3855 réponses à ce sujet

[Nefla]

Humans in Thedas are so boring. They're the privileged race and most similar to my real world culture. I hate being forced to be human when there are 3 much more interesting races in the lore.

[Silfren]

Rawgrim wrote...

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.

But this is what YOU brought to the game, not a reflection of the dwarf-specific content the game provided to you.

[Rawgrim]

Silfren wrote...

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.  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.

So when racial choices, party customization, more than 1 map for caves, being able to make choices that matter, being able to affect the ending of the game, + + + , got cut from DA2 its a good thing since we got a voiced protagonist and wave battles instead?

[Rawgrim]

Silfren wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

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.

But this is what YOU brought to the game, not a reflection of the dwarf-specific content the game provided to you.

The game brought that to me. An option to play a dwarf. 2 different background for the dwarven race too. The two dwarven origins were pretty dwarf-specific.

[Silfren]

Qistina wrote...

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

This is a crap analogy.  Try again.  Try a scenario in which you are a white police officer in a predominantly white area known for its hostility to people who are not white, an area where people who aren't white certainly are NOT in the habit of being employed into positions of authority. 

I guarantee you, if a non-white person showed up in that scenario, the only means by which it would NOT raise eyebrows and have the white officers asking questions would be if they'd been briefed ahead of time that the not-white person was supposed to be there. 

An elf or dwarf not being questioned for their sudden inexplicable presence among guards who, heretofore have had NO such guards ever, especially given Howe's personality and his known contempt for elves (he is the type of jerk*ss for whom elves are nothing more than the servant class), is going to have people going "Puh?"

[Silfren]

Rawgrim wrote...

Silfren wrote...

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.  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.

So when racial choices, party customization, more than 1 map for caves, being able to make choices that matter, being able to affect the ending of the game, + + + , got cut from DA2 its a good thing since we got a voiced protagonist and wave battles instead?

Is there any proof that the voiced protagonist is the reason all those things were cut?  Because I've not seen a shred of evidence to support this. 

that said, my original comment was that having multiple origins waters down the story, it wasn't about voiced protagonists at all.  I said NOTHING about party customization, recycled maps, etc.  I DO think that multiple origins makes for an overall weaker story, and I think it's a given that when resources for one game aspect are cut, it frees up those resources for other parts of the game. But I don't think that the voiced protagonist is the reason that DA2 was (allegedly) so terrible, and I'm kind of sick of people fixating on it as the bane of all games. Especially I'm sick of the idea that it's having a voiced protagonist that led to us not having meaningful choices.  We didn't have meaningful choices for two reasons:  the first one being the same reason so many other aspects of DA2 were subpar: the rushed schedule.  The other reason is an obvious one that people seem to refuse to accept: they needed a fixed world state for DA3, and having multiple outcomes to DA2 was not conducive to that.

But again, my comment was about multiple origins stories versus a single one.  Why people are taking my comment and going on the warpath about voiced protagonists, recycled maps, and enemy waves is beyond me.

Modifié par Silfren, 27 mai 2013 - 11:59 .

[Silfren]

Rawgrim wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

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.

But this is what YOU brought to the game, not a reflection of the dwarf-specific content the game provided to you.

The game brought that to me. An option to play a dwarf. 2 different background for the dwarven race too. The two dwarven origins were pretty dwarf-specific.

Which ignores the fact that all the origins had origin-specific comment PURELY for the origin content of the game.  After that, the content is minimal and has very little impact.  I already mentioned that each origin has a modicum of unique content.  But overall it does not affect the game.  Once the origins are done and you account for the minor content you get elsewhere, the only other impactful scenes come in the epilogue, which is not what I would consider important.  I think you'd have a point if the entirety of the game reacted differently to your Warden based on origin, but it simply does not beyond very trivial dialogue changes.

[Rawgrim]

Silfren wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Silfren wrote...

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.  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.

So when racial choices, party customization, more than 1 map for caves, being able to make choices that matter, being able to affect the ending of the game, + + + , got cut from DA2 its a good thing since we got a voiced protagonist and wave battles instead?

