3855 réponses à ce sujet

[Little Princess Peach]

I don't see the point, are Bioware trying to make DA like Masseffect? by adding only one race a la shepard over and over again?, You know I only play these sort of fantasey games because I could choose what I want to be and what chars I like to influence that world, unless the CC lets us change the look of our player in detail, every so often you will get a main char that looks like everyone elses

[Apocaleepse360]

Quite disappointed. BioWare, you make us see all these wonderful races and cultures, then you force us to play as a normal boring human. Stop trying to merge Mass Effect and Dragon Age together. You had a good thing going with Origins.

However, all will be forgiven if we get to choose the backgrounds for our human character just like in Origins.

Modifié par Apocaleepse360, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:14 .

[Uccio]

Swagger7 wrote...

I can't say I'm at all happy about being restricted to human only, but there's still much to look forward to with DA3. I do wish you'd drop us a bit of good news to go along with the bad. Anything?

PS:  Just please let us have customizable dwarves and elves in the multiplayer.  Then at least I'll be able to have full use of the customization.

If I am not going to get race option to my single play I sure as hell do not want it to mp which I never play.

[Fast Jimmy]

In regards to an idea that is a little more on topic, I'd be curious to see if backgrounds are limited to class, or if they would be totally stand alone concepts, like in ME.

For instance, no matter if you were a Vanguard or a Solider in ME1, you could still have the Earthborn background or the Sole Survivor psych profile.I'd be interested to see if you can only have the Circle-raised background if you are a mage, or the city-commoner background if you are a rogue.

And, also, I'd be intrigued to see how they differentiate between the rogue and warrior classes in regards to background and story flavor. All too often, it seems like the mage has been the stand out class, with the rogue and warrior classes blending together into the background. Human Noble/Dwarven Noble/Dwarven Commoner/Dalish/City Born Elf (even the planned Chasind Barbarian Origin) all had very little difference if you were a rogue or a warrior other than combat. I'd like to see that change.

I'd also like to see a mage background include the option for either a Circle upbringing or an Apostate one. The chance for story-telling between those two worlds is pretty staggering. Granted, I can think of very little reason why the Inquisition would allow an Apostate to be in (let alone command) the Inquisition, but I pose that challenge to the writers to see if they can make that happen.

Also, given that the backgrounds will be non-playable, how they wind up influencing the story/game could be interesting. Stat bonuses and penalties (like some of Fallout's perks, which are double-edge swords) could be cool, but obviously the meat and potatoes is going to be the story and dialogue influences.

[zyntifox]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I'm mind boggled by the number of responses like this.

Not that I can't imagine people who would only play humans (I can) but that you would feel the need to say it. If they had announced the game would only come out on XBox and people were raging about it, would it not seem incredibly d!ckish to come in and say "I only play games on the XBox, so this doesn't affect me."

I mean... if people are upset about something, nothing makes it worse than someone coming in and saying "this doesn't affect me, so I'm cool." 

Not trying to call you out specifically, Gali, but I've seen that response over two dozen times in this thread it seems like and am baffled by it every single time. 

What's the alternative? Only people who are upset are allowed to post in a thread like this? Considering the people who like to imagine there is consensus regarding any issue they're upset about, I think it's fine to offer one's opinion on the topic even if it's ambivalence... one does not generally find threads dedicated to "I am abivalent over the lack of player races", after all, so it's perhaps not so terrible to say "hey, not everyone is upset about this."

Especially when we don't allow multiple threads on a topic, and all chat about player races is currently being directed here.

No, not at all. I don't mind people saying they aren't enraged by it. I don't mind anyone voicing their opinion. There have been many people who have argued why a human-only PC would enhance the story, or allot resources elsewhere, or that they didn't think multiple races were really convincing when they were offered in DA:O.

All of those arguments are valid and were interesting to read.

Having the only input be that "you never play multiple races, so you don't care" seems to offer nothing of value to the conversation, other than to just say you are getting what you want anyway, so you don't care about anyone else.

Again, not bad, evil or even intentional, I'd bet. Just comes off ot me as a little... inconsiderate.

That was how i interpret your first post. Not that they can't have the opinion that they prefer humans only but that the reason for their opinion is a little... strange. For example, if they prefer having human as the only race because there will be more resources to flesh-out the story is perfectly reasonable. I don't neccessarly agree with that opinion but i do respect it.

[Rawgrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

You can only play DA2 as 3 different characters. "Funny, Mean or Kind". None of these options has any effect on the game whatsoevers. they only affect the tone of the conversations, all of wich leads to the excact same ending of the game.

