574 réponses à ce sujet

[Uzzy]

If the Bioware writers were actually concerned about plot reasons why your PC couldn't be X or Y, then our experiences as a mage running around in Kirkwall would have been very different.

(Though, to be fair, spending the game locked up would have been a considerable improvement on what we actually got)

[Caiden012]

Monica21 wrote...

Caiden012 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Caiden012 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I do understand your point, but what I'm trying to say is that your choice of race in DAO has little to no impact on the story. The story remains the same. You survive Ostagar, get the treaties, go to the Landsmeet, defeat the Archdemon. The changes are mostly in how people address you. Kester treats you like a piece of dirt if you're a city elf but couldn't be more pleased that "someone like you" deigns to talk to someone like him if you're a human noble.

None of this is relevant. Story is good, but roleplaying is important too, and was certainly vital and interesting in Origins. So far, I see no possible adequate reason as to why they'd throw this away for this game.

Every RPG has RP limits.

But to give us more limits since the first game is just a slap in the face.

Really, now? Because a book, comics, and a third game that all continue to expand the world of Thedas seems like not a slap in the face at all.

That has NOTHING to do with taking away our choices as players!

BioWare is creating a third RPG in the Dragon Age universe. You get to roleplay as... something, but you're roleplaying. The assumption is that you will have options within that role. To presume that one option in a previous game should carry over to all other games is getting a little ahead of ourselves. And unless BioWare promised that players would always have the option to play as different races then they are not taking away choices. That's a perception you've brought because of an option in one game, not because of anything BioWare has stated and then retracted.

So it is wrong of me to assume that I should get an experience that is as good or better than the previous game. They are taking away our choices as players and more than just that have been taken from us. Are characters personality was very limited in DA 2 compared to DA:O and that probably wont change.

[Plaintiff]

The Hierophant wrote...

So with this development is the DA series still considered inclusive?

Not by its elven and dwarven audience, perhaps.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

FINE HERE wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...
Just because the templars/chantry are/is picky in times of peace, doesn't mean it will remain picky in times of war.

The Templars and the Chantry are no strangers to conflict. Go ahead and name some prominent non-human figureheads of either institution throughout history. I'll wait.

What I was saying is there is a way to justify suddenly having non-human members in the Templars and/or chantry.
And there was that dwarf guy in Orzammor in DA:O. You could help him start a chantry there.

Even if that isn't the case, the whole mess could be avoided by not having the player adopt the role of Inquisitor. What would be so bad about being a Grey Warden again or someone who doesn't even have a title? If it means having more player agency, that's the better option. Period.

[Shadow Fox]

marshalleck wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...
Just because the templars/chantry are/is picky in times of peace, doesn't mean it will remain picky in times of war.

The Templars and the Chantry are no strangers to conflict. Go ahead and name some prominent non-human figureheads of either institution throughout history. I'll wait.

What I was saying is there is a way to justify suddenly having non-human members in the Templars and/or chantry.
And there was that dwarf guy in Orzammor in DA:O. You could help him start a chantry there.

Yeah and the Chantry got pissed about it and were considering an Exalted March on Orzammar, before things went all pear-shaped in Kirkwall.

No they got pissed because he was killed in a riot because the nobles didn't like people converting to the Andrastaian faith.

[Monica21]

FINE HERE wrote...

Can we assume that option will be available in the third game of a series which started with said option, took away said option in the sequel and received a lot of complaints about the removal of said option afterwards?

You can assume whatever you want, but you should also prepare to be disappointed. And DA2 is any indication, DA3 has bigger issues to fix than implementing playable races.

[FINE HERE]

marshalleck wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...
Just because the templars/chantry are/is picky in times of peace, doesn't mean it will remain picky in times of war.

The Templars and the Chantry are no strangers to conflict. Go ahead and name some prominent non-human figureheads of either institution throughout history. I'll wait.

What I was saying is there is a way to justify suddenly having non-human members in the Templars and/or chantry.
And there was that dwarf guy in Orzammor in DA:O. You could help him start a chantry there.

