3855 réponses à ce sujet

[sycophanticchallenger]

I can't say I'm surprised considering how ****ing nonchalant Bioware has been in the last 3+ years about the opinions of their fans. The worst thing is, as Alan said earlier in this thread, I am still hanging around on occasion because I WANT to be brought back in to the fold. I WANT to like Dragon Age 3, however this is not possible in light of the design choices being made. Fixed Human protagonist w/ options 1-3 of personal back-story, voiced protagonist, dialogue wheel, shoehorned multiplayer... I could forgive exactly 1 of these things, that being the voiced protagonist. I'm sorry, I just CANNOT ****ing believe that this is what the Dragon Age series has become.

Plainly, this game is not for me.

Obviously somewhere along the way, the focus at Bioware shifted from creating a monument to the "old school PC RPG" and instead became about hats and money. I think I started to notice this trend around October of 2007...

Modifié par sycophanticchallenger, 07 janvier 2013 - 05:19 .

[In Exile]

Cstaf wrote...
Don't understand the example in the context of the question. However, i do not need the game to react to my race at every single turn in the game. That is not why i want multiple races in the game. I want multiple races due to the cultural and historical differences between races opens up new roleplaying possibilities. So if my character i am roleplaying is anti-human i don't want/need the NPC to draw the conclussion that i am anti-human due to he/she being an different race than human. 

My point isn't that NPCs draw conclusion: my point is, suppose the game doesn't let you be anti-human. Basically, assume the game is designed for a human and pro-human PC, and then the races are a re-skin only. Would that still make you feel like you can RP differently?

I'm honestly curious. 

[In Exile]

sycophanticchallenger wrote...
Obviously somewhere along the way, the focus at Bioware shifted from creating a monument to the "old school PC RPG" and instead became about hats and money. I think I started to notice this trend around October of 2007...

It's always fun when people say this, because I remember all the posts before DA:O was released about how it wasn't an old school RPG because:

• Origins destroy RP (why am I forced to have human characters who are either nobles or mages?).
• Mana/Health regen destroys all tactics forever, we need Vancian castic and no regen.
• Not being able to kill NPCs anywhere is lame and reduces RP options.
• Not having 2D hand-drawn portraits reduces my ability to relate to the PC, I want to be able to imagine how my PC looks and not have them all be the same.

It went on for a long while. Mention DA:O on RPG codex, and their reactions were apparently not pretty back before release (and now, I think). 

[LinksOcarina]

that's because people don't know what they want.

Or they do, and they are just don't realize it without playing it.

That is sort of the problem with grognards though no? They champion the old ways of things out of either nostalgia's sake or through a sort of commitment they see as pure "role-playing" when the reality of it is that "role-playing" in a computer sense is never fully theirs, or at least complete owness of the character they are assigned or make.

It makes me wonder if they think about mechanical designs of video games and how they are always against "role-playing" from a design point of view, despite the vehemently loud voices saying such and such game is "old school RPGness" when very little has changed. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 07 janvier 2013 - 06:36 .

[zyntifox]

In Exile wrote...

Cstaf wrote...
Don't understand the example in the context of the question. However, i do not need the game to react to my race at every single turn in the game. That is not why i want multiple races in the game. I want multiple races due to the cultural and historical differences between races opens up new roleplaying possibilities. So if my character i am roleplaying is anti-human i don't want/need the NPC to draw the conclussion that i am anti-human due to he/she being an different race than human. 

My point isn't that NPCs draw conclusion: my point is, suppose the game doesn't let you be anti-human. Basically, assume the game is designed for a human and pro-human PC, and then the races are a re-skin only. Would that still make you feel like you can RP differently?

I'm honestly curious. 

Absolutely. I don't need the game to react to me playing an elf, dwarf or human.

[LinksOcarina]

Cstaf wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Cstaf wrote...
Don't understand the example in the context of the question. However, i do not need the game to react to my race at every single turn in the game. That is not why i want multiple races in the game. I want multiple races due to the cultural and historical differences between races opens up new roleplaying possibilities. So if my character i am roleplaying is anti-human i don't want/need the NPC to draw the conclussion that i am anti-human due to he/she being an different race than human. 

