3855 réponses à ce sujet

[Sable Rhapsody]

Icinix wrote...

Maybe AAA developers should start reaching for the stars...

Dig through dialogue trees for an engine as mod-friendly as Infinity or Aurora and see if you feel the same way 

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Other than the usual suspects of  the BioWare catalogue, name me a game that has the choice of race as a major factor in the storyline.

How is whether other developers do it relevant at all?  My point would still be valid even if BioWare had never allowed race selection.

That seems to be the biggest issue in the end. Not so much that race never mattered, but moreso the fact that its difficult to make race matter.

 
Only because they insist on defining "matter" as "makes a visible difference within the authored narrative".

That's a stupid definition.

Every choice in a roleplaying game potentially matters.  Playing a dwarf or an elf PC can change how your PC interprets the events around him.  How he reacts to various NPCs.  It's the PC behaviour that is affected by race selection, and that's what we lose by having a fixed race.

I don't happen to think the fixed race in DA3 is a particularly big deal.  This is literally the only cost I see.

Choice can mean other things. They talk about origin stories again being akin to backgrounds, so it would be like your school of training in Jade Empire, or your starting class in Neverwinter Nights, that helps define the character more than the characters race does. You could argue thats a fair substitute, as it may pertain to chosen class or initial personality or even contacts you have at the beginning of your inquisition.

They may well make up for it with the backgrounds, if the backgrounds are done sufficiently well (the ME model is not something they should copy), but they could probably do even better by leaving the backgrounds out and allowing every PC to be a mysterious stranger (or, better still, making mysterious stranger an available background option). 

For me, race in all honesty works best in tabletops, but has always had issues in making them meaningful in a game design sense, other than stat bonuses and tips to the hat via side-conversations.

Not to mention the differing aging rates and level limits.

It's not that its a missing choice, but I have yet to see it as a meaningful one.

All choices are potentially meaningful.

The divide between a story-driven RPG and a free-form RPG doesn't exist.  They're all just roleplaying games.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:02 .

[Rawgrim]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
The fact that DA:O has 4 different endings, means the choices in that game has just as little impact on the ending as in a game with just 1 ending?

Your character dying at the end of DA:O is pretty significant. If he creates an old god baby is pretty significant. the PC becoming a king or queen is significant. Placing alistair on the throne is also significant.

Killing Meredith before orsino, or vice versa isn`t significant at all.

Just because it turns up in the ending slides doesn't mean it's significant for the world or the plot.

Who you romance, whether you die, who's on the throne in Denerim or Orzammar, etc.: none of that matters for the main plot.  The main plot for each Warden is exactly the same--kill Archdemon, go to four places, solve problem, save country.  And the effect the Warden has on the world is almost identical except for a few slides in DA:O and sidequests in DA2.  Besides, the devs themselves said the DA:O slides aren't canonical.

The illusiion is there to give us room to roleplay the protagonist, to make it feel like each character is unique.  Just because Wardens and Hawkes vary wildly in appearance, personality, motives, and actions doesn't mean those differences are significant for the plot.

Can you imagine what a mess the games would be if your decisions WERE actually significant?  If every semi-important roleplaying decision led to a branching plot point that drastically affected subsequent events in DA:O and DA2?  Everyone would play a different game, with literally millions of permutations.  That might be the ideal, but it's certainly never happened short of a homebrew.

WhiteThunder wrote...

Even when there was little effect on the main plot in Origins, there was a real sense that what you were doing was affecting these peoples' lives.

Bolded emphasis mine.  It's a SENSE that you're important to the world and the plot.  Whether you actually are is irrelevant.  It's an illusion of importance and significance.  Every RPG uses it to draw us in.  The question is how to maintain the illusion while keeping the plotline as cohesive and non-branching as possible.

You mean like how Fallout New Las Vegas and The Witcher games lets every choice be important to the continuation of the story? Yeah, I have played both and some other games that managed to do it too. None of them ended up being a mess.

[Monica21]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Key words: "doesn't seem" were used. Since the Andrastian Chantry vilified magic and mages for nearly a thousand years, Andrastians kill mages in lynch mobs, mages are legally forced into the Circles of Magi unless they are members of the Grey Wardens, and Chantry law prohibits them from inheriting a title and serving leadership positions, I'm going out on a limb here and saying it doesn't seem to make much sense.

