113 réponses à ce sujet

[Androme]

Nay.

IF they can do a fixed protagonist RIGHT, then the story becomes much better than it would've been with Origin stories.

Then again, DAO was the greatest RPG for me of all time

of all time

all time

edit:
then again we must remember that origin stories made sense for the story of DAO, wouldn't have done for the planned story of DA2 (hard to explain), but it's hard to make Origin stories ''fit'' into the planned story again.

Modifié par Androme, 22 septembre 2012 - 10:06 .

[Clertar]

Even though I'd prefer the effort and resources to go into stuff that's more central to the playthrough, I wouldn't mind having origins again. Only with a twist: not racial origins (or socioeconomic background origins), but "faction origins".

Even just playing as a human PC, you would still get to pick your origin or background, as something like, let's say:
-a templar
-a grey warden
-a seeker
-an apostate
-a circle mage (there could even be two: a loyalist circle mage and a libertarian circle mage)

Less directly related to the mage-templar conflict, the PC could also come from a background as:
-a mercenary/thief/smuggler/raider/pirate
-a Tevinter magister
-something Orlesian (noble, knight, bard...)
-a slave
-a qunari (a la Tallis, not necesserily a kossith)

That would set some of the PC's story prior to being thrown into the events of DA3. It would also avoid the problem of needing more than 1 male and female PC voice actors. (On the other hand it is, of course, also compatible with racial customization: dwarves, elves, kossith?,...). The family name could even be the same.

It could also be done without getting to play any of the origin, just having it as a choosable option like the backgrounds in NWN2. It could show up in particular moments of the common playthrough --like the difference between a mage or non-mage Hawke does, or a Dalish or mage Grey Warden.

Modifié par Clertar, 22 septembre 2012 - 10:39 .

[Mikko182]

Clertar wrote...

Even though I'd prefer the effort and resources to go into stuff that's more central to the playthrough, I wouldn't mind having origins again. Only with a twist: not racial origins (or socioeconomic background origins), but "faction origins".

Even just playing as a human PC, you would still get to pick your origin or background, as something like, let's say:
-a templar
-a grey warden
-a seeker
-an apostate
-a circle mage (there could even be two: a loyalist circle mage and a libertarian circle mage)

Less directly related to the mage-templar conflict, the PC could also come from a background as:
-a mercenary/thief/smuggler/raider/pirate
-a Tevinter magister
-something Orlesian (noble, knight, bard...)
-a slave
-a qunari (a la Tallis, not necesserily a kossith)

That would set some of the PC's story prior to being thrown into the events of DA3. It would also avoid the problem of needing more than 1 male and female PC voice actors. (On the other hand it is, of course, also compatible with racial customization: dwarves, elves, kossith?,...). The family name could even be the same.

It could also be done without getting to play any of the origin, just having it as a choosable option like the backgrounds in NWN2. It could show up in particular moments of the common playthrough --like the difference between a mage or non-mage Hawke does, or a Dalish or mage Grey Warden.

I like this idea, but I still prefer to have race origins. So yay for origin stories.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

cindercatz wrote...

If you offer up a blank slate, your character simply becomes you, or you acting a part, not living in your character's headspace, but your own. That's exactly what I don't want in a character centric RPG. That's the biggest flaw in most classic rpgs (and I love rpgs in general). The ability to go so far into your characters personal motivations, beliefs, and individual experience is why DA:O is my favorite rpg ever made, on balance.

I could not disagree with you more, it should be up to the player to form the relationships and motivations of their character not some backstory that they never experience, and no dispite what jsamlaw would tell you a half hour prologue does not successfully infer a full 20 or so years of experiences and the motivations and relationships formed over that period, tell me honestly did you really care about characters that you were told through your Origin story were supposed to have been a big part of your character's life or did you care more for the characters you met throughout the story and actually got to know? It is very hard to reminisce about a past you never had and it is very hard to care about characters you never get to know, it is these moments that take the player out of the game as they lose connection to the character that they play, unless the backstory is tied to the main story then it is best to try and leave the backstory as vague as possible.

