3855 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

Rawgrim wrote...

1, Seriously? 2ed was combat heavy? The game actually gave you experience points for roleplaying. Did you even play it? You got tons of non-combat proficiencies, you got followers based on your charisma, reputation, and level. Its actually the edition that was the least combat heavy of any of them. In 3ed you got XP for combat only, unless the DM decided to "go against the rules" and reward you XP for quests. 4th ed was even worse. Its designed to be a mix between a combat boardgame and WoW. The producers even said so. The game spoonfeeds you that if you play a paladin, your role in combat is this and that. It hardly mentions anything at all outside combat. Monsters got made into groups as well, from fodder to bosses. One of the cyclops races had 1 hitpoint, simply because the players should be able to kill them quickly and feel powerful. 1 hp....means a 2 year old can kill one by tossing a spoon at it.

2. ME was an rpg shooter hybrid. No wonder people are divided in their opinions about it. Jade Empire is pretty much a buttonmashing action game with dialogue and romances. It was a fun game though. And how exactly does BG suffer from the same narrative problems DA:O did? I have ehard no complaints about the narrative of either game. Please explain.

3. Why even bring up the JRPG bit in the first place? I never even mentioned the word.

The sad rule of thumb for tabletops, or at least most tabletops out there, is that they have stood still in terms of how they play since the 1980's. 2nd edition sessions I played in were always combat heavy, and any attempt at making a talky character was met with...well...suspicion. Same thing happens in 4th edition, which is also combat heavy. So the RP aspects of games like DnD are completely and wholly subjective, because most people power game it. 

Second, my issues with Baldur's Gate is pretty much the fact that the narrative of Baldur's Gate is all but impossible to really influence, since the outcome is always the same. You confront Savorek, you are always the Bhaalspawn and technically his sibling regardless of race, and how you go about the majority of the story is realatively same in it's outcome.

I mean sure, you can pretty much slay the entire Iron Throne, or you can be falsy accused, but the issue as to how it affects the remainder of the story is insignificant, because regardless of your own reasons, Savorek is the goal in that situation.

It was the same problem I had in both Dragon Age games, you can role-play a character and be the biggest bastard in the world, but you also save Ferelden and you are hailed as a hero for it, because you are forced to save Ferelden. I hate to say it, but Skyrim is a better RPG in providing more adequate player agency in that regard, because the narrative in Dragon Age clashes with your actions if you play a certain way. 

As for the "JRPG" stuff, I brought it up as an example of that narrow point of view on the whole "what is an RPG" question, a question that is kinda lame to begin with. 

[DreamwareStudio]

bob_20000 wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

That's why I despise Steam, Origin and all the other bloatware they seek to force upon players.

Could be worse. Could be SecuROM.

Could also be better and feature none of the above.

[Rawgrim]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

1, Seriously? 2ed was combat heavy? The game actually gave you experience points for roleplaying. Did you even play it? You got tons of non-combat proficiencies, you got followers based on your charisma, reputation, and level. Its actually the edition that was the least combat heavy of any of them. In 3ed you got XP for combat only, unless the DM decided to "go against the rules" and reward you XP for quests. 4th ed was even worse. Its designed to be a mix between a combat boardgame and WoW. The producers even said so. The game spoonfeeds you that if you play a paladin, your role in combat is this and that. It hardly mentions anything at all outside combat. Monsters got made into groups as well, from fodder to bosses. One of the cyclops races had 1 hitpoint, simply because the players should be able to kill them quickly and feel powerful. 1 hp....means a 2 year old can kill one by tossing a spoon at it.

2. ME was an rpg shooter hybrid. No wonder people are divided in their opinions about it. Jade Empire is pretty much a buttonmashing action game with dialogue and romances. It was a fun game though. And how exactly does BG suffer from the same narrative problems DA:O did? I have ehard no complaints about the narrative of either game. Please explain.

