3855 réponses à ce sujet

[demont0]

*sigh*
First real piece of information, and i'm altogether not very happy about it.

Idk, I assumed they were going to push the agenda of 'customisation' and player 'choice' in this game, and that gets contradicted immediately with this first bit of information. It's not setting a great precedent this early.

I'm not unreasonably however, if the world is more reactive to the player, and perhaps if the Human protagonist has the possibility of different 'origins'(i'm not expecting actual origin story's ofc) kind of like Shepard did in ME(though ME's background thing sucked, it's just a clipnote on your character if you were earthborn or w/e), then perhaps it's more reasonable to accept a voiced protagonist being strictly human.(since thats the main reason for human only...and to be cynical, marketing)
Since Bioware can write a much more involving story for this one character.

[Sandy]

Tarathelion wrote...

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

Indeed, while the Children of the Forest and Giants do exist, their existance is such a small part of the Song of Ice and Fire world that you might as well say that the story is about human characters only. Every single one of the main characters and like 99,9% of the supporting characters are human after all.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

I like human-only from a zots perspective most of all, but I don't think most people are thinking about it like that. Backgrounds are a nice middle ground between roleplay breadth (Origins) and roleplay depth (DA2). I hope the backgrounds are more often acknowledged by the game than Origins & Shepard's background were.

On the subject of races, I would like to see more lady-dorfs hangin out in the world, though.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

demont0 wrote...

*sigh*
First real piece of information, and i'm altogether not very happy about it.

Idk, I assumed they were going to push the agenda of 'customisation' and player 'choice' in this game, and that gets contradicted immediately with this first bit of information. It's not setting a great precedent this early.

I'm not unreasonably however, if the world is more reactive to the player, and perhaps if the Human protagonist has the possibility of different 'origins'(i'm not expecting actual origin story's ofc) kind of like Shepard did in ME(though ME's background thing sucked, it's just a clipnote on your character if you were earthborn or w/e), then perhaps it's more reasonable to accept a voiced protagonist being strictly human.(since thats the main reason for human only...and to be cynical, marketing)
Since Bioware can write a much more involving story for this one character.

Yes, and I hope that it doesn't end up like DA2 where every piece of new information was greeted with a negative reaction from the fanbase. I disagree with that last part. The writing in Bioware games as of late has been mediocre to abysmal. Rarely good and never great. My opinion, of course.

[Tarathelion]

Cstaf wrote...

Caiden012 wrote...

I am saying that race choice is a part of all of that. We should not speak in a "what if" situation of something that already happened. We were given race choice and it was taken away. (I did not play Baldur's, sorry). This is not KOTOR. It is Dragon Age. The fact is we were given a choice to make our own character in Origins and it made us feel good. Now we lost that and it felt very bad. That is why some of us are upset. And race is a part of making out own character in the DRAGON AGE universe because race is important in Dragon Age.

My god man, you lucky bastard. How i wish i could forget my hundreds of playthroughs of BG I and II and replay them. Be sure to pick up BG:EE when it releases in november, you won't regret it.

And try out Planescape:Torment aswell - perfect example of wonderfull story with just human as a protaginist in world full of other races

[Wozearly]

Interesting thread indeed...

My overall feeling would be disappointment, although not surprise, for two reasons;

Firstly, there's been clear evidence from Origins that the majority of players went with a human protagonist at the time, and its reasonable to expect that there may be a potential cultural resistance to enforcing a non-human main protagonist. Its very, VERY rare for any game (or indeed film) to do this and the inevitable reason is 'sales'. Where it has been done in the past, it hasn't been anything like as successful. EA HQ, methinks, would be rather concerned with that type of decision on a AAA funding project and would want clear evidence that this was actually going to work given the money being invested. I'm not sure that evidence exists.


Secondly, the other most obvious alternative choices for a single race all come with significant problems;

Choice A: "You play a dwarven inquisitor in a world dominated by humans that looks suspiciously like France...oh, and being a dwarf means that there are no PC mages in the game."

Predictable fan response: "Seriously? You're stopping me playing a mage? In the game after a major case of the Templar-Mage war kicking off, you're going to prevent my main character from being a mage? And only let me try out the mage class on my companions? Well whoop-de-do, rather than add consequences for being a blood mage you just take it out as a playable class. Its all just about streamlining, isn't it. Are you TRYING to destroy your fan relations? I'm never buying another Bioware game ever again, etc. etc."


