against other peoples' experiences and perceptions of roleplay. Why? It's hard not to think you're not desperately defending DA's "new direction". Why? If they are so "mechanically same" why would it then matter to you so much, if they went back to DA:O style?

Edit: Thinking about this, it came to me that this last is a stupid point (of course you would want to watch your talking, lively independent protagonist) . I questioned myself about why I had made it, an hour earlier. I arrived at that I was tired, and also wanted to play ****** for tat. I considered letting it stand, for fun. To see if you noticed. Then it seemed silly as well and I just ended up writing this disclaimer.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 28 août 2012 - 08:51 .

[ray.mitch7410]

This list is great.

I'd also like to add, the only multiplayer I'd like to see in D3 is allowing a close friend to take control of a character during combat.

I had fun with ME3 multiplayer, but I think after a while it just started to make me more bitter with each subsequent expansion.

[Terror_K]

Your overall argument seems illogical to me, LinksOcarina. You seem to be saying that because the game is already restrictive to some degree, that there's no harm or difference in it restricting in other ways too, such as the voiced protagonist. If one is going to go by this logic, then one may as well also say that it's perfectly acceptable for BioWare to just make a game where the character is no more yours than Nathan Drak, Kratos, Batman, Ezio, etc. and take away dialogue and choice entirely, simply because restrictions on your roleplaying already exist in that they force you to adhere to a pre-defined narrative. Hell... even P&P roleplaying games have the GM forcing you to adhere to certain restrictions, so he may as well fill out your character sheets for you entirely and step in to circumvent your decisions, replacing them as his own.

This is where your basic point fails. This is supposed to be a roleplaying game, where you can pick and choose these aspects of your character, and it only makes sense that the more control a player has over their character, the greater the roleplaying freedom, and thus greater the roleplaying itself. Just because there are some forms of restrictions and linearity doesn't mean that it's perfectly fine to keep adding more of them to circumvent and prevent the ability to properly roleplay, which has been what BioWare is doing lately. You keep claiming that what DA2 and ME did are no different from what BG, NWN, DAO, etc. did, but there is quite a bit of difference. The more I can define the character, the more that character is mine, even if it's forced to adhere to certain restrictions. Restrictions and rules are part of the RPG experience and are required, but that doesn't mean they need to dominate and circumvent the player's ability to roleplay a character. ME and DA2 force me to be a set person that is admittedly somewhat BioWare's, and I get to steer them a certain degree, but that's it. BG, NWN, DAO, etc. do have certain circumstances forced upon the player, but they still get to define their character far more. They can give them their own names, give them their own personalities, beliefs and opinions far more than DA2 and ME can.

Personally, I didn't feel it was so bad in Mass Effect because that was always more of a hybrid title from the start, but Dragon Age started off as a more pure fantasy RPG and then changed the formula, sacrificing freedom and roleplaying for the sake of cinematics and a narrower, more linear story. Recently we've even seen BioWare squeeze player agency and roleplaying even further in Mass Effect 3, which was already a game series with a more pre-defined character than any other BioWare title to date. Thanks to lots of autodialogue, a lack of meaningful choices and consequences, an overall railroading of the entire narrative and too many dialogue wheels with only two options at a time on them, many players have felt that Shepard is no longer their character at all and is pretty much now BioWare's character entirely. Where players could once choose responses to reflect their Shepard, now he/she will often just sprout things leaving players constantly thinking, "my Shepard would never have said that!"

This is one of the main reasons I believe BioWare don't even want to make RPGs any more, and just want to make cinematic action games more in-line with the likes of Uncharted and Assassin's Creed, but that they want to keep claiming they are still a strong RPG developer. Because it seems that with each new title of theirs, player agency and roleplaying suffers more and more for the sake of cinematic flow, a narrower and more linear narrative, and because BioWare want to branch out to an audience who generally find their games "too talky, not enough mindless action!"

Modifié par Terror_K, 29 août 2012 - 03:33 .