3855 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Qistina wrote...

Sutekh wrote..
The point being made isn't magically fitting armours, but that you can be mistaken for a Denerim guard while, for instance, being an elf arboring Dalish tatoos. No one ever calls you on that during that quest, not even a little, which, considering you're in Howe's palace, makes little sense.

It can be justified in many ways...new recruits from other races, mercenaries and so on...

That is why we are told not to talk or get near the guards, just pretend like nothing happen, just move along...

We get near the guards then they will attack, no matter what race you are

Note : Howe did hire Qunari and Elf mercenaries to hunt Grey Wardens, remember the Pearl? Howe also hire Elven assassin, Zevran...so it is not a suprise if other race being in How castle, just don't get near the guard or they will realize something is wrong

Er, no.  That Howe would hire elven mercenaries does NOT mean he would be willing to hire elven guards for his own estate.  They are two entirely different situations.  This is a very weak justification at BEST, given what we know of Howe's character.  He's most assuredly NOT the enlightened sort who would happily overlook social mores in favor of racial equality. 

[Jestina]

I prefer having choice as well, it gives the game more replay value and the chance to see things from different perspectives. For the sake of VA in cutscenes you'll probably skip after the first play through, we've lost choice and replay value. In a fantasy RPG being stuck as human is just a dumb decision. That's one of the main reasons I didn't bother buying DA II until the price dropped, and I could only manage to get through it once. I played DA:O countless times, just for the RP perspective of the different races which usually influence the choice I make through the story.

[Uccio]

Killdren88 wrote...

I would like more options as well. But we need to look at this from a story perspective. The Chantry is human focused. How would an elf or a dwarf for that matter reach the level of inquisitor in a religious group like the chantry? The Chantry is not like the Qun where everyone has a place in it.

And why would Bio think people are keen on playing a religious zealot?

[LogicGunn]

I was disappointed when I found out DA2 was human only, but understood in light of the story of the game when I started playing it. Hawke had to be human for that specific character story.

I am even more disappointed that the third instalment is going to be human only. I didn't want it to become a thing in Bioware games, especially since the Elven and Dwarven origins were so good. It seems like going backwards in terms of the DA franchise, and in truth it will take an extremely good justification in the story for me to look past it.

If they justify it, fine, if not....meh. One of the reasons I enjoy Bioware and Bethesda games is the chance to create a character that isn't a white, male soldier/convict/general baddass. Reducing that is frustrating for me as a female gamer and a get-in-character-and-ride-side-saddle hardcore RPG gamer. I like to get inside the head of my character and the most important stage of bonding with that character is during creation when I decide who she is. The lore of DA is so rich, it helps to make a realistic character suited to the world they are in (A Dwarven Noble is quite likely to be ruthless, a Dalish Elven mage is probably more likely to dabble in blood magic than an Andraste-worshipping Human mage for instance).

I think it will also affect how replayable the game is for me personally. If I'm going to replay a game there has to be enough difference between replays to bother.

I guess it's just hard for me to imagine that the protagonist of a story so potentially huge as a mage/templar war NEEDS to be human the way the personal struggle of a Ferelden Refugee with a noble heritage does. It's also hard to imagine that some personal story is going to justify the human aspect of it in light of what's going on in Thedas after DA2. I'll try to reserve the brunt of my judgement until I know more about the game but my initial reaction is negative.

LogicGunn disapproves -50.

Modifié par LogicGunn, 27 mai 2013 - 07:58 .

[Silfren]

Jestina wrote...

I prefer having choice as well, it gives the game more replay value and the chance to see things from different perspectives. For the sake of VA in cutscenes you'll probably skip after the first play through, we've lost choice and replay value. In a fantasy RPG being stuck as human is just a dumb decision. That's one of the main reasons I didn't bother buying DA II until the price dropped, and I could only manage to get through it once. I played DA:O countless times, just for the RP perspective of the different races which usually influence the choice I make through the story.

Not sure, but I think it's pretty well confirmed that we'll have different backgrounds to choose from.  Assuming that any background affects how the world reacts to the PC, and the possibility of background-specific quests, there IS plenty of replay potential. 

I like having different race origins as much as the next person, but I don't see how anyone could argue against the fact that having a single racial background makes for a more compelling story with much more choice potential.  Yes, it was nice that Origins had different races, but it is also true that the game did NOT differ all that much.  Each race got a modicum of unique content, and that was it.  The only variation were slight changes in dialogue. 