I have replayed the original Half-Life 4 separate times.  The playthrough for this game is identical.

People replay stuff because they enjoy the experience.

Attempting to hand wave that other people have replayed DA2 and attempting to undermine their satisfaction for doing so gets you no where.

That wasn`t what i was trying to do at all, i was just trying to get a point across. I realise I come off at blunt sometimes, but the point of it was not to belittle anyones gaming experience.

Don`t agree with your Half-Life example, though. That game is a Shooter, and was never pushed forwards by its developers as a game that lets you make tons of important story-based choices. But i agree with the fact that people replay stuff because of the experience. I do that too.

[zyntifox]

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

I don't see the point, are Bioware trying to make DA like Masseffect? by adding only one race a la shepard over and over again?, You know I only play these sort of fantasey games because I could choose what I want to be and what chars I like to influence that world, unless the CC lets us change the look of our player in detail, every so often you will get a main char that looks like everyone elses

Well it shouldn't come as a surprise since, in my opinion, Dragon age 2 has more in common with the Mass effect series, in terms of gameplay, than Dragon age: origins.

[ElitePinecone]

David Gaider wrote...
 one does not generally find threads dedicated to "I am abivalent over the lack of player races", after all, so it's perhaps not so terrible to say "hey, not everyone is upset about this."

I think it's also more useful for fans to pick their battles - dying on a hill for an issue like race customisation in DA3 really doesn't seem sensible when the devs have suggested it's not an effective use of resources (at least for whatever game it turns out to be), and isn't something that any amount of 'fan pressure' could reverse or change at this stage of development. These threads seem to serve little purpose in terms of constructive debate, when the topic being discussed is already moot. BW know there's a fair chunk of people here who like race selection, what can they do except promise to consider it in the future?

I'm ambivalent about race selection, really, it was certainly far down on my list of areas that could be improved from DA2, and if the telemetry shows it's niche (and expensive) content, I can certainly see why it's not being done.

(That's not to say I wouldn't welcome the option if the zots existed to do it, because generally more customisation and content is a good thing, but given limited zots there must be compromises somewhere)

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
For instance, no matter if you were a Vanguard or a Solider in ME1, you could still have the Earthborn background or the Sole Survivor psych profile.I'd be interested to see if you can only have the Circle-raised background if you are a mage, or the city-commoner background if you are a rogue.

Bioware said that they want to make class count in this game... so I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly what they do. Or rather, here's my real guess:

I think that the backgrounds will be non-playable origins. Think about. DA:O is really about Ostagar (as the start of the game). You can easily start the game there, and just "pick a background" like you do for Shepard in ME1. I think this is what Bioware will do for DA:I.

[Wynne]

ligernull wrote...

Masha Potato wrote...

To elaborate, my main gripe with the lack of racial choice is that humans are pretty much the most priveleged group in Thedas. *snip* That automatically makes me feel some embarassment and/or straight out dislike the protagonist. Even if i try to help all the city elves or invite all casteless dwarves to live at my house, that still makes me feel like the PC is just a jerkface "ally" sticking their nose in all the places and always making it about themselves. It does take some deal of motivation out of things.

THIS^^^

Quite. I find it ironically harder to sympathize with a human protagonist in a world like this, unlike Mass Effect where humans are the underdogs. I'd rather play a character that experiences some real undeserved adversity. I like a smartass, but not a priveleged, smug, arrogant smartass.

Harle Cerulean wrote...

I'm highly disappointed by it largely because this is the second game in a row that is forcing playing only a human character on us. I understand that they tell us it's for story purposes, and that's why I was fine with it in DA2, but there are loads of stories and perspectives in Thedas, and I want to explore them, not just the solely-human stories and perspectives. One game is fine. Two starts to look like a pattern, and that's disappointing to me, because I'm starting to get the feeling that Bioware has lost interest in exploring the other perspectives.

Add this to the certainty that Bioware will never make a DA game where the story requires you to play only as a dwarf or only as an elf (or only as a Kossith, for that matter), and it looks less and less like something reasonable and necessary, and more and more like a simple lack of options because they didn't feel it was worth it due to the number of people who prefer playing humans vs the number of people who would prefer non-human options.

On top of that, humans all have the exact same body type and height. That... bores me. I don't want it. I was sick of it last game, but put up with it because I thought  it was an isolated incident. I hate it when every protagonist I create feels too much the same. 

deuce985 wrote...

