3855 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Monica21 wrote...

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Having to fight back doesn't make the protaganist sad because there's no in-game mechanism to say, "This makes me sad." It becomes player headcanon and nothing to do with the PC at all.

All roleplaying takes place inside the player's head.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 octobre 2012 - 06:37 .

[Monica21]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Having to fight back doesn't make the protaganist sad because there's no in-game mechanism to say, "This makes me sad." It becomes player headcanon and nothing to do with the PC at all.

The mental life of a protagonist in an RPG is nothing more than the player's head cannon. Otherwise, it's not an RPG.

If by that you have a broader existential argument stating that none of this is really real, then yeah, but as far as gameplay goes, no. Unless there's an in-game mechanism for the protaganist to play a role (sad because he has to fight the Carta, sympathy for Fenris specifically based on common race) then it's nothing more than player imagination. If, as a player, I'm forced to imagine my character's thoughts and feelings then that's a sorry excuse for an RPG.

[Monica21]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Having to fight back doesn't make the protaganist sad because there's no in-game mechanism to say, "This makes me sad." It becomes player headcanon and nothing to do with the PC at all.

All roleplaying takes place inside the player's head.

Except for all those parts where there's reactivity within the game.

[Maria Caliban]

Monica21 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Having to fight back doesn't make the protaganist sad because there's no in-game mechanism to say, "This makes me sad." It becomes player headcanon and nothing to do with the PC at all.

The mental life of a protagonist in an RPG is nothing more than the player's head cannon. Otherwise, it's not an RPG.

If by that you have a broader existential argument stating that none of this is really real...

That would be stupid.

Unless there's an in-game mechanism for the protaganist to play a role (sad because he has to fight the Carta, sympathy for Fenris specifically based on common race) then it's nothing more than player imagination.

Role-playing is nothing more than player imagination.

[Monica21]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Having to fight back doesn't make the protaganist sad because there's no in-game mechanism to say, "This makes me sad." It becomes player headcanon and nothing to do with the PC at all.

The mental life of a protagonist in an RPG is nothing more than the player's head cannon. Otherwise, it's not an RPG.

If by that you have a broader existential argument stating that none of this is really real...

That would be stupid.

Unless there's an in-game mechanism for the protaganist to play a role (sad because he has to fight the Carta, sympathy for Fenris specifically based on common race) then it's nothing more than player imagination.

Role-playing is nothing more than player imagination.

Well then you don't even need a game. Just sit on your couch and imagine stuff. And who cares what your race is? Just use your imagination to pretend that you're playing an elf or dwarf and are super sad about the Carta because that's really all that matters.

[upsettingshorts]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Role-playing is nothing more than player imagination.

Considering my planned response to this was to go on a rant about cRPGs vs. RPGs, I imagine we're starting to get off topic.

[Travie]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

CaolIla wrote...

So Bioware is going the lazy route... who would have thought?

Define lazy.

Actually don't.  You can hate our decision, but just call a spade a spade and say you don't like the decision we made.  If you think I'm "lazy" then you don't know me, nor my colleagues.

We aren't sitting around with our feet up drinking cognac going "Good show mates, now that that's resolved there's not much to do but sit around and enjoy the sun!"

Wait... are you saying this wasn't a resources/time issue? 

To think that this decision was made because Bioware actually thought that somehow 'less is more' is even more disturbing for me considering how deeply held people's opinions on this issue are.

[The Elder King]

Rawgrim wrote...


Alistair, as a king, proclaims the title. That makes it official.

The Champion of Redcliffe, however, is an official title to begin with. And that one is given to the Warden no matter what race he or she is. Ergo, a champion title can be given to non humans. Its right there in the game and in the lore.