Yeah and the Chantry got pissed about it and were considering an Exalted March on Orzammar, before things went all pear-shaped in Kirkwall.

You can't deny that he would have made it into the history books. Just saying.

[Maria Caliban]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
What would be so bad about being a Grey Warden again...?

There isn't a Blight.

In fact, I'm going to guess the civil war is exactly the sort of thing the (smart) Gray Wardens try their best not to get involved in.

Plaintiff wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

So with this development is the DA series still considered inclusive?

Not by its elven and dwarven audience, perhaps.

The gay agenda has worked hard to make the non-human minorities invisible in the gaming community.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 21 octobre 2012 - 04:15 .

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Really though, was anyone truly expecting any differently? It's voice acted. The races have different voices

[Plaintiff]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...
Just because the templars/chantry are/is picky in times of peace, doesn't mean it will remain picky in times of war.

The Templars and the Chantry are no strangers to conflict. Go ahead and name some prominent non-human figureheads of either institution throughout history. I'll wait.

What I was saying is there is a way to justify suddenly having non-human members in the Templars and/or chantry.
And there was that dwarf guy in Orzammor in DA:O. You could help him start a chantry there.

Even if that isn't the case, the whole mess could be avoided by not having the player adopt the role of Inquisitor. What would be so bad about being a Grey Warden again or someone who doesn't even have a title? If it means having more player agency, that's the better option. Period.

So DA:O should've included an option to flee the country and ignore the Blight, because that would mean it had more player agency.

[Caiden012]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

Really though, was anyone truly expecting any differently? It's voice acted. The races have different voices

I would gladly have choices as a player over voice acting for one character.

[Battlebloodmage]

Maria Caliban wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
What would be so bad about being a Grey Warden again...?

There isn't a Blight.

In fact, I'm going to guess the civil war is exactly the sort of thing the (smart) Gray Wardens try their best not to get involved in.

I agree. I remember them saying that the Grey Wardens need to remain neutral. It would be smart not to offend any of their potential allies in case of another blight.

[PinkysPain]

Uzzy wrote...

If the Bioware writers were actually concerned about plot reasons why your PC couldn't be X or Y, then our experiences as a mage running around in Kirkwall would have been very different.

I think you won't be able to start out as a mage at all in DA3, makes most sense ...

[Monica21]

Caiden012 wrote...
So it is wrong of me to assume that I should get an experience that is as good or better than the previous game. They are taking away our choices as players and more than just that have been taken from us. Are characters personality was very limited in DA 2 compared to DA:O and that probably wont change.

I think it's wrong of you to assume that the reason you had a good experience with DA:O is the same reason everyone had a good experience. Playing as a dwarf or elf was largely cosmetic. It affected nothing. DA2 was the second game in a series, but no game in a sequel is going to be a copy of the game before, so no, they are not taking away choices. The only way that would be true is if they patched DA:O to only let you play as human.

[Monica21]

Maria Caliban wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
What would be so bad about being a Grey Warden again...?

There isn't a Blight.

In fact, I'm going to guess the civil war is exactly the sort of thing the (smart) Gray Wardens try their best not to get involved in.

Except Sophia Dryden got herself and the Ferelden Wardens involved in a civil war, and actually for excellent reasons.

[Demx]

Maria Caliban wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
What would be so bad about being a Grey Warden again...?

There isn't a Blight.

In fact, I'm going to guess the civil war is exactly the sort of thing the (smart) Gray Wardens try their best not to get involved in.

The civil war is pointless anyways. Whomever you side with won't change anything if there is a DA4.

[Vandicus]

Uzzy wrote...

If the Bioware writers were actually concerned about plot reasons why your PC couldn't be X or Y, then our experiences as a mage running around in Kirkwall would have been very different.

(Though, to be fair, spending the game locked up would have been a considerable improvement on what we actually got)

So what you're saying is, you'd be ok with the races being a simple reskin and never being addressed by NPCs or the plot.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Plaintiff wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...
Just because the templars/chantry are/is picky in times of peace, doesn't mean it will remain picky in times of war.