My point isn't that NPCs draw conclusion: my point is, suppose the game doesn't let you be anti-human. Basically, assume the game is designed for a human and pro-human PC, and then the races are a re-skin only. Would that still make you feel like you can RP differently?

I'm honestly curious. 

Absolutely. I don't need the game to react to me playing an elf, dwarf or human.

Skyrim had a similar problem regarding anyone playing an elf or using magic, it never made sense to be part of the imperial or Stormcloak factions because of that since they were all essentially racist, enslaving jerks to a particular group in-game. 

[LinksOcarina]

Faerunner wrote...

Anyway, you missed my point entirely. Most fantasy universes claim that other sapient races like elves and dwarves USED to be top dogs until humans phased them out, then the story magically takes place when and where humans are in power. I find this repetitive and annoying. No one ever thinks to have the stories take place when, say, elves or dwarves are in power? When humans are first starting out? No one ever thinks it would be interesting to see expansive elven or dwarven empires at the height of their glory? No one ever thinks it would be interesting to explore elven or dwarven cultures? No one thinks it would be cool to spend the majority of a game or book going through and trying to defend elven or dwarven kingdoms as opposed to the standard human kingdom? No one?  How boring.

BioWare even came up with contrived reasons to make Thedas a Tolkien knock-off. Elves used to dominate the surface until humans took their land and freedom, Dwarves used to dominate the underground until darkspawn flooded their tunnels and taigs, the Qunari almost took over the surface until humans drove them back, and now the story HAPPENS to take place while humans are the top dogs, and involve mostly human settlements and characters? How original.

Eh, whatever.

To be fair, most fantasy worlds follow that moniker to begin with, and when they don't everyone says it's not fantasy.

And since they try to be orginal while putting in the elves and dwarves and what have you, they rarely actually stand out from the flood of lame imitators tobegin with. Thedas is a Tolkien knock-off, but it is at least a GOOD Tolkien knock-off in the grand scheme of things. 

[Fisto The Sexbot]

In Exile wrote...

Cstaf wrote...
Don't understand the example in the context of the question. However, i do not need the game to react to my race at every single turn in the game. That is not why i want multiple races in the game. I want multiple races due to the cultural and historical differences between races opens up new roleplaying possibilities. So if my character i am roleplaying is anti-human i don't want/need the NPC to draw the conclussion that i am anti-human due to he/she being an different race than human. 

My point isn't that NPCs draw conclusion: my point is, suppose the game doesn't let you be anti-human. Basically, assume the game is designed for a human and pro-human PC, and then the races are a re-skin only. Would that still make you feel like you can RP differently?

I'm honestly curious. 

I won't answer directly, but even if there's virtually 0% reactivity, or you only get the lines 'elf/dwarf/human' thrown in occasionally, it would still matter. As long as the rest of the game has better reactivity, at least.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

AlexJK wrote...

Felya87 wrote...

I don't get why playable races shouldn't have been expected in a sequel of a game that give that option. After all, it was one of the distinctive features of DA:O.

Racial selection wasn't a distinctive feature of DAO; origin stories were. Without the playable origins, the racial selection mechanic is simply a way of making your character look slightly different.

As to why you shouldn't expect them in a sequel; it's the same reason why you wouldn't expect the "gather your armies" plot/mechanic to feature in every future Dragon Age game - because they are new games, with new gameplay, characters and stories, and mechanics will be included if they are needed, not just because they exist.

Okay... then give me the option to play as other races, instead of removing the ones that were. Human-only is not a (new) game element, it's a removal of previous game elements.

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 07 janvier 2013 - 09:08 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

In Exile wrote...

supremebloodwolf wrote...

I disliked being limited to only human protagonists in DA2, while in Origins I had a choice between three different races. My reason for this is because I enjoyed the different origin stories that came with the different races, as well as the bigotry or acceptance I received depending on which race i was.

So, hypothetically, if a game had no origin stories and never reacted to your racial background, you would be happy with it? 

You act like people being fine with that are on battery acid. It's like these forums try to make normal people requesting standard features for a roleplaying game look like complete outliers or 'eccentrics'.

[AlexJK]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Okay... then give me the option to play as other races, instead of removing the ones that were. Human-only is not a (new) game element, it's a removal of previous game elements.