How would people feel if MP allows you to play different races? Just curious. Would that ****** people off?

I might be placated by that, admittedly, but I doubt it will be the case exactly. 

Volourn wrote...

I avoid playing humans as much as possible in games I get the choice.

Humans. Disgusting creatures. Avoid them whenever I can.

Heck, that's why I play rpgs in the first place. <>

Yeah--to pretend you're something else. Escapism is fun. A purely-human game just loses something. 

Satyricon331 wrote...

If Bioware had put more effort into creating more interesting human societies, I might be more receptive to giving a human-only protagonist a second chance.  But it didn't work the first time for me, and these "generic medieval kingdoms ## 214 and 943" just don't interest me that much, and their religious organization is uninteresting to me apart from its matriarchal aspect, and the Templars are uninteresting to me.  The Circles are fine in that regard, but Circle mages don't need to be human. 
...
I'm trying to think of things that could salvage my interest in this game... a drastically revamped combat system, maybe?  Closer to DAO and (just to depart utterly from reality a bit), BG2?  That's not likely to happen.  I just feel really detached from DA3 and Bioware at this point.

This is how I feel as well. 

I think it would take one of the following to entice me to buy this game:

• Word of mouth that this is a paragon of RPGs, exactly how it should be done, from multiple reviewers/fans who say specific things that catch my interest enough to offset my dislike of other decisions made.
• Positive news such as varying body types and origins for the Inquisitor and/or classes, as well as sections of the game that take place in an Alienage and dwarven cities. 

Otherwise, I will just have to assume that they're moving away from the beauty of their game world and conforming to something more generic that probably makes EA happier. In which case, I just don't want it anymore. I'd rather try Project Eternity, as Pallipride47 was saying.

I'm not saying that to be a jackass, I'm saying it because this makes me truly sad and I find my enthusiasm dying quickly. That's not something I can control. After a decade of being a customer of Bioware, a damned loyal one, ME3's ending crashed and burned, abandoning all the themes and foreshadowing after losing key players who made the previous games amazing. DA2 had some strong points, along with a whole lot of flaws which made it a downer.

At this point, I can only believe that the days of preordering are truly over for me. 

[Fast Jimmy]

ElitePinecone wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
 one does not generally find threads dedicated to "I am abivalent over the lack of player races", after all, so it's perhaps not so terrible to say "hey, not everyone is upset about this."

I think it's also more useful for fans to pick their battles - dying on a hill for an issue like race customisation in DA3 really doesn't seem sensible when the devs have suggested it's not an effective use of resources (at least for whatever game it turns out to be), and isn't something that any amount of 'fan pressure' could reverse or change at this stage of development. These threads seem to serve little purpose in terms of constructive debate, when the topic being discussed is already moot. BW know there's a fair chunk of people here who like race selection, what can they do except promise to consider it in the future?

I'm ambivalent about race selection, really, it was certainly far down on my list of areas that could be improved from DA2, and if the telemetry shows it's niche (and expensive) content, I can certainly see why it's not being done.

(That's not to say I wouldn't welcome the option if the zots existed to do it, because generally more customisation and content is a good thing, but given limited zots there must be compromises somewhere)

In a somewhat related (but more tangential) idea, I always hear people talking about their City Elf DW rogue, or their Human Noble sword-and-shield warrior... yet I never hear people talk about their Sole Survivor Soldier, or their Colonist born Vanguard.

Playing through the Origin (even if it didn't offer all that much in terms of true variability later in the game) helped us identify and define those characters that way. Could be a problem with doing non-playable backgrounds like what is being planned for DA3.

Or, you know, it could be totally great. And I'm just a big doo-doo head.

[Swagger7]

Swagger7 wrote...

I can't say I'm at all happy about being restricted to human only, but there's still much to look forward to with DA3. I do wish you'd drop us a bit of good news to go along with the bad. Anything?

PS:  Just please let us have customizable dwarves and elves in the multiplayer.  Then at least I'll be able to have full use of the customization.

YAY!  I got my good news:
http://social.biowar...580/4#14615791' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'> social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/371/index/14604410/37#14615925

Modifié par Swagger7, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:32 .

[Rawgrim]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
 one does not generally find threads dedicated to "I am abivalent over the lack of player races", after all, so it's perhaps not so terrible to say "hey, not everyone is upset about this."