It's a title that will probably be completely related to the Warden. I doubt that the kings of Ferelden will appoint other heroes as "The Hero of Ferelden". And even it'll happen, the title was just created, and they could make it available to all races. We don't know if the Champion title could be available to other races.
And the Champion of Redcliffe is completely unrelated to the Champion title in the Free Marches. The Champion title which Hawke was given is a title unique assigned in the Free Marches to certain individuals. The last one before Hawke happened in 8:82 in Tantervale. Is a completely different title for the Redcliffe's Champion, as as such we don't know if it can be assigned to elves or dwarves.

[Fast Jimmy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Having to fight back doesn't make the protaganist sad because there's no in-game mechanism to say, "This makes me sad." It becomes player headcanon and nothing to do with the PC at all.

The mental life of a protagonist in an RPG is nothing more than the player's head cannon. Otherwise, it's not an RPG.

Precisely. Just because you don't have a piece of dialogue or cutscene available to you, doesn't mean you can't explore different emotions or states of mind. 

Just like plays with the exact same dialogue can have different interpretations based on the performance of the actors, a game that doesn't specifically give you the option of saying some thing doesn't preclude it from being true. 

[Rune-Chan]

Travie wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

CaolIla wrote...

So Bioware is going the lazy route... who would have thought?

Define lazy.

Actually don't.  You can hate our decision, but just call a spade a spade and say you don't like the decision we made.  If you think I'm "lazy" then you don't know me, nor my colleagues.

We aren't sitting around with our feet up drinking cognac going "Good show mates, now that that's resolved there's not much to do but sit around and enjoy the sun!"

Wait... are you saying this wasn't a resources/time issue? 

To think that this decision was made because Bioware actually thought that somehow 'less is more' is even more disturbing for me considering how deeply held people's opinions on this issue are.

Lazy implies a lack of effort. Perhaps they thought time, money and resources would be better off spent elsewhere?

That's not laziness, that's just working on something else. It still requires effort does it not?

Modifié par Machines Are Us, 23 octobre 2012 - 07:05 .

[mad_mac_hl]

I'm not going to rant on because in my view, 74 pages of posts in 2 days says it all.

Am I disappointed in a human only protagonist? Yes.

The mistake (if you want to call it that) was having the multiple racial options in the first game. It built expectations among a large part of the DA fanbase. Then DA2 just threw that out of the window. Maybe ok for one game but why carry it on into future games when it is obviously a popular feature. Anyone who only plays humans won't be affected, but the people who like to explore other options are the ones who lose out.

[Maclimes]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Role-playing is nothing more than player imagination.

Considering my planned response to this was to go on a rant about cRPGs vs. RPGs, I imagine we're starting to get off topic.

Still, it took 74 pages to get to that point. Pretty impressive, by BSN standards.

On Topic: I'd rather have human-only, but with real depth and connection to the character, than have multiple racial options that mean nothing other than appearance.

Modifié par Maclimes, 23 octobre 2012 - 07:07 .

[Atakuma]

Travie wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

CaolIla wrote...

So Bioware is going the lazy route... who would have thought?

Define lazy.

Actually don't.  You can hate our decision, but just call a spade a spade and say you don't like the decision we made.  If you think I'm "lazy" then you don't know me, nor my colleagues.

We aren't sitting around with our feet up drinking cognac going "Good show mates, now that that's resolved there's not much to do but sit around and enjoy the sun!"

Wait... are you saying this wasn't a resources/time issue? 

To think that this decision was made because Bioware actually thought that somehow 'less is more' is even more disturbing for me considering how deeply held people's opinions on this issue are.

Where did you get that from what he said? There isn't any single reason why the decision was made, there are many factors involved, getting out of doing more work isn't one of them.

[TheJediSaint]

You know, there's another way to look at this. If Dragon Age 3 turns out to be successful, as I hope it will be, then there's a chance that future games will feature non-human protagonists.

Imagine a Dragon Age game that takes place mostly in the deep roads, where the player is a dwarf trying to find a way to save Orzammar from the darkspawn and it's own corrupt politics. I can already see the title. Dragon Age: Paragon.