Not sure who the "you'll" is that you're referring to, but I've never skipped cutscenes except by accident.  But I don't see why voice acting is to blame for the supposed lack of choice and replay value, or how this ties into race options (you COULD have the two voice actors for male and female play all the races).  Re-play value and choices are NOT solely dependent on having different race options; it's ludicrous to think they are.

Modifié par Silfren, 27 mai 2013 - 07:59 .

[Killdren88]

Ukki wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

I would like more options as well. But we need to look at this from a story perspective. The Chantry is human focused. How would an elf or a dwarf for that matter reach the level of inquisitor in a religious group like the chantry? The Chantry is not like the Qun where everyone has a place in it.

And why would Bio think people are keen on playing a religious zealot?

If memory serves we can choose to play our inquisitor as someone who dosen't agree with the chantry.

[Boycott Bioware]

Silfren wrote...
Er, no. That Howe would hire elven mercenaries does NOT mean he would be willing to hire elven guards for his own estate. They are two entirely different situations. This is a very weak justification at BEST, given what we know of Howe's character. He's most assuredly NOT the enlightened sort who would happily overlook social mores in favor of racial equality.

It is a disguise and rescue mission, we are supposed to get in, no talk, no wandering around, rescue the girl and get out. So in this fast paced (supposed to be) mission, an "alien" guard is not to be noticed by other guards unless that "alien" expose him/her self to them

It is not those guards duty to ask every guards in the keep are real guards or not. Logically only guard captain or higher officer would question, the lower rank don't even care.

Let say you are a police officer in white man country, will you know one of the officers hanging around in the cantina is a spy whatever his/her race is? You maybe curious but you wouldn't question because you may assume that officer maybe have some business being there with your superior or something

[Uccio]

Killdren88 wrote...

Ukki wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

I would like more options as well. But we need to look at this from a story perspective. The Chantry is human focused. How would an elf or a dwarf for that matter reach the level of inquisitor in a religious group like the chantry? The Chantry is not like the Qun where everyone has a place in it.

And why would Bio think people are keen on playing a religious zealot?

If memory serves we can choose to play our inquisitor as someone who dosen't agree with the chantry.

But the only problem is that templars are actually members of inquisition thus religious zealotism is a must. No one joins a zealot faction if they do not support the idea.

[ArcaneJTM]

Silfren wrote...

I like having different race origins as much as the next person, but I don't see how anyone could argue against the fact that having a single racial background makes for a more compelling story with much more choice potential.  Yes, it was nice that Origins had different races, but it is also true that the game did NOT differ all that much.  Each race got a modicum of unique content, and that was it.  The only variation were slight changes in dialogue.  .

You are so wrong.  Compelling story and choice potential has no direct correllation to number of races a player can choose from.  In fact, believing that it does seems to have the opposite effect of what you think, given the fine example that is the Dragon Age series.  Not to mention the fact that by removing features that were previously included, you've by definition removed choice potential.

What the story is and how the story is told are entirely different things.  You yourself stated that the big difference between the races story wise was a few variations of dialogue.  Yet those variations make quite a difference to the feel of story in the game.  How does the act of removing those variations by itself make the rest of the story more compelling and provide more variety?

[The_FenixV]

Meh I don't really care about race, only Origins I liked other than the human noble was the Dwarf Commoner and Noble, other then that I hate elves and will always hate elves damn knife ears.

Plus if they ever decided to make a DA movie, we all know the Warden would end up being a human.

[Jestina]

Silfren wrote...
Not sure who the "you'll" is that you're referring to, but I've never skipped cutscenes except by accident.  But I don't see why voice acting is to blame for the supposed lack of choice and replay value, or how this ties into race options.

DAII was evidence of where VA caused the game to suffer. They spent way too much time and money on a fluff feature rather than improving the actual gameplay and because of VA our choices became very linear. They are supposed to be making a game after all, not a short film.

[Fredward]

Jestina wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Not sure who the "you'll" is that you're referring to, but I've never skipped cutscenes except by accident.  But I don't see why voice acting is to blame for the supposed lack of choice and replay value, or how this ties into race options.

DAII was evidence of where VA caused the game to suffer. They spent way too much time and money on a fluff feature rather than improving the actual gameplay and because of VA our choices became very linear. They are supposed to be making a game after all, not a short film.

That's a DA2 problem not a VA problem.