3. Why even bring up the JRPG bit in the first place? I never even mentioned the word.

The sad rule of thumb for tabletops, or at least most tabletops out there, is that they have stood still in terms of how they play since the 1980's. 2nd edition sessions I played in were always combat heavy, and any attempt at making a talky character was met with...well...suspicion. Same thing happens in 4th edition, which is also combat heavy. So the RP aspects of games like DnD are completely and wholly subjective, because most people power game it. 

Second, my issues with Baldur's Gate is pretty much the fact that the narrative of Baldur's Gate is all but impossible to really influence, since the outcome is always the same. You confront Savorek, you are always the Bhaalspawn and technically his sibling regardless of race, and how you go about the majority of the story is realatively same in it's outcome.

I mean sure, you can pretty much slay the entire Iron Throne, or you can be falsy accused, but the issue as to how it affects the remainder of the story is insignificant, because regardless of your own reasons, Savorek is the goal in that situation.

It was the same problem I had in both Dragon Age games, you can role-play a character and be the biggest bastard in the world, but you also save Ferelden and you are hailed as a hero for it, because you are forced to save Ferelden. I hate to say it, but Skyrim is a better RPG in providing more adequate player agency in that regard, because the narrative in Dragon Age clashes with your actions if you play a certain way. 

As for the "JRPG" stuff, I brought it up as an example of that narrow point of view on the whole "what is an RPG" question, a question that is kinda lame to begin with. 

Sounds like you just have been playing with a bad group, to be honest. 2ed was pretty much tailormade for roleplaying. It had a sick amount of non-combat stuff all about the rules.

[sarcastictruths]

It actually doesn't bother me that the protagonist of Dragon Age 3 is going to be a human. If the dragon age team decided to allow us to pick races I would have been perfectly fine with that as well.

[LinksOcarina]

Rawgrim wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

1, Seriously? 2ed was combat heavy? The game actually gave you experience points for roleplaying. Did you even play it? You got tons of non-combat proficiencies, you got followers based on your charisma, reputation, and level. Its actually the edition that was the least combat heavy of any of them. In 3ed you got XP for combat only, unless the DM decided to "go against the rules" and reward you XP for quests. 4th ed was even worse. Its designed to be a mix between a combat boardgame and WoW. The producers even said so. The game spoonfeeds you that if you play a paladin, your role in combat is this and that. It hardly mentions anything at all outside combat. Monsters got made into groups as well, from fodder to bosses. One of the cyclops races had 1 hitpoint, simply because the players should be able to kill them quickly and feel powerful. 1 hp....means a 2 year old can kill one by tossing a spoon at it.

2. ME was an rpg shooter hybrid. No wonder people are divided in their opinions about it. Jade Empire is pretty much a buttonmashing action game with dialogue and romances. It was a fun game though. And how exactly does BG suffer from the same narrative problems DA:O did? I have ehard no complaints about the narrative of either game. Please explain.

3. Why even bring up the JRPG bit in the first place? I never even mentioned the word.

The sad rule of thumb for tabletops, or at least most tabletops out there, is that they have stood still in terms of how they play since the 1980's. 2nd edition sessions I played in were always combat heavy, and any attempt at making a talky character was met with...well...suspicion. Same thing happens in 4th edition, which is also combat heavy. So the RP aspects of games like DnD are completely and wholly subjective, because most people power game it. 

Second, my issues with Baldur's Gate is pretty much the fact that the narrative of Baldur's Gate is all but impossible to really influence, since the outcome is always the same. You confront Savorek, you are always the Bhaalspawn and technically his sibling regardless of race, and how you go about the majority of the story is realatively same in it's outcome.

I mean sure, you can pretty much slay the entire Iron Throne, or you can be falsy accused, but the issue as to how it affects the remainder of the story is insignificant, because regardless of your own reasons, Savorek is the goal in that situation.