No, it isn't a removal. A removal would be if Bioware patched DAO, removing the ability to play as an elf or a dwarf. That's a removal. What we are talking about here is simply a "non-inclusion" (somewhat clunky as that phrase is). DA2 and DA3 have stories which are based around human protagonists, and so the choice to play as other races has not been included.

This is not a petty point; racial selection dictates how the mechanics and story of the game can and must function. For each Dragon Age game, Bioware must make a conscious decision to include, or not to include, racial selection, and to accept or reject the mechanical and story limitations that are then imposed upon them. In DAO they chose to accept them, in DA2 and DA3 they have decided that the story is better served without that choice, so the racial selection has not been included.

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

You act like people being fine with that are on battery acid. It's like these forums try to make normal people requesting standard features for a roleplaying game look like complete outliers or 'eccentrics'.

Why should racial selection be considered a "standard" feature of a role-playing game, any more or less so than any other? Seriously, why?

Modifié par AlexJK, 07 janvier 2013 - 09:37 .

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
My point isn't that NPCs draw conclusion: my point is, suppose the game doesn't let you be anti-human. Basically, assume the game is designed for a human and pro-human PC, and then the races are a re-skin only. Would that still make you feel like you can RP differently?

I'm honestly curious. 

I was thinking about why I dislike human protagonists so much, and I realized it's not just b/c the human kingdoms are so generically medieval (which itself limits your characters a bit that way), but also b/c I just dislike playing the "badass" superhuman types of human PCs.  If I want my character to have an inhuman resilience recovering from torture - like you do at one point in DAO if your Warden gets captured - I'd rather play a non-human than have my human be so extra-special.  

Take Imoen in BG2 for instance.  I like the character well enough I guess, but I think she'd make much more sense as a halfling than as a human.  First, she's spends her life all but ignoring the Bhaal taint (which I'd imagine is a bit like resisting a strong libido when there's ample opportunity for daliances) just, apparently, through her humor.  That's not a great fit for a human, but ok, whatever.  But then, she gets tortured unimaginably not once, but twice, and manages to recover more or less unchanged even though her soul is gone.  To me, it just fits a halfling, with their pluck and light-heartedness, more than it does a human, who'd be broken and really wouldn't be in fighting shape (especially magecraft, which is more mental/study than anything).  Part of the problem is that they just didn't put a lot into her character after you rescue her (rumor has it they were planning on having her die), and maybe if they had she'd behave in a more recognizably human way - but as she is, I always wind up thinking of her as a halfling, maybe a bit like Alora.  Taking her as some super-plucky badass human is too much for me.  I just can't buy it (not that I think other people who do are doing it wrong).

I wonder if that basic idea isn't what many people mean when they say "humans are boring."  I'd speculate they just take it for granted than humans are human - rather than superhuman badasses - and prefer going with a race that can have, say, inhuman mental feats without being some ridiculous outlier.  I like picking an ethic and RPing it out, which requires playing PCs who have naturally disciplined minds, and so elves are a good fit for me, whereas humans (who never implement their beliefs perfectly, and often pick their beliefs to fit their sentiments rather than vice versa) don't really work. 

To tie it back to the question, while I'd be ok with having an absence of reactivity to your race in the game (though obviously I'd prefer to have it), I wouldn't be ok with a reskin if the game contradicts it.  Actually, I did that in DA2 (via a mod) and it was awful.  Just my $0.02.

[forgotten gold]

I was checking Bioware replies on this thread. Their reply for not providing more playable races was: Opportunity Cost. They want to spend more time on developing other stuff. Sure, that kinda makes sense. But what really bugs me is that: why did Bioware NOT go with the human race for DAO as the only playable choice under the excuse of Opportunity Cost. If it was done NICELY once, why not do it again?

In my job, we always set our goal as the highest goal that we have already achieved, simply follow the rule: if we have done it once, we can do it again.

I understand DAO had to go through a longer dev time, but it was the first game of the series and all the foundations of the world were not there.

please correct me if I'm wrong.

[In Exile]

Cstaf wrote...
Absolutely. I don't need the game to react to me playing an elf, dwarf or human.

I can respect that. I was curious, because what I like about race options is reactivity and why I would rather they not be there if they won't count for in-game content (because for example it costs us in having to create more armour meshes for the same design instead of a new mesh).