Choice B: "You play an elven inquisitor in a world dominated by humans that looks suspiciously like France...oh, and being an elf means that half of the world treats you like a slave and the other half finds you sexually attractive."

Predictable fan response: "Seriously? Now we have to play someone with alien eyes, weird hips and a face that looks like a poor copy of the Na'vi from Avatar? And we can't say no to this? I find my character visually repulsive and yet everyone in game thinks I'm hot? Every time I push a button, someone hits on me? Its all just about selling the sex, isn't it. Are you TRYING to destroy your fan relations? I'm never buying another Bioware game ever again, etc. etc."


Choice C: "You play a kossith inquisitor in a world dominated by humans that looks suspiciously like France...oh, and although we're not entirely sure why, you travelled halfway across the world, breaking your oath to the Q'un and becoming Tal Vashoth, a hated outcast amongst your own people, in order to pursue secrets on behalf of a god you don't believe in amongst people who have never seen your kind before and doesn't trust you an inch. But because you're in Orlais, you'll never actually get to explore the Qunari lands of Par Vollen, Seheron or Kont-Aar."

Predictable fan response: "Seriously? Don't get me wrong, Sten was great and everything, but was a game set in Orlais really the best time to introduce a kossith PC, when we can't explore the culture or the PC's background or really get to see, well, you know, anything even remotely related to the Qunari? Seems really silly to me. Oh, wait, that was far too calm. BIOWARE!!!! Are you TRYING to destroy your fan relations? I'm never buying another Bioware game ever again, etc. etc."


Assuming it is a fixed race then I can't see any credible alternative to a human protagonist. At least not this time around.

So either its 'human only', or its back to the trinity of Origins, probably meaning the inquisitor would get slightly different introductions to account for the different backgrounds that the different races (as well as classes) would bring. And people would grumble that their male dwarf sounded the same as their male elf, which is completely inconsistent with the accents elsewhere in the game...because I find it highly unlikely that the cost of fully voice acting three different races and two genders for each could be justified.

To be clear, that is a stratospherically better option than fixed race in my opinion. Of course, I'd personally prefer for the voice acting to be canned and to get a free selection of race, class and gender...and maybe having unique background stories based on race and class, that threw up slightly different things as you went along the game that would link you back to your past and be a significant bonus for people choosing to replay?

I know, what a dinosaur, that was so 2009...

Modifié par Wozearly, 22 octobre 2012 - 08:53 .

[UrgentArchengel]

I personally don't mind at all. I prefer to play human males anyways just because I can connect with my character better as the human male I am. I could see why have just a human would be better to having more time making one race playthrough really good, as opposed to multiple race playthroughs being mediocre or moderate. I can wait to add my new Rogue to my protagonists: Warrior Human Male Warden, and Mage Male Champion.

Modifié par UrgentArchengel, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:00 .

[Lee80]

I prefer there to be options on what race your character is from, but I suppose I can live with the human only thing. I just hope the character choices are still good-as in you can make your characters vastly different in multiple playthroughs. Lots of abilities and classes to choose from etc.

[Fast Jimmy]

Wozearly wrote...

To be clear, that is a stratospherically better option than fixed race in my opinion. Of course, I'd personally prefer for the voice acting to be canned and to get a free selection of race, class and gender...and maybe having unique background stories based on race and class, that threw up slightly different things as you went along the game that would link you back to your past and be a significant bonus for people choosing to replay?

I know, what a dinosaur, that was so 2009...

You know, I'm really surprised that the rage against losing choseable classes was not blamed more on the voice pro-tag in this thread. 

I think its a smart move, since I just can't bring myself to believe that a dwarf, elf or Kossith could be the head of anything that's involved with the Chantry (or, in the case of the Mage side, dwarves or Kossith, tbh). I don't doubt it has the potential to make a better story. 

But still... I am surprised that more people aren't decrying the voiced main character as the doom of the DA franchise. Because while I think the story would make more sense with a human PC... I'm sure the VA budget plays a role in why they decided to not try and do a narrative tap dance to make any race possible.

[Fast Jimmy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Caiden012 wrote...

 We were given race choice and it was taken away.

So you're saying that it's basically loss aversion?

I think a smart psychologist could make the case that every video game demand is a form of loss aversion to the power of imagination. 