It was the same problem I had in both Dragon Age games, you can role-play a character and be the biggest bastard in the world, but you also save Ferelden and you are hailed as a hero for it, because you are forced to save Ferelden. I hate to say it, but Skyrim is a better RPG in providing more adequate player agency in that regard, because the narrative in Dragon Age clashes with your actions if you play a certain way. 

As for the "JRPG" stuff, I brought it up as an example of that narrow point of view on the whole "what is an RPG" question, a question that is kinda lame to begin with. 

Sounds like you just have been playing with a bad group, to be honest. 2ed was pretty much tailormade for roleplaying. It had a sick amount of non-combat stuff all about the rules.

funny, the best group I ever had was in a 2nd edition of Ironclaw that ending about 5 months ago, and it was a year campaign. We also had a good GM. Two guys were combat heavy, anther two were along for the ride, but they allowed me to talk out of fights in the end, which made it a better experience. 

I don't know, I guess 2nd edition can be good with non-combat stuff, but the issue I have is sort of the problem with, well , all editions of DnD, where the combat stuff is more rules-heavy and utilized for most people.

[steelfire_dragon]

If bioware uses this descisoin than I refuse to buy the game when it comes out.

I'll wait a few years when its in the 10 dolalr bargin bin......( which if I dont have an income might be the case anyway.....)


but it does stink, thaedas has different races elves, dwarves, humans etc..... why force us to be human

[Allan Schumacher]

I ask posters to try to keep the quote pyramids down somewhat. No need to carry on the last 7 posts in a quote when the last (maaaybe last 2) are typically sufficient. Thanks.

[Reptillius]

TMZuk wrote...

I find it really strange that people are so solely focused on the direct consequences and how they affect the game when playing a different race, rather than those that simply happens during roleplay.

As an example from DA:O:

My human female warden despised Duncan with a vengeance. She also disliked Alistair, simply because he loved Duncan so much. In her eyes Duncan had betrayed her and her parents when conscripting her into the wardens with her parents blessing, without telling them that she'd not only die young, but she'd most likely not be able to bear children and if she could, the children would be tainted. So, unless Feargus was still alive, which seemed very unlikely, she was the last Cousland and the line would end with her. In reality Duncan had aided Arl Howe in viping out the Couslands. In the end she discarded  Zevran and seduced Alistair, when she realized he'd be king, in order to exterminate the Howes and somehow attempt to produce some sort of heir.

My male city elf warden respected and admired Duncan and the wardens. An organisation where noone looked to races or backgrounds, and only ability counted. Furthermore, Duncan had saved him when a death-sentence seemed certain and had thus indirectly aided him in obtaining vengeance on the Denerim arl's heir (his name escapes me.)

So, because of that, I chose differently and played differently and had vastly different playthroughs with these two origins. Race had lots of influence, simply because I play a city elf differently than I play a human. That's roleplaying, IMO. So to say that races makes no difference is not true. To me they make all the difference between playthroughs, wether it's affecting the game directly or not..

See you and I differ.  My Cousland appreciated and liked Duncan because if Duncan hadn't been there there wouldn't have been any likely chance at all of a Cousland Heir of any kind. At least as a Warden there was a fleeting chance.

My City Elf on the other hand Despised Duncan as one of the other humans that had been repressing her and was always looking for the trick in what Duncan was trying to offer. Just seeing him as a more underhanded and vile form of the Howe's in offering the hand of friendship.  Even to the point that given the option. She probably would have accused the Dead Duncan in having a hand in the events that take place in the Alienage during the landsmeet portion of the game.

But I've played RPG's in video games and on table tops of various kind for over 15 years.  I recognize at this point that Even if they were both human. The First one still would have liked Duncan for what little he could offer. Even if it was with a heavy cost, and my Human in the situation of the city elves of being a third class Citizen would still look at Duncan with spite and suspicion.

From the sounds of it. Though you identify it with that particular race. It was more the story and not the race itself that was the biggest factor in playing your characters differently.

Modifié par Reptillius, 28 octobre 2012 - 06:57 .