Okay, then. You're a mage in a game titled "Inquisition." I'm halfway through Asunder and Rhys, Adriana and Wynne are all traveling with a Templar at the directive of the Divine. (And unless no one has bothered to answer my repeated pleas, there's still no evidence that the PC is the Inquisitor.) We do know that you'll be traveling again though and one of your companions is Cullen. So why couldn't the mage get roped into an inquest in the same way a mage got roped into being a Warden?

[LinksOcarina]

Rawgrim wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Minimal is still better than Zero.

The plot choices in DA2 (the mage/templar conflict, the Arishok's fate, Feynriel, what happens to sibling, etc.) have about as much effect on the main plot as the quest hub choices in DA:O did--which is to say, very little at all.

It's fluff.  And that's fine.  It's just a matter of how much fluff players consider necessary to maintain the illusion, and that varies from player to player.  But there's no point in pretending "choice" in BioWare's games is usually anything significant to the plot.

The fact that DA:O has 4 different endings, means the choices in that game has just as little impact on the ending as in a game with just 1 ending?

Your character dying at the end of DA:O is pretty significant. If he creates an old god baby is pretty significant. the PC becoming a king or queen is significant. Placing alistair on the throne is also significant.

Killing Meredith before orsino, or vice versa isn`t significant at all.

It's the implications leading up to the ending that matter more, over the ending result. To say its not significant is correct, but do dismiss it because of the supposed lack of impact is foolish. 

Sound familiar, by the way? 

To dismiss choices that doesn`t matter at all is foolish? If something has no consequence, it gets dismissed. Pretty common practice.

Ok.

The endings to Origin can be dismissed as well, since the consequences for them have not materialized either, from the ritual to who was the right choice for the throne, to the death/dissapearance of the Warden.

By this logic, both games have poor endings.

the issue to me seems like one of not thinking that far ahead. We know that morrigan will show up eventually, we know that the dark ritual will come into play somehow, or be mentioned. We know the Warden will get a moment as well, if they are still alive. And we know the ruler of Ferelden, and how they rule, will be important if there is a war going on.

We don't see the effects at all. were told them yes, but that is fluff because the game series goes on, and may possibly contradict later games, as we have seen, especially major storylines. That does not excuse it in my book.

If you mean to say that the endings of the two games within each other are supposed to be meaningful, then you have an argument that I can't refute. But were dealing with a series of choices here, so we may need to think fourth dimensonally for a bit. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:04 .

[Rawgrim]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Other than the usual suspects of  the BioWare catalogue, name me a game that has the choice of race as a major factor in the storyline.

How is whether other developers do it relevant at all?  My point would still be valid even if BioWare had never allowed race selection.

That seems to be the biggest issue in the end. Not so much that race never mattered, but moreso the fact that its difficult to make race matter.

 
Only because they insist on defining "matter" as "makes a visible difference within the authored narrative".

That's a stupid definition.

Every choice in a roleplaying game potentially matters.  Playing a dwarf or an elf PC can change how your PC interprets the events around him.  How he reacts to various NPCs.  It's the PC behaviour that is affected by race selection, and that's what we lose by having a fixed race.

I don't happen to think the fixed race in DA3 is a particularly big deal.  This is literally the only cost I see.

Choice can mean other things. They talk about origin stories again being akin to backgrounds, so it would be like your school of training in Jade Empire, or your starting class in Neverwinter Nights, that helps define the character more than the characters race does. You could argue thats a fair substitute, as it may pertain to chosen class or initial personality or even contacts you have at the beginning of your inquisition.

They may well make up for it with the backgrounds, if the backgrounds are done sufficiently well (the ME model is not something they should copy), but they could probably do even better by leaving the backgrounds out and allowing every PC to be a mysterious stranger (or, better still, making mysterious stranger an available background option). 

For me, race in all honesty works best in tabletops, but has always had issues in making them meaningful in a game design sense, other than stat bonuses and tips to the hat via side-conversations.

Not to mention the differing aging rates and level limits.

It's not that its a missing choice, but I have yet to see it as a meaningful one.