Yeah. I said it.

[upsettingshorts]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Caiden012 wrote...

 We were given race choice and it was taken away.

So you're saying that it's basically loss aversion?

I think a smart psychologist could make the case that every video game demand is a form of loss aversion to the power of imagination. 


Yeah. I said it.

I meant specifically the part of the argument that said, "We had this in the previous game, expect and desire it in future games, and feel like it has been taken away when it does not re-occur."  I'm not disputing the validity of the position by calling it loss aversion by any means.  It's just a different reason in of itself than anything that makes racial options inherently good or bad.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

You know, I'm really surprised that the rage against losing choseable classes was not blamed more on the voice pro-tag in this thread.

Because before I got tired of it, early on in the thread, I was explaining at length how the voiced protagonist is not the obstacle to racial options.

Accents are the obstacle.

And they can do away with accents being linked to races with a simple decision to stop doing it.  Since it is stupid and arbitrary in my opinion anyway, I'd be all for them getting rid of it regardless.  Accents ought to be tied to regions, as they are in the real world.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:07 .

[FedericoV]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Felya87 wrote...

Hawke was imposted. Cousland choosen.
I may seem little, but in truth, is a lot. it remind me of "Antz". the theme is that.

Fair, and I can understand that.

Does human with different backgrounds somewhat mitigate this?

You know: my main motivation as a Cousland during DA:O wasn't to kill the Archdemon. Ok, I had to kill him as I had to become a Warden or stop playing, but it wasn't my biggest motivation. My main goal was revenge against the killer of my parents. It was a very thin storyline off course. Mostly emergent as the cool kids love to say. And you have to kill Howe no matter the Origin. But still, it was an interesting layer added to the more classical main storyline that kept me going forward (btw, that storyline could have used a richer climax ).

When you cut the Origins in DA2, I do not care. I thought it was mostly expensive fluff and that the money was better spent elsewhere. Once I played the game, I actually missed those f@ckers a lot . They were a great helper for your own personal subjective fantasy.

Having said that, background can mitigate the loss of race selection and playable origin but it depends mostly on the scope of those background. If the background are just a set of bonus/malus on stats, relationship and factions, the answer is simply no. Even becuase it will be only a matter of "work" to overcome the malus and you will have to offer the options to overcome those malus.

If the background involve some serious reactivity, a set of meaningfull choice and consequences, even some kind of exclusivity about things we could care about (so no brother/sister's death after 5 minutes of gameplay) well, they could mitigate the loss. But I hope that in a future game (being DA based or not) you will return to the Origin feature and improve them.

Modifié par FedericoV, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:11 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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

They are both "the same" in the way that its a pre-created character that you take control of.

No they are absolutely not whatsoever.  The only possible way you could assume this is with an arbitrary, meaningless, and completely inconsistent definition of "pre-created."  I am not even going to dignify this assertion with further discussion.

You are the one who brought up Geralt as a reference to give an example of pre-determined characters. Now you appear to be arguing against your very own reference. Bit hypocritical don't you think? Both are pre-determined characters with different levels of pre-determination and there is similarity between the two even if the level is different. It is the level that is the problem for some how much is the creators character vs the players choice. All RPG's have a level to which they allow, the difference here is that those levels are being changed between games. They allowed something in the first game people grew attached to because they enjoyed it then removed it much like many other elements they decided to ditch. 

As much as people here will defend or argue with each other over every single thing, the one thing people need to remember is all those people will only buy and pay for things they enjoy so when someone says they would enjoy something no matter how much others try to belittle what that person enjoys, their enjoyment impacts where they spend their money and is the only factor on whether they buy a game or not. Their enjoyment, not yours, not mine and not Biowares. The more things they ditch or change that people did enjoy the less likely those people will buy the game. Now it is just a game however so there is no need for hyperbole that some use but do not forget the people you or others belittle and patronise on here about what they enjoy in games are the very same people who just like you pay for things they enjoy and if you remove what they enjoy they have every right to lose interest and not buy it regardless of whether you agree or think it is stupid what they like.

As for Allens post, race has a larger impact in the world of Thedas on perceptions and reactions to a players character if written well compared to a single race which is one of the most dominant races in the DA world will get even if written also well. For me race selection has the potential for vastly better opportunity to be explored than single race with different pre-determined histories because the world in which they are present does in fact react more so to races from each ones perception of each other and has been shown in every game how they all treat each other based on those races.