[Reptillius]

TMZuk wrote...

Reptillius wrote...

*Snip*


I know I'm probably a little behind. But I have to touch on this

I need to back Allan on this one.  I can completely picture a Baldur's Gate without Racial Customization.  Yes we had a bunch of races but they did nothing to add to the game. You didn't get anything but some often hidden mechanical bonuses to your choices.  They did not change the story a bit.

I can say this with a difinitive nature having been a person who played both the first and the second BG's quite a lot in all of the classes and races over time.  The story was the same every time. Nothing special for being something different. I could have played it through as a human every time and had the same effect.  Yet it was still a game that had a gaming community and modding community for basically a decade.

Yes, but I believe you are missing an important point.

While it's great when the racial choice affects the story, it isn't the major reason why people I know and speak to want races. It's because they do not like to play as humans. A good friend of mine always plays dwarves. In PnP games and CRPGs both. He do not like to play as human. Simple as that.

So, already at this stage, after experiencing DA2 and with this news in mind, he is less than interested in DA3.  If he can't play his beloved dwarvf, it's less than likely he'll purchase the game.

As I stated in an earlier post, I believe the major part of TES games succes is the freedom in character creation and the exploration. It's certainly not the strong story telling, or the memorable companions which makes those games popular. With DA3 cutting down on one of these two already, and the franchise never having been strong in the exploration department, I fear that Bioware is already alienating potential customers.

Personally I loved the origins. I played once as a dwarven noble, which I would usually never have considered, simply because I got sucked in by the origin. It's IMO extremely dissapointing that Bioware is abandoning this concept, simply because they insist on a voiced protagonist.

I didn't miss the point. Your friend is actually more the exception than the rule in reality.  Most people that I have talked to here and in other places over the years. They want the race but not just to be that race. They want everything else around it and the race is just a convenient spot to point to to say "I want that" instead of what they really want.  I pointed out Baldur's Gate in Specific because it's something that illustrates the point really well in that for most people it's not really the race that people want.  And many other very highly reguarded RPG's have been listed in this thread to prove the same point.

So I did not miss the point at all and choosing to highlight one sentence out of my post neither actually shows that I missed the point or in any actual meaningful way lends strength to your argument.  If you don't believe me go through this thread alone and consider how many people want race options simply for the race and how many are looking for the background and storytelling options and calling it a race option.

[TCBC_Freak]

People need to stop thinking about it like a PnP game. DA:O and DA2 and 3 are more like movies or books you have some control over (in fact a lot of control over, just changing gender is a big choice).

It's not like DnD were you can be a half-ork, half-dragon, half-elemental werewolf vampire hunter that has become a demigod and killed invisible Christopher Walken and the Tarask.

In Origins (which is the first, and I'd say only game I can remember, that had race and background have any impact on story let alone be a playable part of the game. So this is far from CRPG normality... but I digress) you could have races because it didn't matter, you were a Warden. Think about it honestly. After the first opening your race was secondary or even in most cases tertiary. Yeah it had a "small" impact on dialog and a bit in a few quests. Was it more "satisfying" for you to kill Howe as a human noble than a elf mage; or to decide who ruled the dwarfs that treated you like dirt as a dwarf castless? Maybe, but you had to kill Howe either way and even an elf mage had that same choice to make for the dwarf people. Heck even your sex was largely secondary because, "the sexes are equal on Thedas." They could tell an awesome story AND have origins because at the end the story was the Warden's. Not an Elf Warden or a Human Warden, just the Warden, largely independent of race.

So If the best way for you guys to tell the story of DA3 is by having us play as a human, then I'm all for it. Because that's what I care about most, the story. KotOR tells a great story and you have to play as a human. Uncharted forces you to play as a human male named Nathan Drake that was orphaned as a boy and found in South America by a thief/treasure hunter and taught to be the same and it has an amazing story. Story matters #1 for me, so if doing this helps you tell the story, then by all means.