[legbamel]

Yup. A dwarf or elf would have had the same dialogue choices except a few nods to race and the same voice. Hawke as a human made sense within that story. I presume that the backgrounds from which you can choose in DA:I will also work most sensibly with a human protagonist as will the story in general. Devs have already said that they would like to return to different races in the future and I hope they find a way to do. A voiced protagonist does not cause story problems, just articulates them.

[Melca36]

Ukki wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

I would like more options as well. But we need to look at this from a story perspective. The Chantry is human focused. How would an elf or a dwarf for that matter reach the level of inquisitor in a religious group like the chantry? The Chantry is not like the Qun where everyone has a place in it.

And why would Bio think people are keen on playing a religious zealot?

Um..they already said you wont be forced to play a pro chantry character

[Riknas]

ArcaneJTM wrote...
The two are not linked.  If anything, removal of alternative races and origins appears to be counterproductive to extending the length of the overall campaign and providing more choices and content.

While I can understand the counter-argument, claiming there is no link is...well, wrong.

It's been outright stated by the Bioware developers, including this thread, that focusing on one feature takes away time from something else, and affects how development time is allotted. A great number of people (I don't have the numbers off-hand, but by all means we can collect them) neglected the other origin stories, thus the content went to waste almost entirely on them. If the resources spent on origins could be redirected to the main campaign, that would be both just fine, and perfectly logical.

Modifié par Riknas, 27 mai 2013 - 09:43 .

[Silfren]

Jestina wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Not sure who the "you'll" is that you're referring to, but I've never skipped cutscenes except by accident.  But I don't see why voice acting is to blame for the supposed lack of choice and replay value, or how this ties into race options.

DAII was evidence of where VA caused the game to suffer. They spent way too much time and money on a fluff feature rather than improving the actual gameplay and because of VA our choices became very linear. They are supposed to be making a game after all, not a short film.

I'll grant that spending a lot of money on one feature takes money away from other features.  But where is your proof that this is precisely why DA2's shortcomings existed?  Moreover, where is your proof that the existence of the VA made our choices linear?  You MAY be right on your first point, but on the second one, I see no reason at all why having a voiced protagonist has anything to do with making choices linear.  Actually I THINK you mean it reduced our overall choices, because I don't see what "linear" has to do with it.

[Silfren]

Melca36 wrote...

Ukki wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

I would like more options as well. But we need to look at this from a story perspective. The Chantry is human focused. How would an elf or a dwarf for that matter reach the level of inquisitor in a religious group like the chantry? The Chantry is not like the Qun where everyone has a place in it.

And why would Bio think people are keen on playing a religious zealot?

Um..they already said you wont be forced to play a pro chantry character

Never mind that the original Inquisition was not aligned with the Chantry at all.  That came later.  It's possible that this new Inquisition will arise independently of the Chantry as well. Hell, I could see one of the PC's choices being whether or not TO align with the Chantry.

[Sutekh]

Qistina wrote...

It is a disguise and rescue mission, we are supposed to get in, no talk, no wandering around, rescue the girl and get out. So in this fast paced (supposed to be) mission, an "alien" guard is not to be noticed by other guards unless that "alien" expose him/her self to them

It is not those guards duty to ask every guards in the keep are real guards or not. Logically only guard captain or higher officer would question, the lower rank don't even care.

And yet, a bit later on, in Fort Drakon - which is run by Howe as well - you have close conversations with guards and captains and nobody wonders what on Earth is a Dalish doing there wearing a guard uniform, or what is that dwarf doing topside not selling anything, even though they're the single non-human around. In a fort run by a man who think slaughtering Alienage elves is "culling the herd" and Dalish are "savages".

If a non-white shows up in a place full of policemen, disguised as one of them, in a country that openly practices segregation, and the chief of police is a card-carrying member of the local KKK, I'm pretty sure they'll be noticed.

[ArcaneJTM]

Riknas wrote...

While I can understand the counter-argument, claiming there is no link is...well, wrong.

It's been outright stated by the Bioware developers, including this thread, that focusing on one feature takes away time from something else, and affects how development time is allotted. A great number of people (I don't have the numbers off-hand, but by all means we can collect them) neglected the other origin stories, thus the content went to waste almost entirely on them. If the resources spent on origins could be redirected to the main campaign, that would be both just fine, and perfectly logical.