This leads to better roleplaying than playing the role of one of the most prominent and dominant race in the world over and over again and to be honest I am bored of playing as a human in fantasy games. They may be written by a human and we may be humans that play those roles but it's the easy route, the simple one to do what you know rather than explore what you might not find so easy to write. Now any difference whether racial or ME style background difference can be both done ****** poorly or very well so that is no excuse. It may in the end come down to preference which people enjoy playing more but race has greater potential to be impactive if written and incorporated well for a player than different backgrounds yet on only one race. We just played a human role in the last DA game and we spent the last three ME games playing a human, seems to me a lack of creativity being shown here. Race selection was a great idea and could of been improved upon not ditched.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:18 .

[CrazyRah]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Felya87 wrote...

Hawke was imposted. Cousland choosen.
I may seem little, but in truth, is a lot. it remind me of "Antz". the theme is that.

Fair, and I can understand that.

Does human with different backgrounds somewhat mitigate this?

Even though it's not directed to me i want to share my input. 
It doesn't entierly make up for being forced human but it very much depend on what these backgrounds are and what effects they bring on the narative. If they're like the backgrounds in Mass Effect that really never changed anything then obviously they don't mitigate it nearly enough. However if they're more than that then yes at least for me they mitigate at least partially the forced human.

[upsettingshorts]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You are the one who brought up Geralt as a reference to give an example of pre-determined characters. Now you appear to be arguing against your very own reference. Bit hypocritical don't you think? Both are pre-determined characters with different levels of pre-determination and there is similarity between the two even if the level is different.

My head figuratively just exploded into a million pieces.  How could you think I was being hypocritical when you essentially restated the core principle of my argument:

Person A: "Hawke was extremely defined!"
Me: "If Hawke was extremely defined, what word do we use for Geralt?"
Person A: "The same one!"
Person B: "Hawke and Geralt are the same!"
Me: "No they aren't, these things are relative and you people are nuts."

The assertion I was challenging was that Hawke and Geralt were the same.  They are not even close to being the same.  Hawke has some predetermined elements, Geralt is a predetermined element.  DA:O allows you to pick between six different sets of pre-determined elements, and Neverwinter Nights doesn't predetermine any elements at all.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:13 .

[jillabender]

Personally, I really love the origin stories in DA:O, because they give me interesting starting points to build on as I'm fleshing out my characters. I really enjoy imagining how my characters feel about their cultural background and the people they grew up with. Even though my characters' backstories might not be unambiguously referenced all that often, there are many moments in the overall story that feel different depending on how my character was shaped as a person by his or her background.

Although race options aren't the be-all and end-all when it comes to background choices, I do feel that playing as a Dwarf or an Elf added something – we got to experience non-Human cultures from within, rather than solely from a Human character's point of view. It's certainly true that offering a variety of Human origins could provide a similar variety of perspectives, but because I found the Dalish, Dwarven, and Alienage cultures so interesting in DA:O, I do think it would have been a shame if we hadn't been able to play characters from those cultures.

However, if origin stories were to be included in a future game, I would love to experience backgrounds that I haven't before. I would be very excited, for example, to be able to play a Chasind barbarian, or an Antivan Crow, or a Rivaini, or even a Qunari – in fact, I think any of those options would interest me more than playing as an Elf or a Dwarf.

That being said, not having race options or origin stories isn't a deal-breaker for me, and I'm looking forward to seeing what BioWare does with the background choices in DA3.

Modifié par jillabender, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:22 .

[Monica83]

Another time forced to be human?....

I think i will skip also this one... Sorry bioware....


This is another proof you didin't learn anything..

You wanted statisfy also origins fan with this sequel but you already sayd:

1)no race selection
2) Same voiced character with paraphrase crap....

those two point alone is just a reason because some people disliked dragon age 2 and dragon age 3 is going to be in the same way.. at this point..

I will keep my money for another project i'm not going to look forward for a dragon age 2 (2.0)..

A suggestion if you want origins fan back: Less talking and more material....

Bioware lost all his credibility and i am not going to thrust you anymore..

Modifié par Monica83, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:18 .

[Rawgrim]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You are the one who brought up Geralt as a reference to give an example of pre-determined characters. Now you appear to be arguing against your very own reference. Bit hypocritical don't you think? Both are pre-determined characters with different levels of pre-determination and there is similarity between the two even if the level is different.