All choices are potentially meaningful.

The divide between a story-driven RPG and a free-form RPG doesn't exist.  They're all just roleplaying games.

Vampire the Masquarade: Bloodlines. The vamp race you pick there has a major impact on the storyline.

[Maria Caliban]

Monica21 wrote...

...there's still no evidence that the PC is the Inquisitor...

There's the leaked survey.

Even if you 'don't trust' it, it's still evidence. It's just not sufficient evidence.

[MorningBird]

Rawgrim wrote...

The BethanyCarver lives isn`t your choice at all. Hawke doesn`t get to influence, in game, wich of them gets bashed by the ogre. Its a default based on your class.

You completely misread.  I said in regards to the Deep Roads.  I never mentioned the escape from Lothering... at all.

As a player, you do get to choose whether or not to bring them (and Anders) into the Deep Roads.  Therefore, your choices determine whether or not they end up dead, a Warden, Templar, or in the Circle.

Rawgrim wrote...
As for the Deep Road bit, you can influence some of it, but you can`t prevent them getting infected if you bring them there. It happens by default too.

So?  There's plenty of stuff you can't avoid in DAO as well... No matter what you decide, Connor is always going to be possessed before you get to Redcliffe.  Wynne is always going to get possessed by the 'Spirit of Faith' in the Broken Circle.  Is your argument that this was okay in one game but not the other?

Rawgrim wrote...
Harrowmount is in Kirkwall? Never saw him.

Act 1, by the docks.  Not THE Harrowmont from DAO, but a relative (nephew, if I remember correctly.) You can choose to either help him escape the Carta, or help the Carta kill him.

Behlen needs to be on the throne for this to occur.

Rawgrim wrote...
Feynriel can end up as alot of things, yes. Does any of those choices have impact on the ending? Nope.

Actually, it does.  If you allow Feynriel to escape to Tevinter, he learns to control his powers by Act 3, and later saves a girl who has been abducted from being raped by her captors. =/

If you let him become an abomination, well... lots of fun to be had there too.

DA2 doesn't have the benefit of epilogue cards, so the consquences of your actions are shown rather than told.

Rawgrim wrote...
Same goes for Merrill`s clan. She actually even stays with you no matter what you do. Impossible to get rid of her.

Do you honestly believe that wiping out Merrill's entire clan isn't going to crop up somewhere down the line?  If you sided with the werewolves in DAO and wiped out the Dalish clan there, it was reflected in DA3.  I'm not psychic or anything, but if it mattered in one game, I can't see it being arbitrary in another.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Rawgrim wrote...
You mean like how Fallout New Las Vegas and The Witcher games lets every choice be important to the continuation of the story? Yeah, I have played both and some other games that managed to do it too. None of them ended up being a mess.

Fallout: NV had no sequels to worry about.  The Witcher had a set protagonist.  Neither game's situation is directly comparable to the one BioWare faces in DA3.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you and I mean different things by importance of choice.  You seem to consider choice ITSELF to be significant, a game in which you can do almost anything and be almost anyone. I'm talking about whether the core plot of a game changes to reflect what you do/do not perform in-game.  A lot of people seem to confuse the two, and I'm simply trying to be clear.

Being able to choose things and having those choices impact the plot are two very different things.  As a player (and PC) the experience is different when given a lot of choice, but the plot and world usually change very little.

[Gatt9]

ejustinp wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I saw another user make a very good point earlier. As gamers grow older, they have less time for gaming, and less money to spend on games as well. Replayability is key. if the game has very poor replayability, 60 bucks for a game is pretty damn expensive if you only get 30 hours of play from it.

Limiting the character options limits the replayability.

Dragon Age Origins was only finished by something like 39% of players so I don't know how much this holds up.

Those are numbers that are likely datamined from achievements on X-box Live,  which is pretty much pointless considering the target market for DAO was the PC.

On topic:

DAO outsold DA2 by a very large margin.  In any other industry,  the takeaway would be "Our redesign didn't work,  out next attempt should be much more like the original".

So I'm a little fuzzy on why Bioware/EA is sticking with the highly consolized design of DA2.  At this point,  it literally looks beligerent,  "You're going to take this "Streamlined" type of game and like it!".