I think it's also more useful for fans to pick their battles - dying on a hill for an issue like race customisation in DA3 really doesn't seem sensible when the devs have suggested it's not an effective use of resources (at least for whatever game it turns out to be), and isn't something that any amount of 'fan pressure' could reverse or change at this stage of development. These threads seem to serve little purpose in terms of constructive debate, when the topic being discussed is already moot. BW know there's a fair chunk of people here who like race selection, what can they do except promise to consider it in the future?

I'm ambivalent about race selection, really, it was certainly far down on my list of areas that could be improved from DA2, and if the telemetry shows it's niche (and expensive) content, I can certainly see why it's not being done.

(That's not to say I wouldn't welcome the option if the zots existed to do it, because generally more customisation and content is a good thing, but given limited zots there must be compromises somewhere)

In a somewhat related (but more tangential) idea, I always hear people talking about their City Elf DW rogue, or their Human Noble sword-and-shield warrior... yet I never hear people talk about their Sole Survivor Soldier, or their Colonist born Vanguard.

Playing through the Origin (even if it didn't offer all that much in terms of true variability later in the game) helped us identify and define those characters that way. Could be a problem with doing non-playable backgrounds like what is being planned for DA3.

Or, you know, it could be totally great. And I'm just a big doo-doo head.

Actually that is a great point. I have no clue about what my Shepard`s background was, wich is rather profound since I played through the entire series with him.

[Iosev]

I imagine that the people who comment in this thread and say that they don't mind playing as a human protagonist are simply voicing what they feel is not integral to their own enjoyment of the game. Resources in game development are not unlimited, so I see nothing wrong with someone voicing his or her opinion on what he or she is fine without.

For me, I would rather see racial origins return when they suit the story, have a greater impact on a playthrough, and have their own voice acting. Until then, I'm fine with Bioware focusing their resources on other aspects of the game.

Modifié par arcelonious, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:41 .

[Emzamination]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I'm mind boggled by the number of responses like this.

Not that I can't imagine people who would only play humans (I can) but that you would feel the need to say it. If they had announced the game would only come out on XBox and people were raging about it, would it not seem incredibly d!ckish to come in and say "I only play games on the XBox, so this doesn't affect me."

I mean... if people are upset about something, nothing makes it worse than someone coming in and saying "this doesn't affect me, so I'm cool." 

Not trying to call you out specifically, Gali, but I've seen that response over two dozen times in this thread it seems like and am baffled by it every single time. 

What's the alternative? Only people who are upset are allowed to post in a thread like this? Considering the people who like to imagine there is consensus regarding any issue they're upset about, I think it's fine to offer one's opinion on the topic even if it's ambivalence... one does not generally find threads dedicated to "I am abivalent over the lack of player races", after all, so it's perhaps not so terrible to say "hey, not everyone is upset about this."

Especially when we don't allow multiple threads on a topic, and all chat about player races is currently being directed here.

No, not at all. I don't mind people saying they aren't enraged by it. I don't mind anyone voicing their opinion. There have been many people who have argued why a human-only PC would enhance the story, or allot resources elsewhere, or that they didn't think multiple races were really convincing when they were offered in DA:O.

All of those arguments are valid and were interesting to read.

Having the only input be that "you never play multiple races, so you don't care" seems to offer nothing of value to the conversation, other than to just say you are getting what you want anyway, so you don't care about anyone else.

Again, not bad, evil or even intentional, I'd bet. Just comes off ot me as a little... inconsiderate.

Good thing my comment was simply I don't care.

Modifié par Emzamination, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:35 .

[macrocarl]

I am ambivalent over the lack of player races.
I want a great story and experience lots of nuances when I replay the game. And if that means this go-around I play through as a human a bunch so be it. And having text origins that impacts the game sounds like a great way to get some origins back into DA and focus on character development for the protag. Awesome. Keep the info a'flowin' when you can BW!

[ElitePinecone]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
In a somewhat related (but more tangential) idea, I always hear people talking about their City Elf DW rogue, or their Human Noble sword-and-shield warrior... yet I never hear people talk about their Sole Survivor Soldier, or their Colonist born Vanguard.

Playing through the Origin (even if it didn't offer all that much in terms of true variability later in the game) helped us identify and define those characters that way. Could be a problem with doing non-playable backgrounds like what is being planned for DA3.

Or, you know, it could be totally great. And I'm just a big doo-doo head.

Anecdotally I think DA attracts more of a specific subset of RPG players who do make headcanons, identify with their character, and care very much about the way backgrounds affect character motivations, etc. Perhaps it's a matter of game genres.

