3855 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Faerunner wrote...

That's a good point, I hadn't considered Merrill. An interesting outcome of the Mage/Templar war would be how the Dalish and Templars deal with each other, and Merrill helping to kickstart the war by being a Dalish standing up to the Templars would be an interesting consequence to explore, but alas. BioWare is determined to keep elves as stagnant background decoration instead of viable players in the ever-constant battle of dominance in Thedas.

The Save Import prevents this from happening. Merril is dead in some player's playthroughs (and she didn't die so conveniently next to a magical relic which can save anyone from death), so creating content that ties into something as huge as her leading a Dalish rebellion would not be feasible. 

You could have Merril be the leader of this if she was alive, or someone else if she is dead... but that kind of cheapens her impact and role in the larger scheme of things, doesn't it?

[LobselVith8]

Faerunner wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Elven Warden as Bann is bugged, but it's supposed to read that Shianni as Bann gets killed by bigoted humans, Soris as Bann leaves because of racism (as a result of his marriage to a wealthy human woman), and the Warden as Bann allowed the elves to "become prosperous in a way they had never known", which lead to elves traveling to Denerim from all over; a riot by humans ensues as a result of the new elven residents to the Alienage.

I know, that's what I meant. The Boon following the defeat of the Archdemon makes it seem like the city elves are finally getting some semblence of social progression at last, but then the credits roll and we learn that every attempt at change crashes and burns, even before consulting the Dragon Age wiki. I was cynical and even I was surprised by violently every ending turned out. (Like you said, the Warden becoming the Bann was the best-case scenario, but even that caused human riots and a caption reading, "As much as things change, they always stay the same.")

Kudos to ejoslin for finding out about the bugged slides in the first place.

Yeah, racism is still an issue for the Alienage elves. It isn't surprising - this is the city where humans didn't care about women being abducted from the Alienage in broad daylight. Even Kirkwall requires Hawke to give a damn, in order to stop a serial killer murdering elven children; unfortunately, we never get any insight into how this impacts the Kirkwall Alienage, or any problems Magistrate Vanard may have dealt them with. Their POV is nonexistent. And the Denerim elves face another problem with The Warden's mandated disappearance at the end of Dragon Age II, which I think was entirely unnecessary.

Faerunner wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That said, this is the kind of outcome that makes me lament the absence of racial options. I wondered a while ago if Merrill taking a stand against the templars would have an impact among the People - who have been enemies of the Order of Templars since their incursion into the Dales - but I doubt it'll matter (even though it should).

Too true. One elven hero every few hundred years can't make lasting changes alone (Shartan when Andraste was alive, Garahel a few hundred years ago and potentially an Elven Warden for the present day), which is why I want more heroes to keep the ball rolling, rather than letting it slide back and stop after the Warden's disappearance.

That's a good point, I hadn't considered Merrill. An interesting outcome of the Mage/Templar war would be how the Dalish and Templars deal with each other, and Merrill helping to kickstart the war by being a Dalish standing up to the Templars would be an interesting consequence to explore, but alas. BioWare is determined to keep elves as stagnant background decoration instead of viable players in the ever-constant battle of dominance in Thedas.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to make a lasting impact. The elven children didn't even know any elven heroes in the City Elf Origin, and the fact the protagonist had to make some up suggests the protagonist didn't, either. Shartan and Garahel are unknown to them.

As for your comment on the elves being "background decoration", I worry you're right. It's likely the elves will be relegated to the background again with another "human only" protagonist, especially with the info about the rogue elf from the survey. With speculation about being able to pick a side in the Orlesian civil war, I would prefer to help the disenfranchised elves in the occupied Dales take back their nation.

[wwwwowwww]

I don't care tbh, variety would be great for sure, but it's not a deal breaker for me as long as we have a lot of customization options

[Yggdrasil]

Faerunner wrote...

MichaelStJohn90068 wrote...

My personal theory is that the limitation to being a human is not because of time or other considerations but because the raison d'etre for the PC in the game would only make sense as a human.  The Grey Wardens took all shapes and sizes in their quest against the darkspawn, but the Inquisition is a human organization.  This is only a guess, however...

And who wrote the Grey Wardens? The writers of BioWare. Who wrote the Inquisition? The writers of BioWare. If they can make the Grey Wardens take all shapes and sizes, then they can make the Inquisition take all shapes and sizes too. 

Like I said, it was just my guess, and my only point was that I'm guessing Bioware's decision to have a human-only protagonist wasn't due to a lack of time or resources.

[LobselVith8]

Isolaede wrote...

