3855 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Hawke's family and backstory are EXTREMELY closely tied in with every single aspect of the plot and story, so Hawke is so EXTREMELY defined, without player input.

If Hawke's EXTREMELY defined, what word do we use to describe Geralt of Rivia?

The exact same words. Geralt is the same as Hawke. However, the Witcher series never gave us the option to play as anyone else in the earlier game, so it was never a "step back" when it came to character creation.

[Tarathelion]

I found it interesting that some people claim that a good fantasy game should always have race options. Nothing could be further from truth. One of the best fantasy books ever written - Song of Ice and Fire, don't have any other races than human. Does it make it bad?, no quite the contrary.

Of course the world of Thedas have other races ad usually more options is better. Having said that, i would rather have one very good story that works for just one race then story full of compromises made to work for all of them. For me story is the priority. Being forced to play only as human, dwarf or elf (my personal preference is human) is secondary to me. I would be fine with playing any of them, even if i prefere a human character.

Also, for me being able to pick and customize characters have little to do with role-playing. Even if i inherit a character with name, look, origin i still can make it my own. Afterall i am the one making choices, i am the one chosing conversation options, i am the one creating character moral spine. There is more to it than just look and races.

Besides, even in pen and paper games, you not always can chose everything that you want, you don't start playing as a 3 years old, you still have some predetermined background.

[Maclimes]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Hawke's family and backstory are EXTREMELY closely tied in with every single aspect of the plot and story, so Hawke is so EXTREMELY defined, without player input.

If Hawke's EXTREMELY defined, what word do we use to describe Geralt of Rivia?

MAMMOTHLY. No seriously, I don't know. I never played that game, beyond the first 10 minutes. I had to Google the name.

[Emzamination]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

i am pretty sure its because he is Bioware`s character. A human named Hawke. Its like someone creates a character for you. Starts the game, and then lets you play the rest.

Specifically from a character creation point (since it's what you've highlighted), what's the difference between Hawke and Cousland?

Well Cousland to my knowledge doesn't have a semi-canon default appearence.

Not true

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Hawke's family and backstory are EXTREMELY closely tied in with every single aspect of the plot and story, so Hawke is so EXTREMELY defined, without player input.

If Hawke's EXTREMELY defined, what word do we use to describe Geralt of Rivia?

You play as a set-character in The Witcher games. What's your point?

[Fast Jimmy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Caiden012 wrote...

and choose from three personalities

You did not have to do this. 

This is very true, you did not.

But video game psychology dictates that, given the interface which seems to reward/support keeping with your "dominant" tone/personality (not to mention the inherent trend for those familiar with the wheel from ME that not sticking with a pure Renegade/Paragon playthrough would have negative consequences), then it isn't surprising to me that the vast majority of players played this way - myself inclduded.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Maclimes wrote...

Hawke's family and backstory are EXTREMELY closely tied in with every single aspect of the plot and story, so Hawke is so EXTREMELY defined, without player input.

Cousland's family and backstory are important during the first 5% of the game, and occasionally mentioned elsewhere, leaving the player fare more open to decide their character's life and story.

You say "far more open", I say poorly implemented and inconsequential from a narrative standpoint.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 22 octobre 2012 - 08:25 .

[upsettingshorts]

Caiden012 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Hawke's family and backstory are EXTREMELY closely tied in with every single aspect of the plot and story, so Hawke is so EXTREMELY defined, without player input.

If Hawke's EXTREMELY defined, what word do we use to describe Geralt of Rivia?

I didn't know that we were playing The Witcher now.

Is it really that difficult of a point to infer?  Hawke was slightly defined in order to make his/her family and background relevant to the narrative.  That's something some people like, because it feels like their character is actually part of the world and not some detatched special other, leading to instances in DA:O with poof the disappearing Fergus.  

It's a tradeoff, and far less was traded in terms of definition with Hawke than there is with Geralt.  

Rawgrim wrote...

The exact same words. Geralt is the same as Hawke. 

*spits out drink*

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

You play as a set-character in The Witcher games. What's your point?

That "extreme" is needless hyperbole, as protagonist definition is relative?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 08:24 .

[Allan Schumacher]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I probably wouldn't have liked it, then. I wasn't a fan of Hawke; I found him to be very passive, and reactive instead of proactive. Doing nothing about Petrice, doing nothing in the Bethany/Cullen situation, doing nothing about Quentin's note, doing nothing about Meredith's dictatorship for three years. I wouldn't have liked him as an elf or a dwarf if he remained the same. Just my two cents, of course.

That's fine.  I think that disliking Hawke for his passivity is a fair critique of DA2.  The point I'm making is that I've seen some state that DA2 didn't have racial selection, and DA2 wasn't successful, and to the extent that the lack of race choice was a significant cause of this.