Is there any proof that the voiced protagonist is the reason all those things were cut?  Because I've not seen a shred of evidence to support this. 

that said, my original comment was that having multiple origins waters down the story, it wasn't about voiced protagonists at all.  I said NOTHING about party customization, recycled maps, etc.  I DO think that multiple origins makes for an overall weaker story, and I think it's a given that when resources for one game aspect are cut, it frees up those resources for other parts of the game. But I don't think that the voiced protagonist is the reason that DA2 was (allegedly) so terrible, and I'm kind of sick of people fixating on it as the bane of all games. Especially I'm sick of the idea that it's having a voiced protagonist that led to us not having meaningful choices.  We didn't have meaningful choices for two reasons:  the first one being the same reason so many other aspects of DA2 were subpar: the rushed schedule.  The other reason is an obvious one that people seem to refuse to accept: they needed a fixed world state for DA3, and having multiple outcomes to DA2 was not conducive to that.

But again, my comment was about multiple origins stories versus a single one.  Why people are taking my comment and going on the warpath about voiced protagonists, recycled maps, and enemy waves is beyond me.

More origins, racial choices, and whatsnot = makes for a better RPG. Since it gives the player more options.

A set protagonist with a set background and a linear story = makes for a better movie.

[Nefla]

DA2 had one origin, the story was not deep or compelling, I'd say it was about as watered down as you can get. (get money, do tasks for the viscount, mages, and templars, no branching, no changes, no intrigue, no depth, no motivation even)

[Silfren]

Rawgrim wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Silfren wrote...

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.  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.

So when racial choices, party customization, more than 1 map for caves, being able to make choices that matter, being able to affect the ending of the game, + + + , got cut from DA2 its a good thing since we got a voiced protagonist and wave battles instead?

Is there any proof that the voiced protagonist is the reason all those things were cut?  Because I've not seen a shred of evidence to support this. 

that said, my original comment was that having multiple origins waters down the story, it wasn't about voiced protagonists at all.  I said NOTHING about party customization, recycled maps, etc.  I DO think that multiple origins makes for an overall weaker story, and I think it's a given that when resources for one game aspect are cut, it frees up those resources for other parts of the game. But I don't think that the voiced protagonist is the reason that DA2 was (allegedly) so terrible, and I'm kind of sick of people fixating on it as the bane of all games. Especially I'm sick of the idea that it's having a voiced protagonist that led to us not having meaningful choices.  We didn't have meaningful choices for two reasons:  the first one being the same reason so many other aspects of DA2 were subpar: the rushed schedule.  The other reason is an obvious one that people seem to refuse to accept: they needed a fixed world state for DA3, and having multiple outcomes to DA2 was not conducive to that.

But again, my comment was about multiple origins stories versus a single one.  Why people are taking my comment and going on the warpath about voiced protagonists, recycled maps, and enemy waves is beyond me.

More origins, racial choices, and whatsnot = makes for a better RPG. Since it gives the player more options.

A set protagonist with a set background and a linear story = makes for a better movie.

Again, I don't see what a linear story has to do with anything.  I'm fairly sure you simply mean a story with fewer choices, which is not the same thing.  And I think there's a clear difference between race options and in-game choices.  The one only adds flavor, and minor flavor at that.  The other impacts the actual state of the game world.

A set protagonist with a set background does NOT mean that we will have fewer choices in the game.  The only one insisting that a "linear" story will go hand in hand with a set PC and a set background is you.  I see no reason at all why a set PC has to mean fewer choices.  But then I'm NOT assuming that DA3 will be exactly like DA2 in having so few meaningful choices.  DA2's lack of choices was NOT due to being forced to play a Human, and there's no reason to think we will continue to have a lack of choices in DA3, set PC or no.  Consider Origins: If you had been forced to play a Human PC in that game with no option for elves or dwarves, you'd still have had all the other major choice points in the game. 

Finally, we've been told we will have multiple origins to choose from, though not multiple races...and of course we'll be able to name our PC, customize how they look and what gender they are, as well as choose dialogue options that shape their personality.  They WON'T be a set PC just for being human.  Hawke wasn't a set PC and this one won't be either.