I’m torn – I expected this decision. From a story perspective, it seems like the Chantry is very human-centric. Elves and Dwarves both have their own religions, and with the exception of that crazy dwarven “priest” in Orzammer, I don’t remember ever seeing a non-human representative of the church. I’m assuming, the Inquisition, as a branch of the Chantry is the same.

The developers said we won't be forced to work for the Chantry or the templars. Also, the protagonist can be a mage - in an anti-mage society. I think people would have a bigger problem with a free mage - especially a blood mage - as opposed to an elf or a dwarf.

[Hexley UK]

Human only protagonist is just further proof that the Bioware who made excellent and creative games no longer exists in this dojo.

[CZ19]

I loved playing a dalish elf but after they changed the elves it ruined it for me, I don't mind being human as long as they atleast fix that race as they are now the weirdest elves I have ever seen in a rpg game.

[Yumichika]

Creating ur own character in video game is very important nowadays.
Specially when we are free to RP one of the race/gender in the game it's the best immersion possible. It's always better if a scenario is written around it.

I swear that what i'm afraid of the most is specially that fact. Not being free to be whatever i want in a RPG game like Drago Origin.
15% played as an elf
5% as dwarf
It's not nothing!

Or it could simply be better having a new different game from BIOWARE in a world with only human being.

[SpunkyMonkey]

MichaelStJohn90068 wrote...

My personal theory is that the limitation to being a human is not because of time or other considerations but because the raison d'etre for the PC in the game would only make sense as a human.  The Grey Wardens took all shapes and sizes in their quest against the darkspawn, but the Inquisition is a human organization.  This is only a guess, however...

It's not hard to re-write the order as a mixed race one though is it?

In Exile wrote...


Except for the fact that the entire game world and lore makes a serious difference of how humans treat, at least, elves? Dwarves are in the OK, not so bad box, but elves are quite clearly a different culture entirely.

The Dalish are a great example of this - how they treat a human PC and an elf PC should be different.

Again, it's not hard to write around that or change that is it? Unify the races because of imminent danger, be someone so individual/special that you are viewed individually (e.g. as "The Arisen") which negates concerns of race, etc.

Simple stuff.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 30 janvier 2013 - 09:26 .

[Felya87]

Another thing. If I am correct, I have read that there should be the chance to say if our character is a believer or if is atheist.
So, why should't the PG be Dalish or believe in the Stone and Paragons? Isn't already strange an Atheist who work for the Chantry?

[nightscrawl]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Unify the races because of imminent danger, be someone so individual/special that you are viewed individually (e.g. as "The Arisen") which negates concerns of race, etc.

Simple stuff.

We had that in DAO. Without exception, with the Brecilian Forest elves, the Denerim Alienage elves, and the DAA elves the situation eventually reverted into conflict after the events were done.

Having disparate groups work together temporarily, as in DAO, is fine if the crisis is huge enough and the PC has reason enough to unite them. In DAO it wasn't all your PC's awesomeness, the Grey Wardens had their treaties. Using a gimmick like "unite for the greater cause because the bad thing affects us all" is good when used in moderation.


Now that I think about these races and their agendas, it would be interesting to have a different group based on who you side with in DA3. If you support the mages, the elves might be willing to help you because you have a common enemy in the Chantry. If you support the templars the dwarves would help because of the lyrium trade -- a guaranteed source of income that they have relied on for centuries is better than taking a gamble on mages.

Even if you managed to work the above into the multi-race PC, the elves and dwarves would be more or less locked into a certain viewpoint, whereas humans are free to pick a side.

[Dutchess]

Felya87 wrote...

Another thing. If I am correct, I have read that there should be the chance to say if our character is a believer or if is atheist.
So, why should't the PG be Dalish or believe in the Stone and Paragons? Isn't already strange an Atheist who work for the Chantry?

I think the character is only allowed to express doubt, not outright atheism. Gaider doesn't find that fitting. If the Andrastian religion would be a requirement for the protagonist, that doesn't exclude elves and dwarves. In DAO we have clearly seen that city elves have abandoned the old gods and that many now (more or less) have converted to the faith of the Chantry. In Orzammar we can help a dwarven priest to start a Chantry, so a dwarf is not impossible either.


But I don't understand why people keep saying the protagonist will be working for the Chantry. It has been stated by Bioware that this is not the case. The Chantry loses control with neither the mages nor the templars obeying anymore, and in the Chantry's stead a new power steps in: the Inquisition. So you don't work for the Cantry, and I still fail to understand how any of this means the Inquisition would be a human-only organization. Even if the majority of its members are human, that still doesn't exclude the possibility of an elven or dwarven member. The Grey Wardens were mostly humans as well. Alistair knows of one other elf and I believe there was no other dwarf as far as he knew. 