This is not going to end well.

[Rawgrim]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Minimal is still better than Zero.

The plot choices in DA2 (the mage/templar conflict, the Arishok's fate, Feynriel, what happens to sibling, etc.) have about as much effect on the main plot as the quest hub choices in DA:O did--which is to say, very little at all.

It's fluff.  And that's fine.  It's just a matter of how much fluff players consider necessary to maintain the illusion, and that varies from player to player.  But there's no point in pretending "choice" in BioWare's games is usually anything significant to the plot.

The fact that DA:O has 4 different endings, means the choices in that game has just as little impact on the ending as in a game with just 1 ending?

Your character dying at the end of DA:O is pretty significant. If he creates an old god baby is pretty significant. the PC becoming a king or queen is significant. Placing alistair on the throne is also significant.

Killing Meredith before orsino, or vice versa isn`t significant at all.

It's the implications leading up to the ending that matter more, over the ending result. To say its not significant is correct, but do dismiss it because of the supposed lack of impact is foolish. 

Sound familiar, by the way? 

To dismiss choices that doesn`t matter at all is foolish? If something has no consequence, it gets dismissed. Pretty common practice.

Ok.

The endings to Origin can be dismissed as well, since the consequences for them have not materialized either, from the ritual to who was the right choice for the throne, to the death/dissapearance of the Warden.

By this logic, both games have poor endings.

the issue to me seems like one of not thinking that far ahead. We know that morrigan will show up eventually, we know that the dark ritual will come into play somehow, or be mentioned. We know the Warden will get a moment as well, if they are still alive. And we know the ruler of Ferelden, and how they rule, will be important if there is a war going on.

We don't see the effects at all. were told them yes, but that is fluff because the game series goes on, and may possibly contradict later games, as we have seen, especially major storylines. That does not excuse it in my book.

If you mean to say that the endings of the two games within each other are supposed to be meaningful, then you have an argument that I can't refute. But were dealing with a series of choices here, so we may need to think fourth dimensonally for a bit. 

didn`t notice what Alistair, as king, did for the Mage Circle in Ferelden, did you? Pretty substansial impact right there. The Archdemon being dead...meaning there is no blight in Kirkwall...also a pretty hands on impact.

[Icinix]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Maybe AAA developers should start reaching for the stars...

Dig through dialogue trees for an engine as mod-friendly as Infinity or Aurora and see if you feel the same way 

lol - I did try doing a choice driven text based adventure in Python once - I worked on it for ages and ages and it was going pretty well until work took over my life.

Regardless - with todays staffing levels and budgets - maybes its time for gaming to really take that big next step. There hasn't been a lot of big gameplay / story telling innovations in the AAA gaming space for years, rather Indie is leading the way.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Icinix wrote...
lol - I did try doing a choice driven text based adventure in Python once - I worked on it for ages and ages and it was going pretty well until work took over my life.

Regardless - with todays staffing levels and budgets - maybes its time for gaming to really take that big next step. There hasn't been a lot of big gameplay / story telling innovations in the AAA gaming space for years, rather Indie is leading the way.

Then call me a pessimist.  Or a realist if you're being charitable 

It just boils down to math.  If choice 1 leads to plot branches 1 and 2, and each of those plot branches lead to two more discrete plot branches, and so on and so on, you get vast amounts of branching.  That's even a very simplistic example with only two choices per decision.  And if each of those branches were ACTUALLY discrete (ie; saving the Circle led to a completely different quest chain vs. anulling it), you'd have a very big mess very soon.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:11 .

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Other than the usual suspects of  the BioWare catalogue, name me a game that has the choice of race as a major factor in the storyline.

How is whether other developers do it relevant at all?  My point would still be valid even if BioWare had never allowed race selection.

That seems to be the biggest issue in the end. Not so much that race never mattered, but moreso the fact that its difficult to make race matter.

 
Only because they insist on defining "matter" as "makes a visible difference within the authored narrative".

That's a stupid definition.

Every choice in a roleplaying game potentially matters.  Playing a dwarf or an elf PC can change how your PC interprets the events around him.  How he reacts to various NPCs.  It's the PC behaviour that is affected by race selection, and that's what we lose by having a fixed race.