[Bleachrude]

In DA:O, your "wardeness" overwrote any racial problems that you should experience...now, how the gameworld could TELL you were a warden is another question (it's played for laughs at the docks to kinloch hold but the templar was the ONLY one in the entire game that actually acted smart in asking fro proof)

For example, the lore states that elves can not carry swords in Ferelden yet it is quite possible to walk around with a huge sword strapped to your back and not a word will be said Mages are supposed to be accompanied by a templar at all times unless they have special dispensation from the crown yet again, nobody says jack if you are wearing mage robes and wielding a huge staff in the middle of Denerim.

[ArcaneJTM]

Silfren, you're kinda going back and forth and contradicting yourself.

Bleachrude wrote...

In DA:O, your "wardeness" overwrote any racial problems that you should experience...now, how the gameworld could TELL you were a warden is another question (it's played for laughs at the docks to kinloch hold but the templar was the ONLY one in the entire game that actually acted smart in asking fro proof)

For example, the lore states that elves can not carry swords in Ferelden yet it is quite possible to walk around with a huge sword strapped to your back and not a word will be said Mages are supposed to be accompanied by a templar at all times unless they have special dispensation from the crown yet again, nobody says jack if you are wearing mage robes and wielding a huge staff in the middle of Denerim.

I seem to recall a line from Doctor Who that dealt with this very issue.

Mickey: [after the Doctor explains why the TARDIS resembles a Police Public Call Box] But that's what I meant: there's no police boxes anymore, so doesn't it get noticed?
The Doctor: Ricky, let me tell you something about the human race. You put a mysterious blue box slap-bang in the middle of town, what do they do? Walk past it. Now stop your nagging. Let's go and explore.

People see what they want to see, and if something seems wrong, generally they just don't want to get involved or have bigger problems to worry about.  An elf walking around with a sword on his back is a problem for the guards, and the guards are more interested in when their next meal is coming.

Modifié par ArcaneJTM, 28 mai 2013 - 01:25 .

[Silfren]

ArcaneJTM wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

In DA:O, your "wardeness" overwrote any racial problems that you should experience...now, how the gameworld could TELL you were a warden is another question (it's played for laughs at the docks to kinloch hold but the templar was the ONLY one in the entire game that actually acted smart in asking fro proof)

For example, the lore states that elves can not carry swords in Ferelden yet it is quite possible to walk around with a huge sword strapped to your back and not a word will be said Mages are supposed to be accompanied by a templar at all times unless they have special dispensation from the crown yet again, nobody says jack if you are wearing mage robes and wielding a huge staff in the middle of Denerim.

I seem to recall a line from Doctor Who that dealt with this very issue.

Mickey: [after the Doctor explains why the TARDIS resembles a Police Public Call Box] But that's what I meant: there's no police boxes anymore, so doesn't it get noticed?
The Doctor: Ricky, let me tell you something about the human race. You put a mysterious blue box slap-bang in the middle of town, what do they do? Walk past it. Now stop your nagging. Let's go and explore.

People see what they want to see, and if something seems wrong, generally they just don't want to get involved or have bigger problems to worry about.  An elf walking around with a sword on his back is a problem for the guards, and the guards are more interested in when their next meal is coming.

You don't think this is a legitimate explanation, seriously?  Guards WOULD notice an elf walking about with a sword on their back, if that elf is in a location hostile to elves where elves are legally barred from carrying weapons.  It is precisely the sort of thing the guards are supposed to notice, and they are hardly going to fail to see it because they're worried about lunch.

Modifié par Silfren, 28 mai 2013 - 01:31 .

[ArcaneJTM]

Silfren wrote...

You don't think this is a legitimate explanation, seriously?  Guards WOULD notice an elf walking about with a sword on their back, if that elf is in a location hostile to elves where elves are legally barred from carrying weapons.

Not necessarilly.  Remember, you've got civil war, a blight, political turmoil, rampant crime, refugees, and a riot.  That's quite a lot to distract them from a simple weapons violation.  Not to mention the guard might just be tired and bored after standing guard all day long AND you are walking around in the company of three other well armed individuals, so you'd be more trouble than your worth, basically.  Plus, they know you're a warden.  They're at least smart enough to not pick a fight they know they can't win.

[Bleachrude]

Given that the alienage was locked down because of a riot, the Denerim guard would actually be EXTRA suspicious of any elf and an elf with a weapon should cause alarm bells in any person and not just the guards...

