318 réponses à ce sujet

[Caiden012]

AppealToReason wrote...

Caiden012 wrote...

AppealToReason wrote...

Caiden012 wrote...

bigbad1013 wrote...

Also maybe people shouldn't be making assumptions about the backgrounds just yet. The truth is that the origin stories in Origins, while certainly fun, really didn't make much of a difference in the end in terms of how the rest of the game played out. If they do the backgrounds in a way so that they are actually significant and relevant to the story then I think it could be great.

But isn't that what games are about? Fun? Why should we sacrifice the fun of making our own character so that Bioware can tell a story. I love the story but I love have a character I can connect to more.

You're assuming the two are mutually exclusive. 

In this situation it seems they are. Bio seems want to make us human so that they can tell their story.

Yeah, the story of Thedas. A world they created.

So I as the consumer have to sacrifice having fun so the Bioware can tell their story. Origins showed that they can include gameplay features that fans want and still tell a good story. But for some reason they have decided it would be best to limit us for story. This is DRAGON AGE not MASS EFFECT.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

I think the rule of Bioware is to do the opposite of what BSN says.

Modifié par DarkKnightHolmes, 21 octobre 2012 - 05:19 .

[upsettingshorts]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I suppose that they weighed the issue and had decided it was better to deal with these threads than the "Why must I have options to play other races!" thread.

This sounds clever until you realize gamers almost never argue for less content, unless it's multiplayer but then I think that's just allergies.  

That aside, gamers think everything that could be in a game ought to be.  But they don't have to make tough calls, just type out their opinions in a box.

[FedericoV]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Actually, Tsai, that thread was fairly civil. Some people disagreed, but it didn't erupt in a flame war or anything like that.
 

I agree: I do not understand why Mr. Schumacher axed the original thread. 

Modifié par FedericoV, 21 octobre 2012 - 05:21 .

[Han Shot First]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

I think the rule of Bioware is to do the opposite of what BSN says.

I hope it is.

The BSN conjurs up far more bad ideas than it does good ones. Ignoring the BSN gives the game a better chance of actually being good.

[upsettingshorts]

Caiden012 wrote...

So I as the consumer have to sacrifice having fun so the Bioware can tell their story. Origins showed that they can include gameplay features that fans want and still tell a good story. But for some reason they have decided it would be best to limit us for story. This is DRAGON AGE not MASS EFFECT.

Their own objective metrics disagree with the BSN's assertion that origins and racial choice in DA:O were a wildly popular, in-demand feature.

That isn't to say, "It's not popular so let's cut this" is the entirety of their thought process.  However, something like, "Most of our players play humans near-exclusively, how can we make the human experience better?  How about with cinematics, more human customization, and a story tailored from start to finish with that in mind?" probably is.

[Rawgrim]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I suppose that they weighed the issue and had decided it was better to deal with these threads than the "Why must I have options to play other races!" thread.

This sounds clever until you realize gamers almost never argue for less content, unless it's multiplayer but then I think that's just allergies.  

That aside, gamers think everything that could be in a game ought to be.  But they don't have to make tough calls, just type out their opinions in a box.

A fair point. But then again, Bioware should really start to call their games Action-Adventure games, from now on. They clearly arn`t roleplaying games. If they remove the RPG label they stick on their products, the would get ALOT less stick too.

[Caiden012]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I suppose that they weighed the issue and had decided it was better to deal with these threads than the "Why must I have options to play other races!" thread.

This sounds clever until you realize gamers almost never argue for less content, unless it's multiplayer but then I think that's just allergies.  

That aside, gamers think everything that could be in a game ought to be.  But they don't have to make tough calls, just type out their opinions in a box.

Origins had more content. Most people would expect a sequal to have more content.

[Lennard Testarossa]

Caiden012 wrote...

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Making the protag human is probably a good idea. Letting people choose races severely limits what kind of story you can tell. An elven inquisitor would be ridiculous.

Yeah cause the story of Origins was WAY more limited than the story of 2...........oh wait.

Seriously?

...

I am fairly certain you do not have the slightest idea what I even said. It is about what kinds of stories you can tell, not about whether you like a certain story or whether that story gives you room to develop your character.