I don't happen to think the fixed race in DA3 is a particularly big deal.  This is literally the only cost I see.

Choice can mean other things. They talk about origin stories again being akin to backgrounds, so it would be like your school of training in Jade Empire, or your starting class in Neverwinter Nights, that helps define the character more than the characters race does. You could argue thats a fair substitute, as it may pertain to chosen class or initial personality or even contacts you have at the beginning of your inquisition.

They may well make up for it with the backgrounds, if the backgrounds are done sufficiently well (the ME model is not something they should copy), but they could probably do even better by leaving the backgrounds out and allowing every PC to be a mysterious stranger (or, better still, making mysterious stranger an available background option). 

For me, race in all honesty works best in tabletops, but has always had issues in making them meaningful in a game design sense, other than stat bonuses and tips to the hat via side-conversations.

Not to mention the differing aging rates and level limits.

It's not that its a missing choice, but I have yet to see it as a meaningful one.

All choices are potentially meaningful.

The divide between a story-driven RPG and a free-form RPG doesn't exist.  They're all just roleplaying games.

The first point is relevant because people point to other games where race is an option, but not a meaningful choice.

And i hate to point it out, but all choices can be meaningful, but that doesn't mean they will, or should be.I see a lot of people upset over not having the choice of what race they want to play. But this I say, why? Does the choice of race really matter so much in a story driven game? It obviously does matter because we want it to matter, but in game design how can it matter is the better question.

It's easy to say every choice matters, but its impossible to implement because then, there is no structure for the game to be founded on. It's a disconnect that games will have to some degree. Some cope better than others though, we can agree on that.

Its easy to make choices matter in a tabletop because players have a degree of control, and a good GM would be able to improvise scenarios off script when necessary. Its difficult for story-driven games because the story takes precedence over gameplay, so choices are sacrificed. This is where that divide comes in. They may all be RPGs, but not everyone would see them equal, which I personally find stupid. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:14 .

[Rawgrim]

MorningBird wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

The BethanyCarver lives isn`t your choice at all. Hawke doesn`t get to influence, in game, wich of them gets bashed by the ogre. Its a default based on your class.

You completely misread.  I said in regards to the Deep Roads.  I never mentioned the escape from Lothering... at all.

As a player, you do get to choose whether or not to bring them (and Anders) into the Deep Roads.  Therefore, your choices determine whether or not they end up dead, a Warden, Templar, or in the Circle.

Rawgrim wrote...
As for the Deep Road bit, you can influence some of it, but you can`t prevent them getting infected if you bring them there. It happens by default too.

So?  There's plenty of stuff you can't avoid in DAO as well... No matter what you decide, Connor is always going to be possessed before you get to Redcliffe.  Wynne is always going to get possessed by the 'Spirit of Faith' in the Broken Circle.  Is your argument that this was okay in one game but not the other?

Rawgrim wrote...
Harrowmount is in Kirkwall? Never saw him.

Act 1, by the docks.  Not THE Harrowmont from DAO, but a relative (nephew, if I remember correctly.) You can choose to either help him escape the Carta, or help the Carta kill him.

Behlen needs to be on the throne for this to occur.

Rawgrim wrote...
Feynriel can end up as alot of things, yes. Does any of those choices have impact on the ending? Nope.

Actually, it does.  If you allow Feynriel to escape to Tevinter, he learns to control his powers by Act 3, and later saves a girl who has been abducted from being raped by her captors. =/

If you let him become an abomination, well... lots of fun to be had there too.

DA2 doesn't have the benefit of epilogue cards, so the consquences of your actions are shown rather than told.

Rawgrim wrote...
Same goes for Merrill`s clan. She actually even stays with you no matter what you do. Impossible to get rid of her.

Do you honestly believe that wiping out Merrill's entire clan isn't going to crop up somewhere down the line?  If you sided with the werewolves in DAO and wiped out the Dalish clan there, it was reflected in DA3.  I'm not psychic or anything, but if it mattered in one game, I can't see it being arbitrary in another.

1. I know you didn`t say it was when they flee the blight. I just added that bit as another example.

2. in the deep roads, unless you allready know what is going to happen, you can`t really know if Carver will become a warden if Anders is there with them. Thats metagaming.