The Templars and the Chantry are no strangers to conflict. Go ahead and name some prominent non-human figureheads of either institution throughout history. I'll wait.

What I was saying is there is a way to justify suddenly having non-human members in the Templars and/or chantry.
And there was that dwarf guy in Orzammor in DA:O. You could help him start a chantry there.

Even if that isn't the case, the whole mess could be avoided by not having the player adopt the role of Inquisitor. What would be so bad about being a Grey Warden again or someone who doesn't even have a title? If it means having more player agency, that's the better option. Period.

So DA:O should've included an option to flee the country and ignore the Blight, because that would mean it had more player agency.

Within reason, of course. But forcing the player to adopt a role that removes race selection due to established lore? Not the best idea for player agency.

[xsdob]

So the chantry stopped being racist against elves and dwarfs? Why wasn't I informed?

Seriously though, this could be seen coming from like 20 miles away, you play as an inquisitor for the chantry, using deductive reasoning and critical thinking should tell you that you would play as a human in the almost all human religious organization.

[Xilizhra]

Vandicus wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

If the Bioware writers were actually concerned about plot reasons why your PC couldn't be X or Y, then our experiences as a mage running around in Kirkwall would have been very different.

(Though, to be fair, spending the game locked up would have been a considerable improvement on what we actually got)

So what you're saying is, you'd be ok with the races being a simple reskin and never being addressed by NPCs or the plot.

It depends. Origins did it reasonably well while still offering quite a substantial roleplaying bonus for those who enjoyed those races. It wouldn't have to be made necessarily important.

[Caiden012]

Monica21 wrote...

Caiden012 wrote...
So it is wrong of me to assume that I should get an experience that is as good or better than the previous game. They are taking away our choices as players and more than just that have been taken from us. Are characters personality was very limited in DA 2 compared to DA:O and that probably wont change.

I think it's wrong of you to assume that the reason you had a good experience with DA:O is the same reason everyone had a good experience. Playing as a dwarf or elf was largely cosmetic. It affected nothing. DA2 was the second game in a series, but no game in a sequel is going to be a copy of the game before, so no, they are not taking away choices. The only way that would be true is if they patched DA:O to only let you play as human.

What do you mean it affected nothing? It decided how you started the game, how some npcs reacted to you, gave you different speech options during the game, gave different endings. It gave us as players to create the character we wanted to make. Dragon Age is a series and it is not wrong of me to expect a similar experience from sequals. 

[Plaintiff]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
Within reason, of course. But forcing the player to adopt a role that removes race selection due to established lore? Not the best idea for player agency.

What's "within reason", then?

[Uzzy]

PinkysPain wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

If the Bioware writers were actually concerned about plot reasons why your PC couldn't be X or Y, then our experiences as a mage running around in Kirkwall would have been very different.

I think you won't be able to start out as a mage at all in DA3, makes most sense ...

Man, I'd love to see the boards reaction to that. Would be highly amusing.

[Vandicus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

If the Bioware writers were actually concerned about plot reasons why your PC couldn't be X or Y, then our experiences as a mage running around in Kirkwall would have been very different.

(Though, to be fair, spending the game locked up would have been a considerable improvement on what we actually got)

So what you're saying is, you'd be ok with the races being a simple reskin and never being addressed by NPCs or the plot.

It depends. Origins did it reasonably well while still offering quite a substantial roleplaying bonus for those who enjoyed those races. It wouldn't have to be made necessarily important.

Simply addressing Uzzy's argument. Because mage class(from Uzzy's POV) was not addressed and implemented anyways, alternate races should likewise be implemented on the basis that they would not be addressed.

[TsaiMeLemoni]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...


Within reason, of course. But forcing the player to adopt a role that removes race selection due to established lore? Not the best idea for player agency.

I don't see how race selection affects player agency more than the actual story. As evidenced in DAO, race essentially means nothing, especially in regards to player agency. The things that did affect it are the blight, the rounding up of allies, and putting an end to the Arch Demon. Unless you're trying to say that the race of the PC should be the instigation of the narrative, and if that's the case, that's a game I don't want to play.