[Swagger7]

Origin stories make it far more interesting for players like me, who make dozens of different characters just for the heck of it, and get tired of playing through the same boring intro. There should at least be a different origin story for each class.

[Uccio]

Yes, deffenetly.

[Menagra]

A big ole yay!

Modifié par infraredman, 23 septembre 2012 - 12:11 .

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Origins can really help you build your character.

For example, my City elf hates all nobles and it's pretty obvious why. It wouldn't feel the same if some random PC with little to no origin was doing the same.

[cindercatz]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

If you offer up a blank slate, your character simply becomes you, or you acting a part, not living in your character's headspace, but your own. That's exactly what I don't want in a character centric RPG. That's the biggest flaw in most classic rpgs (and I love rpgs in general). The ability to go so far into your characters personal motivations, beliefs, and individual experience is why DA:O is my favorite rpg ever made, on balance.

I could not disagree with you more, it should be up to the player to form the relationships and motivations of their character not some backstory that they never experience, and no dispite what jsamlaw would tell you a half hour prologue does not successfully infer a full 20 or so years of experiences and the motivations and relationships formed over that period, tell me honestly did you really care about characters that you were told through your Origin story were supposed to have been a big part of your character's life or did you care more for the characters you met throughout the story and actually got to know? It is very hard to reminisce about a past you never had and it is very hard to care about characters you never get to know, it is these moments that take the player out of the game as they lose connection to the character that they play, unless the backstory is tied to the main story then it is best to try and leave the backstory as vague as possible.

What who would tell me? Going from my own experience, having played quite a good many rpgs with both fixed and player defined PCs, Origins is by far the best as a roleplaying experience, especially for multiple playthroughs. Did I care as much about my origin companions who I'd rarely see in the game over my ongoing companions? Of course not, but I did care about them, and more importantly, they contributed heavily to who my PC was and how that PC approached every other character and every other decision in the game, through shifting perspectives.

In a blank slate main character, every decision is arbitrary. It's "How much are you amused or drawn to character X? How would you personally, or simply depending on your mood at character creation, resolve situation Y?" In Origins, it's "How would this individual that you've created, seeing the world through this lense, react to character X, who also responds to you in a unique way based on your place in the world? Given all these factors, would this character make the same decisions as that character over there given different factors?" And the answer is probably no. So you get a lot more perspective lensing. It's an entirely different and imo better experience in a player defined crpg.

One more thing to keep in mind. The only game I love more than DA:O is Heavy Rain. Similarly, in that game you play through multiple perspectives, and come across new information that changes the way you would approach a given situation. The difference of course is that Heavy Rain has a lot more story branching, is not an RPG, and is a lot more visceral, in all sorts of ways. This being an RPG, with built in multiple perspectives and larger oppurtunity for story branching and rooting (and a more visceral sense if they want it), I vastly prefer they continue to develope down that path (excluding the pulling back occuring with DA2).

[Vicious]

Origin or not, there needs to be BACKGROUND. This was partially where DA2 failed: You can be a mage, using magic everywhere, but until the end of Act 2 and after when you become Champion the game just pretended you didn't use magic much until that point.


Even Shepard had a background that was continually referenced. And that was better than nothing at all.

[Darth Wolfenbarg]

 It should definitely have an origin story. Even if they don't do multiple like in the original game, I would be kind of irritated if we started right in the middle of the action DA2 style. I had a hard time caring about anyone until the middle of act 1 simply because the story gave me no reason to care.

[daffl5]

YES I LOVE ORIGINS STORIES BRING THEM BACK!
but if you don't want to you should be able to skip it

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

cindercatz wrote...

What who would tell me? Going from my own experience, having played quite a good many rpgs with both fixed and player defined PCs, Origins is by far the best as a roleplaying experience, especially for multiple playthroughs. Did I care as much about my origin companions who I'd rarely see in the game over my ongoing companions? Of course not, but I did care about them, and more importantly, they contributed heavily to who my PC was and how that PC approached every other character and every other decision in the game, through shifting perspectives.