[imbs]

This is such a major mistake. I will never understand why Bioware sticks so ferociously behind the dialogue wheel mechanic. It's so much worse than the kotor/dao system at least from where i am standing. With this wheel thing you not only don't know what you are necessarily going to say (i have picked some perfectly reasonable sounding options in DA:2 and mass effect only to say something that sounds utterly ridiculous and something i would never choose to say, ever) but you also know exactly what the result will be. Oh the aggressive option? i guess someones gon b mad at me. The result is an extremely simple, yet ambiguous system that seems terrible.

The only games i have had fun actually choosing and roleplaying were bioware games; Kotor, DA:O. After a while of playing mass effect, dragon age 2, swtor i always just started to skip all cutscenes after a while. I mean seriously what do Bioware actually gain with this system? They lose a lot of flexibility. Theres no chance of having a proper origins start to the game with a voiced main character, and ofcourse this will effect other things as well. How much easier would it have been in say the ME series to have more varied consequences for earlier choices (a key complaint about the series) if they didn't have to voice everything?

I honestly don't get it. The decision for a voiced makes for simpler, less varied conversational choices, less complicated plots in general, less customisation aka origins, less room for actual consequences from past actions. It also allows them to have a voiced main character... which i guess is immersive for some people.... maybe? It wasnt for me. I really have to reach to come up with ANYTHING. DA:O sold soooooo much better than da2 (despite da2 having all that built up goodwill from the amazing game dao was) and was rated so much higher. What is up bioware?

[KyleOrdrum]

Good chance this means I won't buy it new... It seems that bioware is sticking to their guns of trying to retain the features from DA2 I hated the most, such as the voiced protagonist and the human requirement...

[AlexJK]

imbs wrote...

This is such a major mistake. I will never understand why Bioware sticks so ferociously behind the dialogue wheel mechanic. It's so much worse than the kotor/dao system at least from where i am standing. With this wheel thing you not only don't know what you are necessarily going to say (i have picked some perfectly reasonable sounding options in DA:2 and mass effect only to say something that sounds utterly ridiculous and something i would never choose to say, ever) but you also know exactly what the result will be. Oh the aggressive option? i guess someones gon b mad at me. The result is an extremely simple, yet ambiguous system that seems terrible.

This topic isn't about the dialogue wheel...

After a while of playing mass effect, dragon age 2, swtor i always just started to skip all cutscenes after a while. I mean seriously what do Bioware actually gain with this system? They lose a lot of flexibility. Theres no chance of having a proper origins start to the game with a voiced main character, and ofcourse this will effect other things as well. How much easier would it have been in say the ME series to have more varied consequences for earlier choices (a key complaint about the series) if they didn't have to voice everything?

I honestly don't get it. The decision for a voiced makes for simpler, less varied conversational choices, less complicated plots in general, less customisation aka origins, less room for actual consequences from past actions. It also allows them to have a voiced main character... which i guess is immersive for some people.... maybe? It wasnt for me. I really have to reach to come up with ANYTHING. DA:O sold soooooo much better than da2 (despite da2 having all that built up goodwill from the amazing game dao was) and was rated so much higher. What is up bioware?

This topic isn't about the voiced protagonist either...

How do you feel about the human protagonist?

[imbs]

AlexJK wrote...

imbs wrote...

This is such a major mistake. I will never understand why Bioware sticks so ferociously behind the dialogue wheel mechanic. It's so much worse than the kotor/dao system at least from where i am standing. With this wheel thing you not only don't know what you are necessarily going to say (i have picked some perfectly reasonable sounding options in DA:2 and mass effect only to say something that sounds utterly ridiculous and something i would never choose to say, ever) but you also know exactly what the result will be. Oh the aggressive option? i guess someones gon b mad at me. The result is an extremely simple, yet ambiguous system that seems terrible.

This topic isn't about the dialogue wheel...

After a while of playing mass effect, dragon age 2, swtor i always just started to skip all cutscenes after a while. I mean seriously what do Bioware actually gain with this system? They lose a lot of flexibility. Theres no chance of having a proper origins start to the game with a voiced main character, and ofcourse this will effect other things as well. How much easier would it have been in say the ME series to have more varied consequences for earlier choices (a key complaint about the series) if they didn't have to voice everything?