3. Conner is possessed BEFORE he meets the Warden. He can`t do anything about that. Same goes for the Wynne example. That actually happened before the Warden was BORN. However the Bethany\\Carver being infected in the deep roads happens on his watch. And there is nothing at all he can do about it.

4. And if the girl actually gets raped, will this have a negative impact on the story at all? Or influence the ending in some way?

5. Nobody knows who wiped out her clan. Except Merrill herself, and she helped slaughter her own people. I doubt there will be consequences when the only witness was her.

[Sable Rhapsody]

LinksOcarina wrote...
And i hate to point it out, but all choices can be meaningful, but that doesn't mean they will, or should be.I see a lot of people upset over not having the choice of what race they want to play. But this I say, why? Does the choice of race really matter so much in a story driven game? It obviously does matter because we want it to matter, but in game design how can it matter is the better question.

+1.  Of course every decision matters to us, the players.  The job of the devs is to sort out what can and should matter to the plot and the world.

[Icinix]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Icinix wrote...
lol - I did try doing a choice driven text based adventure in Python once - I worked on it for ages and ages and it was going pretty well until work took over my life.

Regardless - with todays staffing levels and budgets - maybes its time for gaming to really take that big next step. There hasn't been a lot of big gameplay / story telling innovations in the AAA gaming space for years, rather Indie is leading the way.

Then call me a pessimist.  Or a realist if you're being charitable 

It just boils down to math.  If choice 1 leads to plot branches 1 and 2, and each of those plot branches lead to two more discrete plot branches, and so on and so on, you get vast amounts of branching.  That's even a very simplistic example with only two choices per decision.  And if each of those branches were ACTUALLY discrete (ie; saving the Circle led to a completely different quest chain vs. anulling it), you'd have a very big mess very soon.

Oh look for sure - it would difficult and a lot of work - but not impossible. Mass Effect 3 handled it quite well. The Witcher 2 handled it very well as well. Just no-one is prepared to pull out all the stops yet.

I think we're nearing the time when it will happen though - even if its just in a singular game as opposed to a trilogy or a duology.

Although if you're telling me you don't think it will ever happen - then its definitely pessimist

[WhiteThunder]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
The fact that DA:O has 4 different endings, means the choices in that game has just as little impact on the ending as in a game with just 1 ending?

Your character dying at the end of DA:O is pretty significant. If he creates an old god baby is pretty significant. the PC becoming a king or queen is significant. Placing alistair on the throne is also significant.

Killing Meredith before orsino, or vice versa isn`t significant at all.

Just because it turns up in the ending slides doesn't mean it's significant for the world or the plot.

Who you romance, whether you die, who's on the throne in Denerim or Orzammar, etc.: none of that matters for the main plot.  The main plot for each Warden is exactly the same--kill Archdemon, go to four places, solve problem, save country.  And the effect the Warden has on the world is almost identical except for a few slides in DA:O and sidequests in DA2.  Besides, the devs themselves said the DA:O slides aren't canonical.

The illusiion is there to give us room to roleplay the protagonist, to make it feel like each character is unique.  Just because Wardens and Hawkes vary wildly in appearance, personality, motives, and actions doesn't mean those differences are significant for the plot.

Can you imagine what a mess the games would be if your decisions WERE actually significant?  If every semi-important roleplaying decision led to a branching plot point that drastically affected subsequent events in DA:O and DA2?  Everyone would play a different game, with literally millions of permutations.  That might be the ideal, but it's certainly never happened short of a homebrew.

WhiteThunder wrote...

Even when there was little effect on the main plot in Origins, there was a real sense that what you were doing was affecting these peoples' lives.

Bolded emphasis mine.  It's a SENSE that you're important to the world and the plot.  Whether you actually are is irrelevant.  It's an illusion of importance and significance.  Every RPG uses it to draw us in.  The question is how to maintain the illusion while keeping the plotline as cohesive and non-branching as possible.

Is The Witcher 2 a homebrew?  How about King of Dragon Pass?