In a blank slate main character, every decision is arbitrary. It's "How much are you amused or drawn to character X? How would you personally, or simply depending on your mood at character creation, resolve situation Y?" In Origins, it's "How would this individual that you've created, seeing the world through this lense, react to character X, who also responds to you in a unique way based on your place in the world? Given all these factors, would this character make the same decisions as that character over there given different factors?" And the answer is probably no. So you get a lot more perspective lensing. It's an entirely different and imo better experience in a player defined crpg.

One more thing to keep in mind. The only game I love more than DA:O is Heavy Rain. Similarly, in that game you play through multiple perspectives, and come across new information that changes the way you would approach a given situation. The difference of course is that Heavy Rain has a lot more story branching, is not an RPG, and is a lot more visceral, in all sorts of ways. This being an RPG, with built in multiple perspectives and larger oppurtunity for story branching and rooting (and a more visceral sense if they want it), I vastly prefer they continue to develope down that path (excluding the pulling back occuring with DA2).

So what you are telling me is that you need origin stories because unless somebody tells you who your character is you lack the imagination to create a character with a unique personality that is different from your own? Also depending on who you ask being able to create a character that is a digital avatar of yourself isnt quite as big a flaw as you make it out to be, but that being said just because the character is a blank slate doesnt mean that the character automatically becomes a digital version of yourself, a blank slate is whatever you choose to make it whether it be a digital avatar of yourself or something completely different.

But while you say that one of the biggest flaws of the CRPG genre is games that have PCs without an Origin I say the biggest flaw of the CRPG genre is games that focus too much on the origin of the PC when the events that follow have nothing to do with it, a CRPG should be about defining your character through the choices they make throughout the game not the backstory you have little control over, the CRPG IS your character's story, the events that happen before it are largely irrelevant in comparison.

I think this is just a case where we have to agree to disagree.

Vicious wrote...

Origin or not, there needs to be BACKGROUND. This was partially where DA2 failed: You can be a mage, using magic everywhere, but until the end of Act 2 and after when you become Champion the game just pretended you didn't use magic much until that point.


Even Shepard had a background that was continually referenced. And that was better than nothing at all.

This is not so much a problem with not having a background but more certain characters not properly identifying the player's class and even then I think it was more because the game was trying to make out that Hawke was trying to hide the fact that he and certain members of his party were mages and ignored any action by the player that would make it obvious that Hawke and his party were mages such as making fire rain from the sky in direct sight of a Templar.

[cindercatz]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

So what you are telling me is that you need origin stories because unless somebody tells you who your character is you lack the imagination to create a character with a unique personality that is different from your own? Also depending on who you ask being able to create a character that is a digital avatar of yourself isnt quite as big a flaw as you make it out to be, but that being said just because the character is a blank slate doesnt mean that the character automatically becomes a digital version of yourself, a blank slate is whatever you choose to make it whether it be a digital avatar of yourself or something completely different.

But while you say that one of the biggest flaws of the CRPG genre is games that have PCs without an Origin I say the biggest flaw of the CRPG genre is games that focus too much on the origin of the PC when the events that follow have nothing to do with it, a CRPG should be about defining your character through the choices they make throughout the game not the backstory you have little control over, the CRPG IS your character's story, the events that happen before it are largely irrelevant in comparison.

I think this is just a case where we have to agree to disagree.
 

..way to insult me there, dude. You can agree to disagree if you want, but don't put words in my mouth or insult my intelligence, please and thanks.

No, what I'm telling you is exactly what I said in my post. I can create a character whole cloth (and also like I said, I've played a *LOT* of all sorts of RPGs, so I've done that all my game playing life for a few decades), but no matter what I decide in my head about so-and-so character's mentality (totally arbitrary, relying on no outside input and providing nothing new to play off), random backstory (that has nothing to do with anything in the game, and therefore doesn't exist in any relevant way), or motivations (which I invent myself, again arbitrary, and which are not reflected in the game, again irrelevant beyond arbitrary decision x or y), that character is always arbitrary, with only so much depth as the game's reaction to my decisions could puzzle out. So yes I can create a character that exists solely in my head, or play some completely arbitrary version of myself, with any random moral code I'm in the mood for at character creation.