[In Exile]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...
You act like people being fine with that are on battery acid. It's like these forums try to make normal people requesting standard features for a roleplaying game look like complete outliers or 'eccentrics'.

No. In that case, poster said two things:

I disliked being limited to only human protagonists in DA2, while in Origins I had a choice between three different races

Very fair position. Then the poster said:

I enjoyed the different origin stories that came with the different
races, as well as the bigotry or acceptance I received depending on
which race i was.

So my question is about separating the two: was it the origin stories and reactivity (which is what I liked about the race choice) or the aesthetic (which I don't value, and you do).

I won't answer directly, but even if there's virtually 0% reactivity, or
you only get the lines 'elf/dwarf/human' thrown in occasionally, it
would still matter. As long as the rest of the game has better
reactivity, at least.

Well, yes, that's taken for granted. What I'm curious is what it takes for someone to feel like they have a platform to RP properly.

[In Exile]

Satyricon331 wrote...
I wonder if that basic idea isn't what many people mean when they say "humans are boring."  I'd speculate they just take it for granted than humans are human - rather than superhuman badasses - and prefer going with a race that can have, say, inhuman mental feats without being some ridiculous outlier.  I like picking an ethic and RPing it out, which requires playing PCs who have naturally disciplined minds, and so elves are a good fit for me, whereas humans (who never implement their beliefs perfectly, and often pick their beliefs to fit their sentiments rather than vice versa) don't really work. 

For me, it's the opposite. All the PCs are superhuman badasses. The game would be impossible if it were not the case. The PC often, alone, does multiple things that are considered legendary beyond belief and the likes of which no person alone survies (e.g. slay a high dragon, Flemeth and the archdemon).

As an aside, I don't get your bolded comment. There's nothing in DA:O to suggest that elves and humans are different regarding beliefs.

[In Exile]

forgotten gold wrote...
I understand DAO had to go through a longer dev time, but it was the first game of the series and all the foundations of the world were not there.

please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not wrong, but there are things to be aware of. Basically, DA:O went through lots of total reconstructions. Before, the qunari were playable. Also, there was a human commoner origin. The HC origin was cut because it (among other things) came off too much like a chosen one. There were also personal nemeses - think of Arl Howe, but more persistent through the entire game. Loghain was once recruitable early - you could follow along with what Morrigain suggested.

Early on DA:O was going to be multiplayer and the origin stories were like the starter quests in TOR. Lots of that dev. time was spinning wheels.

This is ignoring the iterations the graphical engine itself went through.

DA:O had a lot of trial and error involved, and there were (with regard to origins) less cinematics. The cost would be through the roof to create parallel schemes for human and dwarf PCs (that's why when you look at the DA:O romance scenes the dwarves are oddly proportioned).

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
For me, it's the opposite. All the PCs are superhuman badasses. The game would be impossible if it were not the case. The PC often, alone, does multiple things that are considered legendary beyond belief and the likes of which no person alone survies (e.g. slay a high dragon, Flemeth and the archdemon). 

As an aside, I don't get your bolded comment. There's nothing in DA:O to suggest that elves and humans are different regarding beliefs.

For the bolded, I'm referring to studies I learned about in a bounded rationality class - people don't nrmally pick an ethical system based on criteria and go out and implement it.  They really have sentiments and then formulate normative beliefs around them (not necessarily entirely, but mostly).  There's nothing in the lore that really touches on that issue (it'd be a strange story that would need to), so I take humans as they are and feel free to treat other races differently.  

As for your first paragraph, yeah, we just don't see it the same way.  That difference is fine imo, except I obviously don't think my way is "impossible."  I don't think, for example, the Warden was really that extraordinary for slaying the Archdemon - s/he was just lucky to kill it so quickly. There's nothing that different about the Warden than Garahel, in my view.  The Warden just nipped the Blight in the bud partly from personal "merit," sure, but also b/c Flemeth happened to help and Riordan gave his life to injure the Archdemon's wing, etc.  And I'm willing to think that the high dragon's reputation for dangerousness partly increased through retellings or tall tales, etc. etc.  The PC has to be highly capable, but if the story starts requiring real outlandish capabilities, I start to lose interest.  That was probably part of the problem for DA2 for me.