[Silfren]

ArcaneJTM wrote...

Silfren wrote...

You don't think this is a legitimate explanation, seriously?  Guards WOULD notice an elf walking about with a sword on their back, if that elf is in a location hostile to elves where elves are legally barred from carrying weapons.

Not necessarilly.  Remember, you've got civil war, a blight, political turmoil, rampant crime, refugees, and a riot.  That's quite a lot to distract them from a simple weapons violation.  Not to mention the guard might just be tired and bored after standing guard all day long AND you are walking around in the company of three other well armed individuals, so you'd be more trouble than your worth, basically.  Plus, they know you're a warden.  They're at least smart enough to not pick a fight they know they can't win.

An elf with a weapon in the alienage is a wee bit more than a simple weapons violation.  I can just about guarantee you that the reason for the law against it is due to fears of an elven uprising.  It's not something a guard is going to just not see, especially if there is civil unrest in the area, as in the case of the Denerim alienage.

If they know you're a Warden, that changes the situation entirely.  They can't legally harrass a Grey Warden elf for carrying a weapon.  But I'd argue that they WOULD harrass the elf right before learning that the elf was in fact a Warden--and, frankly, knowing human nature to be what it is I would be surprised if some guards at least didn't let the matter drop until they got a serious as*kicking or were disciplined by their superior.  Especially a place like Ferelden where the Wardens haven't been around long enough to have fostered goodwill among the general populace and a prominent noble is raising suspicion against them.

I actually meant some random elf with a weapon.  I don't believe for a moment that guards would actually fail to notice one, using some silly logic about people seeing what they want to see.  Assuming a guard is alert and paying attention there's no reason to say that they'd overlook an armed elf.  I figured being alert and paying attention was self-explanatory; if a guard is half-asleep or something, that's obviously a mitigating factor; but that's not what was suggested: what was is the idea that guards wouldn't see an armed elf because they would be more worried about their next meal.  This ignores that looking out for armed criminals would be exactly what a guard is supposed to do, so an armed elf is PRECISELY the thing they would be expected to notice, and not noticing is precisely the kind of failure that is likely to get that guard removed from duty and thereby miss a few meals.  Using that stupid logic you might as well say that guards are not likely to ever see any criminal activity going on, since of course most guards only care about their next meal.  I actually can't believe you can't see how ridiculous this justification is.  It's the kind of satirical scenario you'd see in Monty Python or a Discworld novel.

Modifié par Silfren, 28 mai 2013 - 02:00 .

[Melca36]

Silfren wrote...

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.

Exactly.  People really need to stop harping on this issue and not judge DA3 until AFTER they played it. 

It would be interesting for the PC to be able to make that choice too

[Melca36]

Nefla wrote...

Humans in Thedas are so boring. They're the privileged race and most similar to my real world culture. I hate being forced to be human when there are 3 much more interesting races in the lore.

Um...To you maybe. I enjoyed playing humans as well as the other races. You just have to use your imagination.

[Silfren]

Melca36 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

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.

Exactly.  People really need to stop harping on this issue and not judge DA3 until AFTER they played it. 

It would be interesting for the PC to be able to make that choice too

Let's not forget the many wonderful ways a person could be pretending to be a pro-Chantry character while they're actually plotting against it.  A long while back, in response to someone insisting that to be an Inquisitor you MUST be a pro-Chantry zealot and there's no way that being an Inquisitor can NOT mean being a pro-Chantry zealot, I made up a list of all the ways a person could be merely pretending to be such, or could start out pro-Chantry and end up being as anti-Chantry as it is possible to get, and that poor shmuck just couldn't wrap their head around the idea.  Granted, it does depend on the kind of choices we're given and how much roleplaying leeway the game allows, but assuming we have the same depth of choices available as were provided in Origins, there are plenty of ways a person could be an Inquisitor and not be pro-Chantry, even if the organization were connected with the Chantry itself. 

If the game allows us the freedom to do so, then not being able to see how one can be an Inquisitor and not be pro-Chantry amounts to nothing more than a failure of imagination.