The fact is that when the protag can be human, elf or dwarf, you have to find some excuse why protags of different races follow the exact same story and are treated more or less the same. This can be done by making him part of some kind of organisation that is widely respected and accepts all races. As far as I know, the Grey Wardens are pretty much the only ones who qualify for this. So to have different races, you'd have to have a Grey Warden protag. And that is incredibly limiting.

[LobselVith8]

Han Shot First wrote..

Even if it was made canon that a protagonist believed in the Maker, so what?

Some people prefer to have, at least, the same freedom in choices that were available in Origins. Why force the protagonist to be religious Andrastian when you can give them the freedom to not believe in the fictional religion? Why force the protagonist to only be human when you could make elven, dwarven, or kossith protagonists available?

The only thing that stipulated that Hawke should be human was that he bought the family mansion. An elven or dwarven protagonist could have fled Ferelden, allied with the smugglers or mercenaries, become wealthy from the Deep Roads, relocated, become important to the Viscount via the Arishok's demand for the protagonist, and ultimately defeated the Arishok in a duel. None of that demands a human protagonist. And I'm skeptical about the idea that Inquisition truly demands a human protagonist as well.

[ammyretsu]

As someone who has played through every Origins story in DA:O, I don't get why people are so incensed about this. Yes, maybe it would've been a nice feature to have for some people, but why spend extra additional time creating something that a small minority used? And, it wasn't as though the different races really changed the huge chunk of gameplay/plot, only the beginning and parts towards the end.

I know I'm playing devils advocate right now and I'm definitly not here to troll/add fuel to the fire...I'm just not going to throw my teddy out the cot over one small comment. If sacrificing being able to play as a promiscuous dwarf again means an overall better game then I'll be happy.

[Rawgrim]

FedericoV wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Actually, Tsai, that thread was fairly civil. Some people disagreed, but it didn't erupt in a flame war or anything like that.
 

I agree: I do not understand why Mr. Schumacher axed the original thread. 

Maybe someone were actually starting to make sense.

[addiction21]

Apperantly KoToR has retroactively become a terrible game

[thebigbad1013]

So I as the consumer have to sacrifice having fun so the Bioware can tell their story. Origins showed that they can include gameplay features that fans want and still tell a good story. But for some reason they have decided it would be best to limit us for story. This is DRAGON AGE not MASS EFFECT.

Well, to be fair there have been two Dragon Age games so far, one had origin stories and one did not. So right now it's a 50/50 split so it's not like there had been game after game with origin stories and then they suddenly took it away. One game doesn't necessarily mean that it will, or should, be that way forever and ever.

[ianvillan]

Han Shot First wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

I think the rule of Bioware is to do the opposite of what BSN says.

I hope it is.

The BSN conjurs up far more bad ideas than it does good ones. Ignoring the BSN gives the game a better chance of actually being good.

Well the BSN said repeated environments and parachuting enemies were a bad idea so you will be ok with them again.

[Caiden012]

FedericoV wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Actually, Tsai, that thread was fairly civil. Some people disagreed, but it didn't erupt in a flame war or anything like that.
 

I agree: I do not understand why Mr. Schumacher axed the original thread. 

Agreed. I didn't see anything uncivil. I just saw a group of concerned and not so concered fans talking about a game they want to see do well.

[zyntifox]

Rawgrim wrote...

Hawke being human was nessecary, yes. To TELL a story, mind you. Not to let players playthrough a story of their own, with a character they create, or make choices that impacts the story. thats the very core of roleplaying games. the player is in the drivers seat. In DA2 the car was parked infront of a Drive-In cinema, and the player got to watch a movie instead.

They said this when they released DA2 but after playing it i never did understand why this particular story had to have a human protagonist. I think they decided that DA2 would be more focuesed on cinematic presentation and having multiple races increases cost, due to the extra voice work, and posed a problem with camera angles due to differences of height.

[Meltemph]

I don't understand how wanting to get back a feature that we had in Origins (the better game of the two) is a horrible idea.

That "feature" was part of the story, literally, to introduce you to everything the setting had to offer, in terms of the different cultures and races. Race differences in DA:O had relevence in the story(not as much as I would have liked, but still) and helped tell the story from a setting perspective.

However they shouldnt be "adding a feature", they should be making the game they want to make, so it is the best they could make it. This idea of just having a "feature" automatically means it is better, doesnt even make sense. IF the "feature" is poorly implemented, why would I want that in my game?