[In Exile]

Satyricon331 wrote...
For the bolded, I'm referring to studies I learned about in a bounded rationality class - people don't nrmally pick an ethical system based on criteria and go out and implement it.  They really have sentiments and then formulate normative beliefs around them (not necessarily entirely, but mostly).  There's nothing in the lore that really touches on that issue (it'd be a strange story that would need to), so I take humans as they are and feel free to treat other races differently.

That's certainly your perogative (and the research you quote is largely correct - that was my field of study, way back) but there's no in-game (or lore) reason to suppose that the different races of thedas are cognitively distinct. If anything, the vidence is the contrary.

As for your first paragraph, yeah, we just don't see it the same way.  That difference is fine imo, except I obviously don't think my way is "impossible."  I don't think, for example, the Warden was really that extraordinary for slaying the Archdemon - s/he was just lucky to kill it so quickly. There's nothing that different about the Warden than Garahel, in my view.

Garahel was a legend. Duncan (and Alistair, I believe) cite him as the greatest Warden hero. He fought the blight for decades, organized entire armies, and slew the archdemon in what was described as basically epic combat. It's like saying that a mage is "only" as powerful as Flemeth.

When the Warden has a death count in the 1000s by the end of DA:O, having braved the deep roads with a party of four, having slayed a high dragon ... these are feats beyond incredible.

It's like someone winning the nobel prize. There's lots of luck and chance involved. Many brilliant scientists won't, because of what they're researching, or when they've made their findings, or just because there are other brilliant scientists out there.

But to do that, to get to that point, you're very far beyond lucky.

The Warden just nipped the Blight in the bud partly from personal "merit," sure, but also b/c Flemeth happened to help and Riordan gave his life to injure the Archdemon's wing, etc.  And I'm willing to think that the high dragon's reputation for dangerousness partly increased through retellings or tall tales, etc. etc.  The PC has to be highly capable, but if the story starts requiring real outlandish capabilities, I start to lose interest.  That was probably part of the problem for DA2 for me.

Hawke was, if anything, less extraordinary than the Warden. If you want to think that the "story" made the high dragon more dangerous than it really was, you can just assume Varric is BSing the entire time. "Oh, and then 50 people flew down from the buidings and Hawke blew them all up with a fireball".

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

Why wouldn't the Stormcloaks want you? You escaped the chopping block with Ulfric Storkcloak. You were brothers in bondage, and he remembers you. He also knows you possess the power of the Thume. Why, in a civil war, would somebody turn down help from a Dragonborn? You would be insane. Choosing to help the rebels is up to you...if you're a non-Nord and want to help, that's up to you.

And the Imperials...why wouldn't they want your help? They know you're a Dragonborn, too. Again...reject that power in a civil war and you're insane. In what way are they racist? They are only the puppets of the Aldmeri Dominion...true...but the Aldmeri aren't racist...they are totalitiarians. They are elves, but they are seeking control of all of Tamriel. This includes Summerset Isles and Morrowind...elven territory. They want everyone to die...or be enslaved. They aren't picky. And before more war is waged, as they muster their strength, they are simply infiltrating Tamriel's political structure and eradicating its religions. The latter of which has half of Skyrim pissed. 

Modifié par sympathy4sarenreturns, 08 janvier 2013 - 04:38 .

[Drasanil]

In Exile wrote...

Well, yes, that's taken for granted. What I'm curious is what it takes for someone to feel like they have a platform to RP properly.

That's a good question actually, you yourself cited reactivity, but how much is enough? I remember you making the point that DA:O was very limited in this respect, but personally for me that was enough. I never played the human noble origin past the actual origin, so I never felt rightly or wrongly that it was the default story from which all differences branched.

Playing through with my city elf and dalish, I felt there had ample reactivity, even though I know cognitively not much changed. In part this was because I never experienced the 'assumed base line' from which those storiesdiffer, but also because my character's identity was referenced enough to set her apart subconciously.

Now as for exactly how much is enough is a bit harder to quantify. To cite a hypothetical DA2 in which race choices had been included, even if the family had remained nearly identical, I feel it wouldn't have taken all that much to prove sufficient, in large part because I would likely have never played Human Hawke and so wouldn't have had a percieved default with which to compare it to.

For example in addition to a few passing references to race where appropriate such as the serial killer quest for elves, or meeting Bodhan and Sandal for dwarves for dwarves it wouldn't have taken much to satisfy.