I think it's important to note, however, that it's not just "I wanted elves/dwarves."  It's that "I wanted elves/dwarves and all the extra stuff that comes with it."  Which, in my opinion, muddies up the water on precisely what people are looking for.  What exactly is "the extra stuff that comes with it" though?  And it can be tricky to find consensus regarding this too.

It then starts to become "can the extra stuff only be provided with different races?"  Now, if you're specifically hoping to explore and learn more about the Dalish as a Dalish Elf character, then yeah this is definitely going to be disappointing, since that won't be possible.

So for me, it becomes a quest for trying to figure out what the extra stuff is that people feel is missing, since I believe the issue is more than just "I'd like my character to be an elf or a dwarf."  (Although for some people, that's as simple as it is for them!)

[Caiden012]

Tarathelion wrote...

I found it interesting that some people claim that a good fantasy game should always have race options. Nothing could be further from truth. One of the best fantasy books ever written - Song of Ice and Fire, don't have any other races than human. Does it make it bad?, no quite the contrary.

Of course the world of Thedas have other races ad usually more options is better. Having said that, i would rather have one very good story that works for just one race then story full of compromises made to work for all of them. For me story is the priority. Being forced to play only as human, dwarf or elf (my personal preference is human) is secondary to me. I would be fine with playing any of them, even if i prefere a human character.

Also, for me being able to pick and customize characters have little to do with role-playing. Even if i inherit a character with name, look, origin i still can make it my own. Afterall i am the one making choices, i am the one chosing conversation options, i am the one creating character moral spine. There is more to it than just look and races.

Besides, even in pen and paper games, you not always can chose everything that you want, you don't start playing as a 3 years old, you still have some predetermined background.

Please go read the books. There are other races in it than human. Just not elf or dwarf.

[Sylvianus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Caiden012 wrote...

and choose from three personalities

You did not have to do this. 

To be effective, I had to do this. For example you can't convince Ser Varnell if your personality isn't pragmatic but also if you didn't get enough points with the pragmatic dialogue. ( otherwise you still fail ) Since there is no transparency about that and I wanted to be sure to have Petrice at my side, I was forced to choose since the beginning.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 22 octobre 2012 - 08:25 .

[Nerevar-as]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Hawke's family and backstory are EXTREMELY closely tied in with every single aspect of the plot and story, so Hawke is so EXTREMELY defined, without player input.

If Hawke's EXTREMELY defined, what word do we use to describe Geralt of Rivia?

Caiden012 wrote...

I sort of need to give Hawke a personality but there was not much to choose from. I am talking over the span of the game.

The tone icons were instructive, they don't indicate three distinct characters.  It's not like Paragon Shepard and Renegade Shepard.  There's just Hawke.  That's all I mean.

Or Michael Thorton. Or Adam Jensen. But at least it helps they are well written and feel like main characters. Also that they aren´t the amin characters of a sequel where we weren´t forced to play a fixed character. We wouldn´t be having this discussion if Origins had only had Cousland.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Uh, the reason Geralt is so pre-determined is because his a character from a book. Just saying.

[Atakuma]

Maclimes wrote...

Hawke's family and backstory are EXTREMELY closely tied in with every single aspect of the plot and story, so Hawke is so EXTREMELY defined, without player input.

Hawkes family are tied into parts of the game, but nowhere near every single thing. Hawke doesn't even really have a backstory, almost nothing is said about Hawke's personal history before the game.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvianus wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Caiden012 wrote...

and choose from three personalities

You did not have to do this. 

To be effective, I had to do this. For example you can't convince Ser Varnell if your personality isn't pragmatic but also if you didn't get enough points with the pragmatic dialogue. ( otherwise you still fail ) Since there is no transparency about that and I wanted to be sure to have Petrice at my side, I was forced to choose.

So you chose not to roleplay, but metagame your character more consistently in order to unlock options.  That's your problem.

You did not have to do that.  You could have simply failed to convince Ser Varnell.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 08:27 .

[jennamarae]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

You said you didn't like Hawke.  I'm asking "Is it that you didn't like Hawke because he's human or is there other aspects of Hawke that make you dislike him?"

This was totally not directed at me, but for what it's worth my answer is both.

I prefer not to play human characters in games if possible. Playing the sequel to one of my favorite games and being unable to play as anything but a human was a bit disappointing given that I was able to play as an elf or dwarf (mostly elf) in DAO. If DAO had not had those options, it likely wouldn't have bothered me as much. It was having it in one game and then having it taken away that bothered me the most. I can enjoy a game where I have no option but to play as human, but have greater enjoyment from games that allow me to choose a different character type.