If bioware has a story in mind that is human centric, and adding a race choice to the game wouldnt actually add any story changes in a setting where race matters very much, would be ******* stupid, imo.

I would prefer them to focus on the Dwarf lore in DA3...That doesnt mean no matter what I wana play of Dwarf in DA3. I only wana play a Dwarf in DA3 if it means I get something tangable for that choice.

Either way it doesnt matter, since my overall point was, BW needs to make the game they visioned and no something dictated by milestones, fans, or anyone else outside of them. If something isnt part of their vison of a game they want to make, then they sure as crap shoudnt do it because of a fan outcry who typically have terrible idea's to begin with.

Now if they had a "human only" story simple do garner more sales, then I would agree, but I think DA2 proved that playing a human doenst = more sales. So it would be quite a stretch to think they are doing it for that reason.

Modifié par Meltemph, 21 octobre 2012 - 05:28 .

[upsettingshorts]

Caiden012 wrote...

Origins had more content. Most people would expect a sequal to have more content.

That doesn't make any sense.  The level of content in any given game is not determined by what order it's released in.  DAO spent years in development hell, and DA2 was turned over and shipped in less than a year.  That's what Dragon Age 2 has less content.

Assuming Dragon Age 3 will be broadly like Dragon Age 2 because it has a human-only protagonist is baseless and silly.

[The Elder King]

Rawgrim wrote...

[

A fair point. But then again, Bioware should really start to call their games Action-Adventure games, from now on. They clearly arn`t roleplaying games. If they remove the RPG label they stick on their products, the would get ALOT less stick too.

I hope this is for other reasons than the playable race. Otherwise KOTOR and ME should've been labeled action-adventure games too.

Modifié par hhh89, 21 octobre 2012 - 05:27 .

[thebigbad1013]

Cstaf wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Hawke being human was nessecary, yes. To TELL a story, mind you. Not to let players playthrough a story of their own, with a character they create, or make choices that impacts the story. thats the very core of roleplaying games. the player is in the drivers seat. In DA2 the car was parked infront of a Drive-In cinema, and the player got to watch a movie instead.

They said this when they released DA2 but after playing it i never did understand why this particular story had to have a human protagonist. I think they decided that DA2 would be more focuesed on cinematic presentation and having multiple races increases cost, due to the extra voice work, and posed a problem with camera angles due to differences of height.

The family ties of the Hawke family in Kirkwall is one big reason. It was a significant part of the story and it wouln't have been possible with a dwarf or an elf.

[ianvillan]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote..

Even if it was made canon that a protagonist believed in the Maker, so what?

Some people prefer to have, at least, the same freedom in choices that were available in Origins. Why force the protagonist to be religious Andrastian when you can give them the freedom to not believe in the fictional religion? Why force the protagonist to only be human when you could make elven, dwarven, or kossith protagonists available?

The only thing that stipulated that Hawke should be human was that he bought the family mansion. An elven or dwarven protagonist could have fled Ferelden, allied with the smugglers or mercenaries, become wealthy from the Deep Roads, relocated, become important to the Viscount via the Arishok's demand for the protagonist, and ultimately defeated the Arishok in a duel. None of that demands a human protagonist. And I'm skeptical about the idea that Inquisition truly demands a human protagonist as well.

In my opinion Anders was actually the main character in DA2 anyway, what exactly was the need for Hawke to be Human.

[Caiden012]

bigbad1013 wrote...

So I as the consumer have to sacrifice having fun so the Bioware can tell their story. Origins showed that they can include gameplay features that fans want and still tell a good story. But for some reason they have decided it would be best to limit us for story. This is DRAGON AGE not MASS EFFECT.

Well, to be fair there have been two Dragon Age games so far, one had origin stories and one did not. So right now it's a 50/50 split so it's not like there had been game after game with origin stories and then they suddenly took it away. One game doesn't necessarily mean that it will, or should, be that way forever and ever.

The problem is that after DA2 many fans wanted to see Bioware make DA3 similar to DA:O. Bio said that it would be a mix of the two. But so far all I have seen is more of DA2. It is a little early but the game is still early in development and many of us what to see the game go in the right direction before its to late.

Modifié par Caiden012, 21 octobre 2012 - 05:27 .