Time investment is a seperate catagory.  I don't deny that if you've got a finite amount of time to do a task, it may limit the outcome of said task.  What I take issue with is the idea that ignoring one aspect will by itself benifit the others by virtue of more investment in those other aspects.  Not to mention the notion that it will do so to a degree that it would improve overall quality.  It's quite simply the same thinking that leads people to the believe that the solution to any problem is to throw money at it, or that as long as the explosions are good, nobody will give a crap about how good the rest of the movie is.

Got it?  It's not about there being not enough time, thus something must be cut.  It's about people leaping to the conclusion that if something is cut, it somehow makes the rest magically "better".

Modifié par ArcaneJTM, 27 mai 2013 - 10:35 .

[Bleachrude]

Qistina wrote...

Sutekh wrote..
The point being made isn't magically fitting armours, but that you can be mistaken for a Denerim guard while, for instance, being an elf arboring Dalish tatoos. No one ever calls you on that during that quest, not even a little, which, considering you're in Howe's palace, makes little sense.

It can be justified in many ways...new recruits from other races, mercenaries and so on...

That is why we are told not to talk or get near the guards, just pretend like nothing happen, just move along...

We get near the guards then they will attack, no matter what race you are

Note : Howe did hire Qunari and Elf mercenaries to hunt Grey Wardens, remember the Pearl? Howe also hire Elven assassin, Zevran...so it is not a suprise if other race being in How castle, just don't get near the guard or they will realize something is wrong

I'm not sure I agree with this though...

In the Infinity engine games, this works since the setting is basically race, sex and class blind. There is as much chance of meeting a female elven mage working as a guard in neverwinter as there is as a male human rogue working as one.

Thedas is setup to be different though...part of the appeal of DA was that the races and classes weren't simply interchangeable...

[Silfren]

ArcaneJTM wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I like having different race origins as much as the next person, but I don't see how anyone could argue against the fact that having a single racial background makes for a more compelling story with much more choice potential.  Yes, it was nice that Origins had different races, but it is also true that the game did NOT differ all that much.  Each race got a modicum of unique content, and that was it.  The only variation were slight changes in dialogue.  .

You are so wrong.  Compelling story and choice potential has no direct correllation to number of races a player can choose from.  In fact, believing that it does seems to have the opposite effect of what you think, given the fine example that is the Dragon Age series.  Not to mention the fact that by removing features that were previously included, you've by definition removed choice potential.

What the story is and how the story is told are entirely different things.  You yourself stated that the big difference between the races story wise was a few variations of dialogue.  Yet those variations make quite a difference to the feel of story in the game.  How does the act of removing those variations by itself make the rest of the story more compelling and provide more variety?

No, I'm not wrong.  Having numerous origin choices forces the entire story to be watered down.  The game can't spend a lot of time acknowledging the PC's race and background beyond a few variations in the dialogue.  Personally I did NOT feel that those variations made a difference in how the overall game felt.  If there had been substantial differences I'd probably have felt differently, but again we are talking about nothing more than slight differences in dialogue, not genuinely different world states.

Removing those variations by itself doesn't make the story more compelling.  That's not what I said.  Rather, since those very slight variations are all we can expect of a multiple origin approach, I'd much prefer to have one PC origin, because the lack of any need to accomodate other origins means that the overall story can be made that much more personal and compelling. 

As for variety, the lack of choice in DA2 was not due to the lack of different race origins.  It was due to a) being a highly rushed game, and the need to create a singular world state for the next game.  This is why I say that DA2 is best thought of as a prequel to DA3.  The idea that variety can ONLY be had if you have multiple race options is a fallacy. 

[Riknas]

ArcaneJTM wrote...

Time investment is a seperate catagory.  I don't deny that if you've got a finite amount of time to do a task, it may limit the outcome of said task.  What I take issue with is the idea that ignoring one aspect will by itself benifit the others by virtue of more investment in those other aspects.  Not to mention the notion that it will do so to a degree that it would improve overall quality.  It's quite simply the same thinking that leads people to the believe that the solution to any problem is to throw money at it, or that as long as the explosions are good, nobody will give a crap about how good the rest of the movie is.

Got it?  It's not about there being not enough time, thus something must be cut.  It's about people leaping to the conclusion that if something is cut, it somehow makes the rest magically "better".

You've got a condescending tone, be mindful of that.