[Reptillius]

Palipride47 wrote...
I actually liked killing him more as a City Elf, but she was more bloodthirsty, and had a distinct dislike of nobles after her unfortuate wedding incident.....

If they can make the non-playable origins as seemingly integrated and mattering as much or more than it did in DAO (and way more than DA2), I will be satisfied. 

But you do miss out on the unique "elven" and "dwarven" cultures that come with merely choosing to play those races, which playing humans all the time won't get you (or maybe I just read way too much into those kind of things) 

I don't know about others but part of what made all the cultures really jump out at me was all the stuff you could pick up or read or deal with. Most of them as any race. Which really gave the world a lot more depth and told us a lot more about all the different groups.  The origins touched on them a little more but I noticed much of it was still there when I played my mage next.  But there were little things that only showed up in one story over another.

[Drasanil]

Just my two cents but; I just [literally a few minutes before posting this] googled 'Dragon Age 3' on the off chance there might be some news and saw the announcement by Mark Darrah and was pretty excited to see something.

Next thing I did after reading the announcement was log on the forums, then I saw this thread, and it pretty much killed any real interest I had in DA3. I was really looking foward to play other races again. When DA2 rolled around I wasn't fond of the human only 'option', but I gave it a shot any ways, unfortunately Hawke just disappointed on many levels. From her general passiveness to the fact I basically felt like Bioware had dictated my character to me.

My favourite origin in DAO was the Dalish Elf and loved chasing about the little tid bits of lore and their lost past, DA2's Merril failed to deliver in this regard, which is understandable since Hawke was the focus of the story. But I seriously doubt having another human only protag with some token companions thrown in to 'cover the bases' again in DA3 will be any more appealing or work any better. At first glance, this basically gives me the impression that the 'marrying of DAO and DA2' will veer more towards a doubling down on DA2 than bringing back some of DAO.

I may still pick up DA3 when it comes out but I'll likely wait to see if a construction set comes out, and failing that the bargain bin. In short DA3 went from highly anticipated to 'meh I guess I'll get around to it at some point'.

Modifié par Drasanil, 28 octobre 2012 - 08:11 .

[The Elder King]

Rawgrim wrote...

hhh89 wrote...



The same KOTOR  who had no race option?

The main character had his memory wiped. It was kind of important to that big plot twist near the end, that we didn`t have any origins. Still, a race option would have been nice.

I'm not saying that race option wouldn't have been nice. I'm saying that making a great RPG without race options is possible (yeah, I know that KOTOR isn't the sequel of a game with race option, but even in this case, that wouldn't have made KOTOR a bad game or a bad rpg).

[The Elder King]

Sion1138 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

I'm not shocked, but perhaps disappointed in that I figure this means that again, this game will be a continuation of the new style (meaning voiced protagonist and all that) which I do not like nearly as much as the classic approach.

The likes of KotOR and Dragon Age: Origins are the kind of games that I would like but will most probably never get again. Oh well...

At least cut down on the cheese for this one. 

The same KOTOR  who had no race option?

Yeah, bad example but you know what I mean. It's not really about the option itself, I should have kept this thought for a different topic. 

I know. I douby myself that DA3 will be as good as KOTOR (but I put KOTOR in 3rd place in the Bioware's game list, after the BG games), though there's the chance I'll be wrong on this. My point was that Bioware can make a good/great RPG without race options.

[marshalleck]

Some of the best RPGs of all time have had no race option. It's all about what your character does, not what he or she looks like.

[Seboist]

marshalleck wrote...

Some of the best RPGs of all time have had no race option. It's all about what your character does, not what he or she looks like.

Said best RPGs also had no gender option too.

[Il Divo]

Rawgrim wrote...

2. ME was an rpg shooter hybrid. No wonder people are divided in their opinions about it. Jade Empire is pretty much a buttonmashing action game with dialogue and romances. It was a fun game though. And how exactly does BG suffer from the same narrative problems DA:O did? I have ehard no complaints about the narrative of either game. Please explain..