What DA:O does with origins that's far and away better, is that it then (after I've done all that stuff) gives me new information, new reactivity (on a wide scale), and new environmental factors that I can then feed back into my character, and the game's reactivity to that player (in the origin and throughout) then allows me the oppurtunity to experience the world through that particular character's eyes more richly. So I might think certain certain character is going to have a certain mindset, and then something happens in the origin that changes the way I look at the world and my character both, that reflects back through a different perspective lense, and I then approach the rest of the game (which continues to reinforce that perspective) through that new lense.

Then I can go back and get new perspectives and new very well fleshed out PCs to play the main story through, for each very different origin, which is where I was talking about how much replayability it supports. In the flat system you support (i.e. the old system that we've been playing again and again with very little change for a long time prior to DA:O and after), I can go through the first steps, the stuff you seem to think my head character should stop at, in any ol' cRPG, but nothing ever changes. I play it once, from my single perspective, and I've seen most everything worth seeing. There's no reason to ever change my mind about anything and no alternate perspective for me to approach it from. I can (and always do in BioWare games, at least) go back and say, 'okay, now this second character's a female (doesn't change much usually), and she's more dark or more light side or more selfish or more generous' etc. but it's all arbitrary. I play the other path, but there's nothing really there to make it as valid an experience as my first playthrough or my first PC for that game. It's like flipping a coin at cc and then consciously trying to stay consistant with that coin toss, no deeper or more complex than that.

That's why DA:O's the only rpg I ever cared to play through more than twice. It adds multiple layers of complexity through story branching, unique reactivity, and particularly rooting. Honestly, the only game I can think of that comes close is Vandal Hearts 2, but it's a very different animal that still used sprites for characters, etc. It doesn't have the same concerns a cinematic type game like Dragon Age does. Even there, the six general origins give me more valuable replay options than the 82 different endings of VH2.

Don't take any of that mountain of text to mean I don't love plenty of games with undefined, non-descript protagonists, but I've got those games available in spades and I don't need that from BioWare, especially DA.

[The Night Haunter]

andar91 wrote...

I think classes should act like origins.

If what you mean is Mages should have some content in the intro that explains why a mage is working with the inquisition, i agree.

Also I hope (gonna be dissapointed, but i can still hope anyway) they have a Noble origin (Orliesan), a Chantry/Templar origin, Dalish (from Halamshiral) and Dwarf from Kal-sharok.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I love the origins system. Let me be a human, elf(at least this), dwarf, or kossith(please).

[LPPrince]

I'm open to Origin Stories returning, though I doubt they will.

[ThisIsZad]

YAY

[SirDoctorofTARDIS]

I want Origin stories depending on class choice. That way there is a difference between playing the classes rather then combat. For example, a noblemen might be more willing to help a Warrior then a Mage, and a rouge would have better luck getting information from thieves then the others.

[Plaintiff]

I can take or leave them. As long as I can play a human male rogue, I'm set.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

cindercatz wrote...
..way to insult me there, dude. You can agree to disagree if you want, but don't put words in my mouth or insult my intelligence, please and thanks.

What intelligence? Ok I am sorry that was uncalled for, I am sure you are a reasonably clever young lad so dont take such jabs too seriously.

cindercatz wrote...
No, what I'm telling you is exactly what I said in my post. I can create a character whole cloth (and also like I said, I've played a *LOT* of all sorts of RPGs, so I've done that all my game playing life for a few decades), but no matter what I decide in my head about so-and-so character's mentality (totally arbitrary, relying on no outside input and providing nothing new to play off), random backstory (that has nothing to do with anything in the game, and therefore doesn't exist in any relevant way), or motivations (which I invent myself, again arbitrary, and which are not reflected in the game, again irrelevant beyond arbitrary decision x or y), that character is always arbitrary, with only so much depth as the game's reaction to my decisions could puzzle out. So yes I can create a character that exists solely in my head, or play some completely arbitrary version of myself, with any random moral code I'm in the mood for at character creation.