[ArcaneJTM]

@Silfren,

I think you're giving the typical city guardsman too much credit.  The high paid elite guard might be more likely take issue with it, but they are also more likely to be guarding restricted areas anyway, in which case they are more concerned that you are there than how pointy your ears are.  You're run of the mill low paid "beat cop" of a city guardsman isn't as dedicated to his job.  I believe the sergent in the market district even bemoans this fact, saying he gets to take care of lord such and such's imbecilic, snot nosed bastard sons who'd run away crying if he ordered them to apprehend you.

And we're not actually talking about "some random elf" here.  It's the warden, and again, he's in the company of three other individuals, only one of which might also be an elf, and a good chance that theres a golem or a giant among them.

[Fast Jimmy]

Exactly. People really need to stop harping on this issue and not judge DA3 until AFTER they played it.

So... people should shell out money to find out if they will be forced to play something they find abhorrent?


Yeah... how about no. If Bioware isn't ABUNDANTLY clear about a LOT of things before DA3 comes out, they will find many fans not bothering. The days of "play and find out" with Bioware games is, for me, long gone. Just like with all other developers, if what they tell me about the game before I play it doesn't interest me, I'm not going to make the gamble.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 mai 2013 - 02:26 .

[Silfren]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Exactly. People really need to stop harping on this issue and not judge DA3 until AFTER they played it.

So... people should shell out money to find out if they will be forced to play something they find abhorrent?

Er, it's ALREADY been stated clearly by Bioware that you will NOT have to play a pro-Chantry zealot.  Did you miss that part of the discussion?

Yeah... how about no. If Bioware isn't ABUNDANTLY clear about a LOT of things before DA3 comes out, they will find many fans not bothering. The days of "play and find out" with Bioware games is, for me, long gone. Just like with all other developers, if what they tell me about the game before I play it doesn't interest me, I'm not going to make the gamble.

The statement was that people should wait to judge DA3 until AFTER they have played it.  They'll be able to pick out enough details from other players already playing the game, such details as whether you are forced into certain roles or not, but as for deciding for yourself whether you'll hate or love the game, you CANNOT do this without having played it. 

Personally I find all these implied threats about Bioware losing customers if they don't do X, Y, and Z to be yawn worthy.  Plenty of people loved DA2 and will happily buy DA3.  I'm a little tired of the people who hated it thinking that they speak for the entire fanbase.

Modifié par Silfren, 28 mai 2013 - 02:40 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Silfren wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Exactly. People really need to stop harping on this issue and not judge DA3 until AFTER they played it.

So... people should shell out money to find out if they will be forced to play something they find abhorrent?

Er, it's ALREADY been stated clearly by Bioware that you will NOT have to play a pro-Chantry zealot.  Did you miss that part of the discussion?

I did not miss that part of this discussion. Nor did I miss it when the dev actually said it the first time.

That same dev (Gaider) also said that they never allowed to play an atheist character in any of their previous games. Or that when they had Hawke express Chantry views (she's with the Maker now) that that counted as making Hawke pro-Andrastian.

So... forgive me for not having the 100% most rock-solid belief that all definitions and standards are the same when someone says you don't have to be pro-Chantry.

Yeah... how about no. If Bioware isn't ABUNDANTLY clear about a LOT of things before DA3 comes out, they will find many fans not bothering. The days of "play and find out" with Bioware games is, for me, long gone. Just like with all other developers, if what they tell me about the game before I play it doesn't interest me, I'm not going to make the gamble.

The statement was that people should wait to judge DA3 until AFTER they have played it.  They'll be able to pick out enough details from other players already playing the game, such details as whether you are forced into certain roles or not, but as for deciding for yourself whether you'll hate or love the game, you CANNOT do this without having played it. 

Personally I find all these implied threats about Bioware losing customers if they don't do X, Y, and Z to be yawn worthy.  Plenty of people loved DA2 and will happily buy DA3.  I'm a little tired of the people who hated it thinking that they speak for the entire fanbase.

I find your feigned sense of being offended on behalf of Bioware similarly yawn-worthy, for what it's worth. 

I agree that no one should say they love or hate DA3 until they played it, but that's not the point of discussion. The game is making us play as human for story reasons. Hypothetically, this is due to the fact that the character will be part of the Inquisition, an organization tied (at least somewhat loosely) to the human-dominated Andrastian Chantry.