Is the slaughter of an entire tribe of Dalish Elves insignificant to the world?  What about the reclamation of the Deep Roads?  The ruler of Ferelden?  The purging of a circle?   The discovery of the Holy Grail?  Whether the Commander of Vigil's Keep is a Fereldan or an Orlesian?  All of these are much more significant than "Killing Orsino and then killing Meredith and starting a Civil War" vs.  "Killing Orsino and then killing Meredith and starting a Civil War."  Likewise for "Getting rich in the Deep Roads" vs. "Getting rich in the Deep Roads" or "Killing the Arishok after he declares war on Kirkwall and Isabela lives" vs. "Surrendering Isabela to the Arishok after he declares war on Kirkwall and Isabela lives"

[Rawgrim]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Other than the usual suspects of  the BioWare catalogue, name me a game that has the choice of race as a major factor in the storyline.

How is whether other developers do it relevant at all?  My point would still be valid even if BioWare had never allowed race selection.

That seems to be the biggest issue in the end. Not so much that race never mattered, but moreso the fact that its difficult to make race matter.

 
Only because they insist on defining "matter" as "makes a visible difference within the authored narrative".

That's a stupid definition.

Every choice in a roleplaying game potentially matters.  Playing a dwarf or an elf PC can change how your PC interprets the events around him.  How he reacts to various NPCs.  It's the PC behaviour that is affected by race selection, and that's what we lose by having a fixed race.

I don't happen to think the fixed race in DA3 is a particularly big deal.  This is literally the only cost I see.

Choice can mean other things. They talk about origin stories again being akin to backgrounds, so it would be like your school of training in Jade Empire, or your starting class in Neverwinter Nights, that helps define the character more than the characters race does. You could argue thats a fair substitute, as it may pertain to chosen class or initial personality or even contacts you have at the beginning of your inquisition.

They may well make up for it with the backgrounds, if the backgrounds are done sufficiently well (the ME model is not something they should copy), but they could probably do even better by leaving the backgrounds out and allowing every PC to be a mysterious stranger (or, better still, making mysterious stranger an available background option). 

For me, race in all honesty works best in tabletops, but has always had issues in making them meaningful in a game design sense, other than stat bonuses and tips to the hat via side-conversations.

Not to mention the differing aging rates and level limits.

It's not that its a missing choice, but I have yet to see it as a meaningful one.

All choices are potentially meaningful.

The divide between a story-driven RPG and a free-form RPG doesn't exist.  They're all just roleplaying games.

The first point is relevant because people point to other games where race is an option, but not a meaningful choice.

And i hate to point it out, but all choices can be meaningful, but that doesn't mean they will, or should be.I see a lot of people upset over not having the choice of what race they want to play. But this I say, why? Does the choice of race really matter so much in a story driven game? It obviously does matter because we want it to matter, but in game design how can it matter is the better question.

It's easy to say every choice matters, but its impossible to implement because then, there is no structure for the game to be founded on. It's a disconnect that games will have to some degree. Some cope better than others though, we can agree on that.

Its easy to make choices matter in a tabletop because players have a degree of control, and a good GM would be able to improvise scenarios off script when necessary. Its difficult for story-driven games because the story takes precedence over gameplay, so choices are sacrificed. This is where that divide comes in. They may all be RPGs, but not everyone would see them equal, which I personally find stupid. 

i belive I gave you an example of a game where you choice of race has a meaningful impact on the story. You just ignored it. I will tell you again, though. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

[LinksOcarina]

Rawgrim wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

To dismiss choices that doesn`t matter at all is foolish? If something has no consequence, it gets dismissed. Pretty common practice.

Ok.

The endings to Origin can be dismissed as well, since the consequences for them have not materialized either, from the ritual to who was the right choice for the throne, to the death/dissapearance of the Warden.

By this logic, both games have poor endings.

the issue to me seems like one of not thinking that far ahead. We know that morrigan will show up eventually, we know that the dark ritual will come into play somehow, or be mentioned. We know the Warden will get a moment as well, if they are still alive. And we know the ruler of Ferelden, and how they rule, will be important if there is a war going on.

We don't see the effects at all. were told them yes, but that is fluff because the game series goes on, and may possibly contradict later games, as we have seen, especially major storylines. That does not excuse it in my book.

