3855 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Pseudocognition wrote...

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.

Because asking a sequel to improve, and not remove, the thing that made the Dragon Age series so great and fun for people is too much to ask... right?

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

But you would also admit this is - to you - not a human-protagonist issue, but a paraphrase/cinematics issue, yes?  In the sense that if Hawke's racial choice was open, but the cinematic presentation and paraphrased dialogue existed you'd be saying the same thing now.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:26 .

[Nerevar-as]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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?

S/he does. For starters, from the moment you give them a voice, they have a personality, a way of speaking, and that reflects on the character. Even if the voice had no inflexions, it would still show the way the character is (remember JC Denton).

Although maybe we don´t have the same idea of what a character personality amounts to.

[Dave of Canada]

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.

Geralt has a set past, relationship with characters and generally pessimistic point of view of the world. When playing The Witcher 2, you're influencing Geralt's thought process but it's still his at the very core, as every decision fits into Sapkowski's character--so your description for Geralt works.

However, Hawke's past is about as developed as the Warden, allowing the player influence over how Hawke responds to scenarios and over his/her personality. The only difference between the Warden and Hawke is the voice acting and the "Origin" stays relevant, rather than being dismissed for the Warden storyline. Was Hawke raised as a devout Andrastian? Was he raised to be anti-Chantry? Did he just not care? All head-canon which cannot exist in The Witcher.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:28 .

[upsettingshorts]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Although maybe we don´t have the same idea of what a character personality amounts to.

I certainly don't think the presence of a voice renders a character fixed, no.

[Rinji the Bearded]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...


Because asking a sequel to improve, and not remove, the thing that made the Dragon Age series so great and fun for people is too much to ask... right?

I severely doubt that the option to play two other races impacted the story as much as you think they did, nor were they as well implemented as you think they were.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:28 .

[AlexWk31]

Nooooooooooo! I really don't like this. I really wanted to be an elf again. This is really upsetting to me....

[Monica83]

Pseudocognition wrote...

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.

Its supposed to be a "sequel" a sequel should have all the feature of the pervious games improved and new one added... Dragon age 2 was cut in all the sides.. If Dragon age 3 will have only human protagonist will be another lack since da2...
If they wanted origin fan back this is for sure the wrong manner to have them... Cut features and continue with lack of content is the wrong way....

And again this will to bring back fan is just... chat...but i never expected something different...

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

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.

Because asking a sequel to improve, and not remove, the thing that made the Dragon Age series so great and fun for people is too much to ask... right?

Dragon Age: Origins by itself does not a series make, nor does one gimmick in one game constitute a trend or promise. The argument against removing a supposedly beloved feature may have made sense before DA2, but at this point you're beating the already dead and decomposing horse.

[upsettingshorts]

Dave of Canada wrote...

 The only difference between the Warden and Hawke is the voice acting and the "Origin" stays relevant, rather than being dismissed for the Warden storyline.

That is a good way of putting it.

DA:O offered more variety, in that you could choose between six origin stories ceased to be relevant early in the game.

DA:2 offered less variety, in that you had one origin but it remained relevant throughout the game.

If you prefer variety, DA:O's approach is superior.  If you prefer narrative relevance, DA:2's approach is superior. 

If you don't care either way, then aesthetics, headcanons, and other issues probably come in to play.  In which case you might prefer one game or the other for another reason.

Monica83 wrote...

Its supposed to be a "sequel" a sequel should have all the feature of the pervious games improved and new one added

Who says?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:32 .

[Monica83]

I suggest to ask you in a dictionary what the word sequel is...

[DarkKnightHolmes]

RinjiRenee wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...


Because asking a sequel to improve, and not remove, the thing that made the Dragon Age series so great and fun for people is too much to ask... right?

I severely doubt that the option to play two other races impacted the story as much as you think they did, nor were they as well implemented as you think they were.

Uh, where did I say it impacts the story? In facts, that would be one things they could have improved instead of just removing them and doing it even worse in DA2.

Pseudocognition wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins by itself does not a
series make, nor does one gimmick in one game constitute a trend or
promise. The argument against removing a supposedly beloved feature may
have made sense before DA2, but at this point you're beating the already
dead and decomposing horse.

Well, of course now it doesn't. Seeing as there's only 1/3 games with actual origin gameplay. And really Bioware said they're bringing the best of DAO and DA2. So what's the best of DAO for them? If it ain't origins and picking a race, I don't know what was the best thing about DAO.

Modifié par DarkKnightHolmes, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:38 .

[Dave of Canada]

Monica83 wrote...

I suggest to ask you in a dictionary what the word sequel is...

I'd actually suggest you do the same.

[Vandicus]

Monica83 wrote...

I suggest to ask you in a dictionary what the word sequel is...