Really? I've heard more than a few. Even before DA2, people have complained about the simplistic nature of the narrative and the bland portrayal of the darkspawn. All that works to an epic conclusion, but DA:O's premise of "Gather an army" doesn't exactly work wonders.  

In BG1's case, the game doesn't so much have a narrative, but rather provides a set piece for the player to (ugh) explore in. It certainly doesn't help that the first half of BG's "story" is told through the occasional letter the player finds lying around, making it a glorified scavenger hunt. BG is essentially what you get if you ramped up the planet exploration in Mass Effect and dramatically toned down the main quest. It has an interesting premise, but does not treat the material with the respect in the way a game like Planescape does.

The same narrative problems? I can't say. But both games are lacking in certain areas, especially BG.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 octobre 2012 - 11:07 .

[TMZuk]

Reptillius wrote...

*snip*

I didn't miss the point. Your friend is actually more the exception than the rule in reality.  Most people that I have talked to here and in other places over the years. They want the race but not just to be that race. They want everything else around it and the race is just a convenient spot to point to to say "I want that" instead of what they really want.  I pointed out Baldur's Gate in Specific because it's something that illustrates the point really well in that for most people it's not really the race that people want.  And many other very highly reguarded RPG's have been listed in this thread to prove the same point.

So I did not miss the point at all and choosing to highlight one sentence out of my post neither actually shows that I missed the point or in any actual meaningful way lends strength to your argument.  If you don't believe me go through this thread alone and consider how many people want race options simply for the race and how many are looking for the background and storytelling options and calling it a race option.

Easy. I highlighted the part I specificly commented upon. If you disagree, fine. That's why there is a debate.

[North Light36]

Am I a little sad I won't be able to to play as a elf? Yes, a touch. I liked the elf storyline - but I liked DA:O for more then just that first twenty minutes.

And I liked DA:2 for many of the same reasons. I like a story, more then anything else. And I got a story with both of them. And while I disliked elements of DA:2's storyline, it wasn't the end of the world.

So I'll cope with my disappointment and look forward to seeing what I'll get excited about. As long as I can be a rogue, I'm content.

... A few scenes to make me cry are always welcome too.

[BerrySenpai90]

I liked the idea of reviving the grey wardens storyline but removing the other race will not satisfy me.

[DreamwareStudio]

Racial choices can add much to a game if they are handled correctly and in depth, where being a race impacts not only how you play the game but how the game treats your character. A race option, though, is certainly not a sole component of whether a game is role-playing. Likewise, a game being RPG is not contingent upon any one factor, including whether the PC is voiced.

Do my choices matter? Are they realistic options, meaning not simplistic or black and white? Do those choices effect the world around me? How do they define my character? Is there a way for me to define the character? There are a thousand more questions in regards to the depth and definition of an RPG.

Alas, the factors I'm reading on DA 3 do not point to a RPG. Along with that, my main problems are the storyline and DA 3 continuing along the lines of DA 2. I was definitely not a fan of DA 2. In regards to the storyline, mages vs. templars is a tired concept for me.

Modifié par google_calasade, 28 octobre 2012 - 03:01 .

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

i've never played anything other than your stereotypical human male warrior anyway so that's no problem for me

[Ash Wind]

The origins were a fun feature, however, my main PCs were always human. I did complete City and Dalish Elf PCs, but that was more in the vain to see what the differences were. It would be nice if they could include them again, for those who are happier playing non-humans, but its not a big issue for me.

Modifié par Ash Wind, 28 octobre 2012 - 03:38 .

[Ozida]

sarcastictruths wrote...

It actually doesn't bother me that the protagonist of Dragon Age 3 is going to be a human. If the dragon age team decided to allow us to pick races I would have been perfectly fine with that as well.

Same here. I am looking forward to unique origin stories though, to be honest, and better customisation. Just to make it *my* human.