If the Chantry doesn't control the Inquisition, then why limit the racial option? If the game will let you play as an anti-Chantry character, then why should it matter if you are human or a nug? 

To tell someone that they should wait until they play the game to make such questions of logic, especially when those questions are an integral part of their experience and enjoyment of the game, is blind. It is not a matter of "they better tell me or PRE-ORDER CANCELLED!" It is a matter of the premise of the game sounding not appealing at all, so if the way the game has been framed narratively up to this point is incorrect, then some clarification is greatly needed.

[Silfren]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Exactly. People really need to stop harping on this issue and not judge DA3 until AFTER they played it.

So... people should shell out money to find out if they will be forced to play something they find abhorrent?

Er, it's ALREADY been stated clearly by Bioware that you will NOT have to play a pro-Chantry zealot.  Did you miss that part of the discussion?

I did not miss that part of this discussion. Nor did I miss it when the dev actually said it the first time.

That same dev (Gaider) also said that they never allowed to play an atheist character in any of their previous games. Or that when they had Hawke express Chantry views (she's with the Maker now) that that counted as making Hawke pro-Andrastian.

So... forgive me for not having the 100% most rock-solid belief that all definitions and standards are the same when someone says you don't have to be pro-Chantry.

Yeah... how about no. If Bioware isn't ABUNDANTLY clear about a LOT of things before DA3 comes out, they will find many fans not bothering. The days of "play and find out" with Bioware games is, for me, long gone. Just like with all other developers, if what they tell me about the game before I play it doesn't interest me, I'm not going to make the gamble.

The statement was that people should wait to judge DA3 until AFTER they have played it.  They'll be able to pick out enough details from other players already playing the game, such details as whether you are forced into certain roles or not, but as for deciding for yourself whether you'll hate or love the game, you CANNOT do this without having played it. 

Personally I find all these implied threats about Bioware losing customers if they don't do X, Y, and Z to be yawn worthy.  Plenty of people loved DA2 and will happily buy DA3.  I'm a little tired of the people who hated it thinking that they speak for the entire fanbase.

I find your feigned sense of being offended on behalf of Bioware similarly yawn-worthy, for what it's worth. 

I agree that no one should say they love or hate DA3 until they played it, but that's not the point of discussion. The game is making us play as human for story reasons. Hypothetically, this is due to the fact that the character will be part of the Inquisition, an organization tied (at least somewhat loosely) to the human-dominated Andrastian Chantry.

If the Chantry doesn't control the Inquisition, then why limit the racial option? If the game will let you play as an anti-Chantry character, then why should it matter if you are human or a nug? 

To tell someone that they should wait until they play the game to make such questions of logic, especially when those questions are an integral part of their experience and enjoyment of the game, is blind. It is not a matter of "they better tell me or PRE-ORDER CANCELLED!" It is a matter of the premise of the game sounding not appealing at all, so if the way the game has been framed narratively up to this point is incorrect, then some clarification is greatly needed.

Feigned sense of being offended on Bioware's behalf?  Please.  Bioware doesn't need me to defend it; I'm quite capable of having opinions for my own sake than "feigning offense" on anyone's behalf at all.

If Bioware has said that the reasons for restricting the choice to human-only is because the Inquisition will be tied in some way to the Chantry, then so be it.  That doesn't mean that the individual character would necessarily have to be pro-Chantry, of course, so it's not a contradiction on Bioware's part to have said this.  But whether it's tied to the Chantry or not, I think a good reason for the protagonist to be human is simply because it is primarily a human conflict.  Obviously it does have ramifications for other races, but not in the same direct way.  The Chantry is a human institution, as are the Templars.  Elf mages who lived in Circles will be affected, obviously, but nevertheless it remains a primarily human conflict.

[kinderschlager]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Discuss how this makes you feel here.

Be civil to one another.  Respect that other people have differing opinions, and this works both ways.  So if you LIKE this decision, respect that others are disappointed by it.

Rather than closing threads I'll try talking with posters whom I think are crossing the line.

yeah, i would hate this, as i got into the DA series BECAUSE of the ability to be whatever i wanted. DA2 was "OK"  but it wasn't great.  this sounds like EA being lazy more than bioware making a good story