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/sequel

se·quel 
 noun
1.a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.
2.an event or circumstance following something; subsequent course of affairs.
3.a result, consequence, or inference.

Hmmm, not seeing your definition in here.

Modifié par Vandicus, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:36 .

[upsettingshorts]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

I suggest to ask you in a dictionary what the word sequel is...

I'd actually suggest you do the same.

I'll look for both of us!

se·quel   [see-kwuhl]  noun
1.a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.
2.an event or circumstance following something; subsequent course of affairs.
3.a result, consequence, or inference.

This is what the BSN comes down to, looking up definitions, I guess.  Furthermore Monica's definition isn't even typically the case in games.  Sequels swap features in an out all the time, unless you know, they're sports games.  Sports games follow Monica's definition almost to the letter.  And everyone thinks that's just super.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:38 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

Monica83 wrote...

I suggest to ask you in a dictionary what the word sequel is...

I have read nothing about a sequel videogame needing to keep all the same elements from previous installments.   Please name a game series that has kept all of the same elements throughout and we will discuss from there?

[Shadow Fox]

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'd argue it's more that alot of people expect a game's sequel to expand on the options the previous one offered not cut them out DA2 failed to do this for those people thus they did not enjoy it.

[GreyLycanTrope]

That's a bit disappointing. Would have liked to play as a Kossith male and female.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:39 .

[Nerevar-as]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

Geralt has a set past, relationship with characters and generally pessimistic point of view of the world. When playing The Witcher 2, you're influencing Geralt's thought process but it's still his at the very core, as every decision fits into Sapkowski's character--so your description for Geralt works.

However, Hawke's past is about as developed as the Warden, allowing the player influence over how Hawke responds to scenarios and over his/her personality. The only difference between the Warden and Hawke is the voice acting and the "Origin" stays relevant, rather than being dismissed for the Warden storyline. Was Hawke raised as a devout Andrastian? Was he raised to be anti-Chantry? Did he just not care? All head-canon which cannot exist in The Witcher.

The Origin wasn´t dismissed. At least I didn´t play my City Elf as my Human Noble. It should have played a bigger part in interactions with other characters, but the answer was to expand the feature not send it to make company to the Mako. And Hawke´s origin means nothing, has as little bearing in the story as any GW´s did.. Not even being a mage means anything, in one of the bigger gameplay-story segregation I´ve ever seen. (And unless you´ve read the books, Geralt is a blank slate too, you know little to nothing of how he thought, and can turn him into a genocidal bastard.)

[upsettingshorts]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

I'd argue it's more that alot of people expect a game's sequel to expand on the options the previous one offered not cut them out DA2 failed to do this for those people thus they did not enjoy it.

The point of emphasizing the concept of loss aversion is to say that people are more upset by something lost (racial choice) than they are pleased by anything gained (narrative relevance). 

As to how well DA3 will do with the latter is anyone's guess.

[Ghost_Nappa]

Well....I feel sorta crushed since I was hoping to play as a kossith or city elf.....*sigh* now I just feel bummed.

[Nerevar-as]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

I suggest to ask you in a dictionary what the word sequel is...

I have read nothing about a sequel videogame needing to keep all the same elements from previous installments.   Please name a game series that has kept all of the same elements throughout and we will discuss from there?

We can also discusss how well cutting corners and changingg genres have worked with sequels, unless it was advertised as a reboot (and even some of these), but we would be getting off-topic.

[upsettingshorts]

Nerevar-as wrote...

The Origin wasn´t dismissed. At least I didn´t play my City Elf as my Human Noble. It should have played a bigger part in interactions with other characters, but the answer was to expand the feature not send it to make company to the Mako.

This is what we're talking about.  We can argue all day about what they should have done instead, and that's fine.  But in DA:O a great deal of any persistent relevance any of the origins retained had to have come from your head, as it wasn't acknowledged by, referred to, or actively influencing the game. 

DA:2 didn't offer the same amount of choice, but Hawke's origin (singular) retained and exploited that relevance.  That's what they chose to do with it.  They didn't strip out racial choice and then do nothing.  Like I said we can argue that increasing the relevance of racial choice would have been another viable approach, but I'm just trying to make clear that DA2 had an approach, it didn't just remove something and leave it at that.

Nerevar-as wrote...

We can also discusss how well cutting corners and changingg genres have worked with sequels, unless it was advertised as a reboot (and even some of these), but we would be getting off-topic.

Rushing games out the door in 11 months usually resulted in cut corners and isn't necessarily indicative of deliberae changes in approach.  But given that the human protagonist is returning, it pretty clearly falls under the list of things in DA2 BioWare wanted to do, but wasn't forced to.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:43 .

[Morroian]

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 doesn't have a set personality, elements of his background are set that is all. The characterisation is up to the player with the options we're given. I've said it before but I created 5 quite different Hawkes within the constraints of the DA2 system.