What DA:O does with origins that's far and away better, is that it then (after I've done all that stuff) gives me new information, new reactivity (on a wide scale), and new environmental factors that I can then feed back into my character, and the game's reactivity to that player (in the origin and throughout) then allows me the oppurtunity to experience the world through that particular character's eyes more richly. So I might think certain certain character is going to have a certain mindset, and then something happens in the origin that changes the way I look at the world and my character both, that reflects back through a different perspective lense, and I then approach the rest of the game (which continues to reinforce that perspective) through that new lense.

Environmental factors? I have no idea what you mean by that so you will probably have to explain it to me but when I say "Origin Stories" I am not just talking about the first half hour - hour of unique gameplay for each Origin but the story that takes place before the game even begins, I am talking about your character's childhood, the relationships he/she has formed over that period, the moment some guy you have never met tells you about where your character gave him a good thrashing at a local tournement that you have no recollection of. What you seem to be talking about is merely the starting events that happen in each origin before they all branch into a single storyline, and while I am sure that these events would have a profound effect on your character's motivations and views (Human Noble has a vendetta against Howe, Dwarf noble is exiled from Orzammar ect) I believe these sort of character defining events should happen along the journey depending on the actions the player makes once the player has built more of a relationship with the characters and a better understanding of the world, I believe the story in an RPG should branch outwards rather than inwards.

cindercatz wrote...
Then I can go back and get new perspectives and new very well fleshed out PCs to play the main story through, for each very different origin, which is where I was talking about how much replayability it supports. In the flat system you support (i.e. the old system that we've been playing again and again with very little change for a long time prior to DA:O and after), I can go through the first steps, the stuff you seem to think my head character should stop at, in any ol' cRPG, but nothing ever changes. I play it once, from my single perspective, and I've seen most everything worth seeing. There's no reason to ever change my mind about anything and no alternate perspective for me to approach it from. I can (and always do in BioWare games, at least) go back and say, 'okay, now this second character's a female (doesn't change much usually), and she's more dark or more light side or more selfish or more generous' etc. but it's all arbitrary. I play the other path, but there's nothing really there to make it as valid an experience as my first playthrough or my first PC for that game. It's like flipping a coin at cc and then consciously trying to stay consistant with that coin toss, no deeper or more complex than that.

You have no idea what I am talking about do you? Hopefully that last paragraph I posted will clear a bit of it up for you but if you think I am saying that it should be a backstory that you create that defines your character then you are dead wrong, the backstory (whether it be one you made up in your head or one your character is assigned by the writers) in a CRPG should NOT define your character, perhaps give you a starting point to decide your character's inclinations but not define it, your character should be defined by the actions he/she makes and how he/she is percieved by the world because of those actions. It is not as simple as "flipping a coin at cc and then consciously trying to stay consistant with that coin toss" but allowing your character grow and change throughout the story based on the choices they make, the events they witness and the path they are developed down. Perhaps this is not what most RPGs allow you to do but it is what I believe a lot of RPGs should strive to do.

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 25 septembre 2012 - 11:33 .

[LadyVaJedi]

I love the idea of an origin story for the new game. It would be nice

[cindercatz]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

What intelligence? Ok I am sorry that was uncalled for, I am sure you are a reasonably clever young lad so dont take such jabs too seriously.

Ok, I'd rather move on and get back on track. I'll point out there's a wide gap between what would constitute a good natured jab and what's clearly condescension. The former doesn't bother me at all, might even endear me to someone; the latter would normally set me at somebody's throat. Either way, this thread has put me in a bit of a down mood, so let's leave all that behind us, shall we?

When somebody's actually engaging in an honest conversation with you, at length, why in the hell would you ever start casting aspersions on their intelligence or basic grasp of the subject? I've noticed that happens more than it should on these boards, though. Just assume I'm at least as smart as you are and move on.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Environmental factors? I have no idea what you mean by that so you will probably have to explain it to me but when I say "Origin Stories" I am not just talking about the first half hour - hour of unique gameplay for each Origin but the story that takes place before the game even begins, I am talking about your character's childhood, the relationships he/she has formed over that period, the moment some guy you have never met tells you about where your character gave him a good thrashing at a local tournement that you have no recollection of. What you seem to be talking about is merely the starting events that happen in each origin before they all branch into a single storyline, and while I am sure that these events would have a profound effect on your character's motivations and views (Human Noble has a vendetta against Howe, Dwarf noble is exiled from Orzammar ect) I believe these sort of character defining events should happen along the journey depending on the actions the player makes once the player has built more of a relationship with the characters and a better understanding of the world, I believe the story in an RPG should branch outwards rather than inwards.