Separate or not, the implications Bioware is making suggest that they will be redirecting these reources, not cutting it and using the extra money to drink Bacardi and lounge about in fancy hotels while remarking how much more free time they have because they don't have to make Origins anymore.

If we're going to take issue with something, it will be whether or not we think Bioware can do it correctly. Personally, I think we can take Bioware at their word and will redirect their resources properly.

Modifié par Riknas, 27 mai 2013 - 11:10 .

[Urazz]

ArcaneJTM wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I like having different race origins as much as the next person, but I don't see how anyone could argue against the fact that having a single racial background makes for a more compelling story with much more choice potential.  Yes, it was nice that Origins had different races, but it is also true that the game did NOT differ all that much.  Each race got a modicum of unique content, and that was it.  The only variation were slight changes in dialogue.  .

You are so wrong.  Compelling story and choice potential has no direct correllation to number of races a player can choose from.  In fact, believing that it does seems to have the opposite effect of what you think, given the fine example that is the Dragon Age series.  Not to mention the fact that by removing features that were previously included, you've by definition removed choice potential.

What the story is and how the story is told are entirely different things.  You yourself stated that the big difference between the races story wise was a few variations of dialogue.  Yet those variations make quite a difference to the feel of story in the game.  How does the act of removing those variations by itself make the rest of the story more compelling and provide more variety?

Race choice really didn't change the feel of the story of DAO.  Sure it may be removing 'choice' potential as you put it but it was relatively minor choice that had minimal effect on the storyline.  I don't mind removing minor things like racial choice if it allows for other things like a voiced PC and a more detailed background for the PC are the biggest things for me.

Modifié par Urazz, 27 mai 2013 - 11:26 .

[Rawgrim]

Urazz wrote...

ArcaneJTM wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I like having different race origins as much as the next person, but I don't see how anyone could argue against the fact that having a single racial background makes for a more compelling story with much more choice potential.  Yes, it was nice that Origins had different races, but it is also true that the game did NOT differ all that much.  Each race got a modicum of unique content, and that was it.  The only variation were slight changes in dialogue.  .

You are so wrong.  Compelling story and choice potential has no direct correllation to number of races a player can choose from.  In fact, believing that it does seems to have the opposite effect of what you think, given the fine example that is the Dragon Age series.  Not to mention the fact that by removing features that were previously included, you've by definition removed choice potential.

What the story is and how the story is told are entirely different things.  You yourself stated that the big difference between the races story wise was a few variations of dialogue.  Yet those variations make quite a difference to the feel of story in the game.  How does the act of removing those variations by itself make the rest of the story more compelling and provide more variety?

Race choice really didn't change the feel of the story of DAO.  Sure it may be removing 'choice' potential as you put it but it was relatively minor choice that had minimal effect on the storyline.  I don't mind removing minor things like racial choice if it allows for other things like a voiced PC and a more detailed background for the PC are the biggest things for me.

Playing a dwarf certainly changed the feel of the story in DAO for me though. It didn`t affect the storyline too much, BUT it did affect how my dwarven PC made his decicions etc. Roleplaying being a factor here.

[Silfren]

ArcaneJTM wrote...

Time investment is a seperate catagory.  I don't deny that if you've got a finite amount of time to do a task, it may limit the outcome of said task.  What I take issue with is the idea that ignoring one aspect will by itself benifit the others by virtue of more investment in those other aspects.  Not to mention the notion that it will do so to a degree that it would improve overall quality.  It's quite simply the same thinking that leads people to the believe that the solution to any problem is to throw money at it, or that as long as the explosions are good, nobody will give a crap about how good the rest of the movie is.

Got it?  It's not about there being not enough time, thus something must be cut.  It's about people leaping to the conclusion that if something is cut, it somehow makes the rest magically "better".

But having more resources--not just time--to invest in Thing B because Thing A was cut DOES result in Thing B being of a higher quality.  Or at least, it does if we assume all things being equal--I'm certainly not trying to claim it's an automatic given that more available resources will result in a better product; but the logic is sound, that if Devs use their available resources to the best of their ability, the more resources they have for a given aspect, the higher quality that aspect of the game will be.  When working with finite resources, the more things you have to spread those resources around on, the thinner those resources will be for each item, and thus the quality will be impacted.  And I do think that, overall, the story of DA2 was stronger than that of Origins, and was so in part at least because it didn't have to direct time and attention to multiple origin stories.

Modifié par Silfren, 27 mai 2013 - 11:36 .