My head figuratively just exploded into a million pieces.  How could you think I was being hypocritical when you essentially restated the core principle of my argument:

Person A: "Hawke was extremely defined!"
Me: "If Hawke was extremely defined, what word do we use for Geralt?"
Person A: "The same one!"
Person B: "Hawke and Geralt are the same!"
Me: "No they aren't, these things are relative and you people are nuts."

The assertion I was challenging was that Hawke and Geralt were the same.  They are not even close to being the same.  Hawke has some predetermined elements, Geralt is a predetermined element.  DA:O allows you to pick between six different sets of pre-determined elements, and Neverwinter Nights doesn't predetermine any elements at all.

Of course Geralt has ALOT of pre-determined elements. He is a character for a book-series, after all.

[Dragoonlordz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You are the one who brought up Geralt as a reference to give an example of pre-determined characters. Now you appear to be arguing against your very own reference. Bit hypocritical don't you think? Both are pre-determined characters with different levels of pre-determination and there is similarity between the two even if the level is different.

My head figuratively just exploded into a million pieces.  How could you think I was being hypocritical when you essentially restated the core principle of my argument.

Person A: "Hawke was extremely defined!"
Me: "If Hawke was extremely defined, what word do we use for Geralt?"
Person A: "The same one!"
Person B: "Hawke and Geralt are the same!"
Me: "No they aren't, these things are relative and you people are nuts."

The assertion I was challenging was that Hawke and Geralt were the same.  They are not even close to being the same.  Hawke has some predetermined elements, Geralt has a lot of predetermined elements.  DA:O allows you to pick between six different pre-determined elements, and Neverwinter Nights doesn't predetermine anything at all.

It does not make a difference what word they use, if to them both are extremely pre-determined then that is what they are to that person. To me Hawke was less pre-determined than Geralt but he was vastly more pre-determined than say the choice offered to the player in DA:Origins. Though this line of discussion has less to do with race selection and more to do with being pedantic at this stage arguing over words used to desccribe how others feel.

[upsettingshorts]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

It does not make a difference what word they use, if to them both are extremely pre-determined then that is what they are to that person.

Words have meanings.  Semantics are important in feedback thread.  Alleging that if you have a human protagonist you might as well have Geralt is a form of feedback, which is a really odd position to put forward.  The reason for challenging it is to draw out a more sensible explanation that's based on something other than... nothing.

But they dug in and it seemed pointless so I decided not to participate.  Then you said I was a hypocrite.  So, here we are.  I'm not a hypocrite, we broadly agree in principle, and I can drop it again.

Dragoonlordz wrote...

To me Hawke was less pre-determined than Geralt but he was vastly more pre-determined than say the choice offered to the player in DA:Origins.

In that Hawke was as pre-set as any of the given DA:O origins, but DA:O had six origins, sure.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:20 .

[Nerevar-as]

Outside of how s/he looks, I don´t see much difference between Geralt and Hawke. They come with a set personality, and you can choose some variation in how they behave, and that´s it.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:21 .

[upsettingshorts]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Outside of how s/he looks, I don´t see much difference between Geralt and Hawke. They come with a set personality, and you can choose some variation in how they behave, and that´s it.

Hawke does not come with a set personality, not even - as is often stated "three personalities."  

If I'm reading this feedback and I work for either BioWare or CD Projekt Red I am going to be completely baffled by it.

The implication of such feedback is that DA:O gave us six Geralts/Geraltesses.  Is that what you're going with, really?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:22 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Monica83 wrote...

Another time forced to be human?....

I cannot wrap my head around this attitude. Because they did Origins once is not some kind of obligation for them to do it again. Precedent is not a guarantee. And by virtue of "Origins" being a subtitle, implying it's a gimmick unique to that game, no promise was made to carry the gimmick over to future titles. Also, it's not like they're sitting on a pile of fully fleshed out protagonists of different races and only letting you play one of them out of spite. You're not being coerced to pick one option out of many.

This comment isn't directed at you specifically, many people have the same opinion and they all baffle me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Outside of how s/he looks, I don´t see much difference between Geralt and Hawke. They come with a set personality, and you can choose some variation in how they behave, and that´s it.

I would argue that Hawke did not come with a set personality, but the player had no control over what that personality was.