Environmental factors, things like a first hand look at what it's like to live in a particular socio-economic group in the game's fantasy world, things like the personal obligations your character might have had previously, things like familial and community status.

My point about all this is that these things add to and refract through an entire playthrough. They give you a stronger basis for your character that's actually part of the game world, as opposed to head canon that's never seen nor heard, and is thus effectively non-existent. I *want* to see and hear about past relationships and past activities my character may or may not have been involved in (based on my answers). I *want* to meet my character's existing family and social structure, and all of it, because every bit of that adds yet another layer to who my character is. None of that exists in any real way with a blank slate character.

Once we get to main game, of course my character continues to evolve, but I have a nice, organic, well reflected and supported set of factors that play into how I continue to play my character, along whatever path my character takes. I have a solid foundation for who my character is in total, rather than a summary, arbitrary set of values. The origins in DA:O do a great deal for humanizing my character (whatever race, but you get my point).

Otherwise, when I come to those defining choices throughout the game you're talking about, I'm making those choices based solely on the limited information presented to me as a player at that time, which only allows my honest response once and once only. After that, given no alternate stimulus, I'm only characterizing whatever second character I might make according to what I've not already seen in the game. If there is no real reason for me to go back and replay multiple times, even in a game like BioWare's, like KoTOR or Mass Effect, then my second and final playthrough is there primarily to unlock the other avenues I haven't already played (in broad strokes), because whatever character I make needs to fill those bulletpoints. (KoTOR had better branching and more divergent characterization than ME, but that's another discussion.)

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

You have no idea what I am talking about do you? Hopefully that last paragraph I posted will clear a bit of it up for you but if you think I am saying that it should be a backstory that you create that defines your character then you are dead wrong, the backstory (whether it be one you made up in your head or one your character is assigned by the writers) in a CRPG should NOT define your character, perhaps give you a starting point to decide your character's inclinations but not define it, your character should be defined by the actions he/she makes and how he/she is percieved by the world because of those actions. It is not as simple as "flipping a coin at cc and then consciously trying to stay consistant with that coin toss" but allowing your character grow and change throughout the story based on the choices they make, the events they witness and the path they are developed down. Perhaps this is not what most RPGs allow you to do but it is what I believe a lot of RPGs should strive to do.

I understand exactly what you're talking about. Perspective lensing, remember? Rather than "flipping a coin" and arbitrarily defining my character's personality, then playing that against the informatiion in the game and that's it (on it's face, one true organic playthrough), story rooting (like the origins of DA:O) allows me to look at each situation with a fresh perspective that would not exist on a repeat vanilla playthrough, a new lense.

My characters are always well defined, in terms of those arbitrary guidelines, at character creation. I play the character, not myself, and my characters all have to be different people if I'm going to go back and play the game again at all. I get into a particular headspace and approach every situation from whatever mindset my character would be in, not how I personally would. So yes my characters change and grow, but they don't shift personalities. Story rooting and branching allow my character to be very different in ways that I don't arbitrarily assign, but organically grow into, which then allow me to approach each repeating situation in the main game from an honestly new perspective, a different lense. It's immensely helpful for roleplay and world immersion.

And I agree with you that cRPGs should strive to be reactive to the player, to reinforce the choices they make in a choice driven game, but they should start to do so and branch immediatedly like DA:O, not continue to follow the old formula. It shouldn't all be where you're going, but also where you come from that matters, as a roleplayer. That goes doubly for Dragon Age, because the franchise is built to support that and play off of the competing aspects of the world. That's one of the defining features of Dragon Age. They should be doubling down on that, not homogenizing it like DA2.