For Elves: Have Hawke become Haren of the alienge for elves, instead of getting a mansion. Have Carver get recruited as an informant keeping an eye on mages instead of an actual templar. In essence getting the glaring issues out of the way.

For Dwarves: Have Hawke collect some old family debts or blackmail a couple of people to reinstablish his family instead of persuing the noble line. Have Bethany become a lyrium smuggler in the carta, so she still has a reason to get jailed by the templars, Carver just always dies in this case since you can't have mage dwarves. 

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
That's certainly your perogative (and the research you quote is largely correct - that was my field of study, way back) but there's no in-game (or lore) reason to suppose that the different races of thedas are cognitively distinct. If anything, the vidence is the contrary.

I'm not sure I see what the "but" is there for.  The information in the games is insufficient to dispose the matter either way, so people are free to play either way.  And I'm not sure what evidence you have in mind.  The species seem to have similar intelligence levels and emotional complexes (except maybe the Qunari/kossith), but I haven't seen much of anything else.  I don't think there's anything in the game that says they're all, uh, "boundedly rational" in the same ways.  And if Bioware did make the races cognitive clones that way, it'd be pretty lame.  They need to have some mental differences.

Garahel was a legend. Duncan (and Alistair, I believe) cite him as the greatest Warden hero. He fought the blight for decades, organized entire armies, and slew the archdemon in what was described as basically epic combat. It's like saying that a mage is "only" as powerful as Flemeth. 

When the Warden has a death count in the 1000s by the end of DA:O, having braved the deep roads with a party of four, having slayed a high dragon ... these are feats beyond incredible.

It's like someone winning the nobel prize. There's lots of luck and chance involved. Many brilliant scientists won't, because of what they're researching, or when they've made their findings, or just because there are other brilliant scientists out there.

But to do that, to get to that point, you're very far beyond lucky.

I'm just not sure what you're trying to say here?  You've drawn to analogies I don't see at all, and I'm not sure what you're tying it into.  Comparing a Warden to Garahel - whose feats are legendary, and so partly probably a matter of hyperbole - isn't analogous imo to comparing a mage to Flemeth.  But to make sense of it - are you saying you think a Nobel laureate is a superhuman badass?  Maybe it's just that we have a different sense of what that phrase means.  I'd never view a Nobel laureate that way - just extremely capable and a bit lucky, just like I prefer PCs to be.  

I don't think the game's long enough to have the Warden's death count in the 1000s, but the Deep Roads is a great example.  They're largely empty thanks to the Blight, so it's much easier-going than normal.  A human would have a huge problem since there's no vitamin D for an extended period - so either I take all non-humans, or I have at least one mage so I can rationalize it as them producing UV magic the game leaves unmodelled.  But I'd never take a non-mage human PC, Alistair, Leliana, and, say, Dog.  It'd bother me too much.

Hawke was, if anything, less extraordinary than the Warden. If you want to think that the "story" made the high dragon more dangerous than it really was, you can just assume Varric is BSing the entire time. "Oh, and then 50 people flew down from the buidings and Hawke blew them all up with a fireball".

Well, fair point about Varric, but that just means I find his storytelling unbearable.  

[The Spirit of Dance]

In Exile wrote...

supremebloodwolf wrote...

I disliked being limited to only human protagonists in DA2, while in Origins I had a choice between three different races. My reason for this is because I enjoyed the different origin stories that came with the different races, as well as the bigotry or acceptance I received depending on which race i was.

So, hypothetically, if a game had no origin stories and never reacted to your racial background, you would be happy with it? 

I'm afraid I don't fully understand the point of this question but I'll answer it anyway. No, not entirely, but I would be more satisfied with that rather than being limited to only one race. Reason: adds a little more to the character creation.

Edit: nevermind, just read one of your earlier posts and now I see that you were just curious if it would damage my RP experience.

Modifié par supremebloodwolf, 08 janvier 2013 - 05:35 .

[karushna5]

I will miss a playable backstory. I can understand not the different races, but playing the beginning was wonderful and without a good segue it feels a little like we don't know the character we are playing. I was hoping a different backstory for each class. But I am sure Bioware will make it work, they are very creative people, and most games have human protagonists and play fine.