That being said, I've seen plenty of ME fans say "my Spacer Shepard would never care about Earth!1" or "my Sole Survivor would never work with Cerberus!" or "why can't a War Hero Shepard mention the Blitz in [x conversation]?". class differences don't matter so much (a biotic Shepard is never referenced outside the first game, as far as I know) and there's no distinction in-universe between a vanguard and an adept. Shepard is Shepard, basically. 

I think you're right that the level of importance the game places on the backgrounds influences how important and relevant players perceive it to be, but it's probably simplistic to say "all non-playable backgrounds are instantly relegated to forgettable diversions", just because it happened in ME. It's an easy comparison, but we don't know a thing about the way DA3 will do it. 

Modifié par ElitePinecone, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:40 .

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...
They already said they will be non-playable, I thought.

I disagree about DA:O, though. I felt the Origins, and especially the city elf (as recently discussed elsewhere) provided deep, deep insight into your character's personality that will absolutely not be able to be replicated in an unplayable sequence.

Okay, sorry, that was a communication fail on my part.

To clarify: I think our backgrounds will play the same role our origins did at Ostagar, i.e., people will say "Barbarian" Inquisitor and/or comment on that aspect of your PC, and NPCs (e.g. Shale's why are you superior to humans Q) and so on ... but all of that is non-playable.

In a somewhat related (but more tangential) idea, I always hear people
talking about their City Elf DW rogue, or their Human Noble
sword-and-shield warrior... yet I never hear people talk about their
Sole Survivor Soldier, or their Colonist born Vanguard.

That's because we're on ME3. In ME1 we always talked about this.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

In a somewhat related (but more tangential) idea, I always hear people talking about their City Elf DW rogue, or their Human Noble sword-and-shield warrior... yet I never hear people talk about their Sole Survivor Soldier, or their Colonist born Vanguard.

That's because we're on ME3. In ME1 we always talked about this.

There's also the fact that Bioware made Shepard his/her character, rather than the player's, for ME3 (with the ridiculous amounts of autodialogue in the game), so speaking about that was kinda moot.

Modifié par Xewaka, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:47 .

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
There's also the fact that Bioware made Shepard his/her character, rather than the player's, for ME3 (with the ridiculous amounts of autodialogue in the game), so speaking about that was kinda moot.

"We fight or we die. That's a plan? :blink:"

....  Wait, I think I'm misremembering something about that quote ...

[Fast Jimmy]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
In a somewhat related (but more tangential) idea, I always hear people talking about their City Elf DW rogue, or their Human Noble sword-and-shield warrior... yet I never hear people talk about their Sole Survivor Soldier, or their Colonist born Vanguard.

Playing through the Origin (even if it didn't offer all that much in terms of true variability later in the game) helped us identify and define those characters that way. Could be a problem with doing non-playable backgrounds like what is being planned for DA3.

Or, you know, it could be totally great. And I'm just a big doo-doo head.

Anecdotally I think DA attracts more of a specific subset of RPG players who do make headcanons, identify with their character, and care very much about the way backgrounds affect character motivations, etc. Perhaps it's a matter of game genres.

That being said, I've seen plenty of ME fans say "my Spacer Shepard would never care about Earth!1" or "my Sole Survivor would never work with Cerberus!" or "why can't a War Hero Shepard mention the Blitz in [x conversation]?". class differences don't matter so much (a biotic Shepard is never referenced outside the first game, as far as I know) and there's no distinction in-universe between a vanguard and an adept. Shepard is Shepard, basically. 

I think you're right that the level of importance the game places on the backgrounds influences how important and relevant players perceive it to be, but it's probably simplistic to say "all non-playable backgrounds are instantly relegated to forgettable diversions", just because it happened in ME. It's an easy comparison, but we don't know a thing about the way DA3 will do it. 

So... I'm a big doo-doo head?

[AlanC9]

ElitePinecone wrote...
That being said, I've seen plenty of ME fans say "my Spacer Shepard would never care about Earth!1" or "my Sole Survivor would never work with Cerberus!" or "why can't a War Hero Shepard mention the Blitz in [x conversation]?". class differences don't matter so much (a biotic Shepard is never referenced outside the first game, as far as I know) and there's no distinction in-universe between a vanguard and an adept. Shepard is Shepard, basically.

Note that some ME1 dialogues with Kaidan are silly if Shepard is a biotic herself; how can a biotic Shep not know all about BAaT? Like alternate paths where Shepard mentions the Blitz, some things just aren't going to get into a game even if they'd be nice to have.