I honestly don't get it. The decision for a voiced makes for simpler, less varied conversational choices, less complicated plots in general, less customisation aka origins, less room for actual consequences from past actions. It also allows them to have a voiced main character... which i guess is immersive for some people.... maybe? It wasnt for me. I really have to reach to come up with ANYTHING. DA:O sold soooooo much better than da2 (despite da2 having all that built up goodwill from the amazing game dao was) and was rated so much higher. What is up bioware?

This topic isn't about the voiced protagonist either...

How do you feel about the human protagonist?

... in that case i am confused how a topic reached 140 pages on such a mundane and narrow topic. It still ties in tho really the lack of choice is pretty terrible and the reason for it IS the voiced npc which results in the dialogue wheel problem.

If the entire thread is actually specifically about how people feel about being human as opposed to behing dwarf or elf then er.......................... i dont care at all I go human anyway. Hope i helped....................

Modifié par imbs, 30 janvier 2013 - 01:44 .

[Yumichika]

The more possibility in an open RPG the better we player are.
About the wheel it has it's good and bad effects and yes the DAO system where far better, simple and clear.
I still can't understand why can't u be a Qunari, elf, dwarf those race are not where they live. Oghren and Varric don't live in caverns, and lets not talk about Zevran.
I'm always for a open minded and more choice in a game.

[SpunkyMonkey]

nightscrawl wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Unify the races because of imminent danger, be someone so individual/special that you are viewed individually (e.g. as "The Arisen") which negates concerns of race, etc.

Simple stuff.

We had that in DAO. Without exception, with the Brecilian Forest elves, the Denerim Alienage elves, and the DAA elves the situation eventually reverted into conflict after the events were done.

Having disparate groups work together temporarily, as in DAO, is fine if the crisis is huge enough and the PC has reason enough to unite them. In DAO it wasn't all your PC's awesomeness, the Grey Wardens had their treaties. Using a gimmick like "unite for the greater cause because the bad thing affects us all" is good when used in moderation.


Now that I think about these races and their agendas, it would be interesting to have a different group based on who you side with in DA3. If you support the mages, the elves might be willing to help you because you have a common enemy in the Chantry. If you support the templars the dwarves would help because of the lyrium trade -- a guaranteed source of income that they have relied on for centuries is better than taking a gamble on mages.

Even if you managed to work the above into the multi-race PC, the elves and dwarves would be more or less locked into a certain viewpoint, whereas humans are free to pick a side.

I think you need to be a little more open minded.

Bracketing all elves, humans and dwarves into a locked POV or one agenda is silly - people have different motivations for working with different groups.

Like I said, it's simple really and the only limit is your imagination. Eg - why can't you be an elf or dwarf raised by humans with human ideals? All you need ever be reffered to is "inquisitor", with your job role something others judge and react to you by, rather than your race? (often the case in medival times)

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 30 janvier 2013 - 02:06 .

[WildOrchid]

I'm quite tired of human protagonists. Could've been better if we had race options like Skyrim way.

[Xilizhra]

Like I said, it's simple really and the only limit is your imagination. Eg - why can't you be an elf or dwarf raised by humans with human ideals? All you need ever be reffered to is "inquisitor", with your job role something others judge and react to you by, rather than your race? (often the case in medival times)

To be frank, I'd rather play a human with elven ideals than the other way around.

[LobselVith8]

Felya87 wrote...

Another thing. If I am correct, I have read that there should be the chance to say if our character is a believer or if is atheist.
So, why should't the PG be Dalish or believe in the Stone and Paragons? Isn't already strange an Atheist who work for the Chantry? 

After multiple people started threads about the lack of an atheist option in Dragon Age II (which was available in Origins) and their interest in seeing the option return in Inquisition, Gaider conceded that they might try to allow for the player to express disbelief in the Maker with the new protagonist. It's unknown whether or not this will actually be the case.

Also, the developers have already said the new protagonist won't be forced to work for the Chantry or the templars.

[Yumichika]

WildOrchid wrote...

I'm quite tired of human protagonists. Could've been better if we had race options like Skyrim way.

Why I love specially Skyrim world it's totally free, i was gladly surprise to see all the possibility end that in the end u are free to whatever comes to ur mind.

[Pr3ying M4nt15 360]

I'd rather have a voice acted protagonist than a different race (which is basically a 5 minute backstory and a few minor dialog changes that ultimately take development time and disc space away from dialog that you could have reserved for a single protagonist).

Even if the voice acted, several race protagonists were possible, they'd still have to have all 1 male voice or 1 female voice due to development constraints which would kinda suck.