I disliked Hawke himself as well. Partly because he is completely reactive through the entire game instead of being proactive, and partly because I disliked his personality (all three of them). He had some amusing lines, sure, but overall he just rubbed me the wrong way even though he's supposed to be my character. It doesn't make for enjoyable role-playing when I don't really like "my" character. I'm sure this is due, at least in part, to my dislike for voiced protagonists but most games have them so I've gotten used to being unable to roleplay in RPGs. Some people may like it, or even prefer it; it's just not my cup of tea.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I probably wouldn't have liked it, then. I wasn't a fan of Hawke; I found him to be very passive, and reactive instead of proactive. Doing nothing about Petrice, doing nothing in the Bethany/Cullen situation, doing nothing about Quentin's note, doing nothing about Meredith's dictatorship for three years. I wouldn't have liked him as an elf or a dwarf if he remained the same. Just my two cents, of course.

That's fine.  I think that disliking Hawke for his passivity is a fair critique of DA2.  The point I'm making is that I've seen some state that DA2 didn't have racial selection, and DA2 wasn't successful, and to the extent that the lack of race choice was a significant cause of this.

I think it's important to note, however, that it's not just "I wanted elves/dwarves."  It's that "I wanted elves/dwarves and all the extra stuff that comes with it."  Which, in my opinion, muddies up the water on precisely what people are looking for.  What exactly is "the extra stuff that comes with it" though?  And it can be tricky to find consensus regarding this too.

It then starts to become "can the extra stuff only be provided with different races?"  Now, if you're specifically hoping to explore and learn more about the Dalish as a Dalish Elf character, then yeah this is definitely going to be disappointing, since that won't be possible.

So for me, it becomes a quest for trying to figure out what the extra stuff is that people feel is missing, since I believe the issue is more than just "I'd like my character to be an elf or a dwarf."  (Although for some people, that's as simple as it is for them!)

Race selection in DA2 would not have changed anything. It was a poorly designed game that fell far short of Bioware standards. That's why it wasn't as successful as Origins.

[Rawgrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I probably wouldn't have liked it, then. I wasn't a fan of Hawke; I found him to be very passive, and reactive instead of proactive. Doing nothing about Petrice, doing nothing in the Bethany/Cullen situation, doing nothing about Quentin's note, doing nothing about Meredith's dictatorship for three years. I wouldn't have liked him as an elf or a dwarf if he remained the same. Just my two cents, of course.

That's fine.  I think that disliking Hawke for his passivity is a fair critique of DA2.  The point I'm making is that I've seen some state that DA2 didn't have racial selection, and DA2 wasn't successful, and to the extent that the lack of race choice was a significant cause of this.

I think it's important to note, however, that it's not just "I wanted elves/dwarves."  It's that "I wanted elves/dwarves and all the extra stuff that comes with it."  Which, in my opinion, muddies up the water on precisely what people are looking for.  What exactly is "the extra stuff that comes with it" though?  And it can be tricky to find consensus regarding this too.

It then starts to become "can the extra stuff only be provided with different races?"  Now, if you're specifically hoping to explore and learn more about the Dalish as a Dalish Elf character, then yeah this is definitely going to be disappointing, since that won't be possible.

So for me, it becomes a quest for trying to figure out what the extra stuff is that people feel is missing, since I believe the issue is more than just "I'd like my character to be an elf or a dwarf."  (Although for some people, that's as simple as it is for them!)

The extra stuff could also be achived by letting the player play different kinds of humans, i guess. Kind of like the origin stories but with human noble, human rogue, human mage, human anything. More options makes it easier for players to feel as if they are creating their very own character. It doesn`t have to be a racial thing, of course. But since we had racial options in the first game, and that got taken away... A set character also removes alot of replayability, wich I suspect is an important feature to many gamers.

[Sylvianus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Caiden012 wrote...

and choose from three personalities

You did not have to do this. 

To be effective, I had to do this. For example you can't convince Ser Varnell if your personality isn't pragmatic but also if you didn't get enough points with the pragmatic dialogue. ( otherwise you still fail ) Since there is no transparency about that and I wanted to be sure to have Petrice at my side, I was forced to choose.

So you chose not to roleplay, but metagame your character more consistently in order to unlock options.  That's your problem.

That's not my problem, that is an issue with the game if you have to choose a personality to convince someone and a very important side in the story.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 22 octobre 2012 - 08:29 .

[Rawgrim]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Uh, the reason Geralt is so pre-determined is because his a character from a book. Just saying.

the series never let you create your own character either. So its not like anything got removed in the first place, by having the player pay as a set character.

[Tootles FTW]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Tootles FTW wrote...

ladyofpayne wrote...

I say yes. I don't like elves because of their ugly faces. Also the best race diffrence was in Vampire Bloodlines in malkavian skin- new conversations and more, more.

Really evles and dvarwes don't think like humans, so I play only humans.

3 text backgroungs but influenced on game better than 6 reces and origins that mentioned 2 timies during the game.