If you mean to say that the endings of the two games within each other are supposed to be meaningful, then you have an argument that I can't refute. But were dealing with a series of choices here, so we may need to think fourth dimensonally for a bit. 

didn`t notice what Alistair, as king, did for the Mage Circle in Ferelden, did you? Pretty substansial impact right there. The Archdemon being dead...meaning there is no blight in Kirkwall...also a pretty hands on impact.

So you got two things, color me unimpressed.

If Dragon Age III makes the choices at the end of II meaningful, would you take this stance back? If letting Anders live and siding with the Mages becomes a major plot arc because of Hawkes decision, would you still think this way? I am curious now. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:17 .

[LobselVith8]

Monica21 wrote...

We know that you'll be traveling again though and one of your companions is Cullen. So why couldn't the mage get roped into an inquest in the same way a mage got roped into being a Warden?

Are you suggesting that the mage protagonist is going to be coerced into working for the Divine? Because I find the prospect of working for the Chantry repellant. And given your hypothetical scenario, why couldn't an Elven or Dwarven protagonist get roped into the narrative?

[Rawgrim]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

To dismiss choices that doesn`t matter at all is foolish? If something has no consequence, it gets dismissed. Pretty common practice.

Ok.

The endings to Origin can be dismissed as well, since the consequences for them have not materialized either, from the ritual to who was the right choice for the throne, to the death/dissapearance of the Warden.

By this logic, both games have poor endings.

the issue to me seems like one of not thinking that far ahead. We know that morrigan will show up eventually, we know that the dark ritual will come into play somehow, or be mentioned. We know the Warden will get a moment as well, if they are still alive. And we know the ruler of Ferelden, and how they rule, will be important if there is a war going on.

We don't see the effects at all. were told them yes, but that is fluff because the game series goes on, and may possibly contradict later games, as we have seen, especially major storylines. That does not excuse it in my book.

If you mean to say that the endings of the two games within each other are supposed to be meaningful, then you have an argument that I can't refute. But were dealing with a series of choices here, so we may need to think fourth dimensonally for a bit. 

didn`t notice what Alistair, as king, did for the Mage Circle in Ferelden, did you? Pretty substansial impact right there. The Archdemon being dead...meaning there is no blight in Kirkwall...also a pretty hands on impact.

So you got two things, color me unimpressed.

If Dragon Age III makes the choices at the end of II meaningful, would you take this stance back? If letting Anders live and siding with the Mages becomes a major plot arc because of Hawkes decision, would you still think this way? I am curious now. 

And how would my choices at the end of DA2 influence anything at all in DA3? DA2 ends with civil war, no matter what you do. Its not even your choice. If Hawke sides with the templars or the mages, or the neighbors dog, it will have no impact on DA3.

[I Like Cats And]

So Bioware is already not listning to their fans like they said they would, awesome. Dragon Age 3 is looking real promising. //sarcasm

[LinksOcarina]

Rawgrim wrote...

i belive I gave you an example of a game where you choice of race has a meaningful impact on the story. You just ignored it. I will tell you again, though. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

Didn't see it for one.

 I never played Bloodlines so I can't comment. Can you give an example as to how picking a clan (which is not a race but i'll go with it) was meaningful? 

Rawgrim wrote...

And how would my choices at the end of DA2 influence anything at all in DA3? DA2 ends with civil war, no matter what you do. Its not even your choice. If Hawke sides with the templars or the mages, or the neighbors dog, it will have no impact on DA3.

And you know this how?

That's my point, you don't. None of us do, so we can't say if it was. We can only speculate.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:28 .

[Monica21]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

We know that you'll be traveling again though and one of your companions is Cullen. So why couldn't the mage get roped into an inquest in the same way a mage got roped into being a Warden?

Are you suggesting that the mage protagonist is going to be coerced into working for the Divine? Because I find the prospect of working for the Chantry repellant. And given your hypothetical scenario, why couldn't an Elven or Dwarven protagonist get roped into the narrative?

I don't know, but you're asking me to throw out a bunch of hypotheticals without either of us knowing the story. I'm fine just sitting back and waiting for the rest to come out but you have to know right now what this inconcievable reason is that you can't play an elf. Sorry, I'm not a dev so I can't answer that.