If elves were an option and your PC has an ugly face, wouldn't that be your fault?  Hehe.  But yes, yeeesss, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines!  If DA:O had this sort of reactivity I would be weeping tears of blood & lost dreams for the lack of race-selection, but outside of the Origin story itself it didn't really color much of the game.

So you took the same decision regarding Loghain with a City Elf than with a Human Mage?

I haven't played DAO in so long and I only played a City Elf once, I can't remember Loghain's unique responses with the CE.  I remember Howe & the Human Noble's "reunion", though, and how..."meh" it was.  Still, this is one instance that is an expansion upon your Origin - much like the one quest we get in ME per selected character background.  95% of the game is basic, regardless of race.  I'm not saying this is a bad thing it's just how it is.

In Vampire the Masquerade, playing as a Malkavian colored almost every single line of dialogue, it was insane (har har, literally).  They had plans to do much the same for the other Clans but unfortunately the studio was going bankrupt during production.

[upsettingshorts]

Rawgrim wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Uh, the reason Geralt is so pre-determined is because his a character from a book. Just saying.

the series never let you create your own character either. So its not like anything got removed in the first place, by having the player pay as a set character.

That still, absolutely, categorically, does not make Hawke and Geralt the same.  That is utter nonsense.

[Tarathelion]

Caiden012 wrote...

Tarathelion wrote...

I found it interesting that some people claim that a good fantasy game should always have race options. Nothing could be further from truth. One of the best fantasy books ever written - Song of Ice and Fire, don't have any other races than human. Does it make it bad?, no quite the contrary.

Of course the world of Thedas have other races ad usually more options is better. Having said that, i would rather have one very good story that works for just one race then story full of compromises made to work for all of them. For me story is the priority. Being forced to play only as human, dwarf or elf (my personal preference is human) is secondary to me. I would be fine with playing any of them, even if i prefere a human character.

Also, for me being able to pick and customize characters have little to do with role-playing. Even if i inherit a character with name, look, origin i still can make it my own. Afterall i am the one making choices, i am the one chosing conversation options, i am the one creating character moral spine. There is more to it than just look and races.

Besides, even in pen and paper games, you not always can chose everything that you want, you don't start playing as a 3 years old, you still have some predetermined background.

Please go read the books. There are other races in it than human. Just not elf or dwarf.

I actually have, twice. 99% of them are human. In people minds stuff like giants and such are as much believible as snarks and grumkins. They are introduced very slowly and exist in very liminted role storywise. My point remians valid. Its preety much about humans and thats why it is so appealing to people

[Caiden012]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I probably wouldn't have liked it, then. I wasn't a fan of Hawke; I found him to be very passive, and reactive instead of proactive. Doing nothing about Petrice, doing nothing in the Bethany/Cullen situation, doing nothing about Quentin's note, doing nothing about Meredith's dictatorship for three years. I wouldn't have liked him as an elf or a dwarf if he remained the same. Just my two cents, of course.

That's fine.  I think that disliking Hawke for his passivity is a fair critique of DA2.  The point I'm making is that I've seen some state that DA2 didn't have racial selection, and DA2 wasn't successful, and to the extent that the lack of race choice was a significant cause of this.

I think it's important to note, however, that it's not just "I wanted elves/dwarves."  It's that "I wanted elves/dwarves and all the extra stuff that comes with it."  Which, in my opinion, muddies up the water on precisely what people are looking for.  What exactly is "the extra stuff that comes with it" though?  And it can be tricky to find consensus regarding this too.

It then starts to become "can the extra stuff only be provided with different races?"  Now, if you're specifically hoping to explore and learn more about the Dalish as a Dalish Elf character, then yeah this is definitely going to be disappointing, since that won't be possible.

So for me, it becomes a quest for trying to figure out what the extra stuff is that people feel is missing, since I believe the issue is more than just "I'd like my character to be an elf or a dwarf."  (Although for some people, that's as simple as it is for them!)

Well for me I did want to play as an elf but at this point it is a bit more. The fact is that Elves and Dwarves have their own cultures, struggles, and cool things about them. Being forced to play as a human really detaches us from that. In DA2 I see all the Elves that are suffering in the Alienage and I want to fight for them. Just like how I could help my clan at the end of DA:O. But as a human I pretty much have to tell myself "Oh well". When forced as a human everything that seems cool to me about elf and dwarf culture and struggles basically becomes pointless because I can do little to become a part of that. Even just BEING an elf makes me feel more for what is happening in the Alienage.

[Fast Jimmy]

Tarathelion wrote...

Besides, even in pen and paper games, you not always can chose everything that you want, you don't start playing as a 3 years old, you still have some predetermined background.

Fallout 3 tried to do this, actually. And I thought it was one of the cooler portions of the game.