Anyway, I'm fine with having only one race option if it fits the story.

[upsettingshorts]

Travie wrote...

To think that this decision was made because Bioware actually thought that somehow 'less is more' is even more disturbing for me considering how deeply held people's opinions on this issue are.

The consensus is overwhelming!

[Harle Cerulean]

TheJediSaint wrote...

You know, there's another way to look at this. If Dragon Age 3 turns out to be successful, as I hope it will be, then there's a chance that future games will feature non-human protagonists.

Imagine a Dragon Age game that takes place mostly in the deep roads, where the player is a dwarf trying to find a way to save Orzammar from the darkspawn and it's own corrupt politics. I can already see the title. Dragon Age: Paragon.

Anyway, I'm fine with having only one race option if it fits the story.

They will never do a game without at the very least the option for a human protag.  Plain and simple, and if anyone thinks otherwise, they're off their rocker.  Human is 'default', and the most popular.  You can bet that a great many of the people in here saying it's fine by them that there's no elf or dwarf protag again would be screaming bloody murder if they were told they couldn't play a human.  Meanwhile, if DA3 is wildly successful, why would they bother returning to multiple races?  They'd have proof right there that just human is good enough for sufficient profit.

Not that I hope DA3 will fail, let me be clear before someone assumes that's what I want from what I just said!  I don't.  Because if it fails, that would mean no more Dragon Age games, and I like the world.  I just wish Bioware would let us see it through more than one race's perspective again.  But I'm finding that extremely unlikely, Laidlaw's "intention" comment aside.  'Intentions' are liable to end up going nowhere.  I fully expect multiple races to be duly "considered" for any future games that might occur, and then, as they were with DA3, be rejected.

Modifié par Harle Cerulean, 23 octobre 2012 - 07:34 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Travie wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

CaolIla wrote...

So Bioware is going the lazy route... who would have thought?

Define lazy.

Actually don't.  You can hate our decision, but just call a spade a spade and say you don't like the decision we made.  If you think I'm "lazy" then you don't know me, nor my colleagues.

We aren't sitting around with our feet up drinking cognac going "Good show mates, now that that's resolved there's not much to do but sit around and enjoy the sun!"

Wait... are you saying this wasn't a resources/time issue? 

To think that this decision was made because Bioware actually thought that somehow 'less is more' is even more disturbing for me considering how deeply held people's opinions on this issue are.

I am not at all sure how you came to this conclusion after reading my post.

[Cutlasskiwi]

This does not bother me one bit since creating my own character in a cRPG is something I can't do with satisfaction, so race selection has never been important to me. Backgrounds playing a bigger part than the ME-games sounds promising too.  

[LinksOcarina]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Travie wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

CaolIla wrote...

So Bioware is going the lazy route... who would have thought?

Define lazy.

Actually don't.  You can hate our decision, but just call a spade a spade and say you don't like the decision we made.  If you think I'm "lazy" then you don't know me, nor my colleagues.

We aren't sitting around with our feet up drinking cognac going "Good show mates, now that that's resolved there's not much to do but sit around and enjoy the sun!"

Wait... are you saying this wasn't a resources/time issue? 

To think that this decision was made because Bioware actually thought that somehow 'less is more' is even more disturbing for me considering how deeply held people's opinions on this issue are.

I am not at all sure how you came to this conclusion after reading my post.

I don't think they did, I think thats just a perception on what they believe, and are using your words to make it a reality. 

In all honesty, when people say  "laziness" for game companies, I cringe because laziness is in the really, really bad games out there that are obviouslly just cash grabs and cheap knockoffs. Big Rigs, Limbo of the Lost, Survivor the Interactive Game, Crow: City of Angels. These titles were lazy. 

To accuse the lack of choice for race as being lazy and then say that a "less is more" approach is the M.O of the development is shooting from the hip. 

[Maria Caliban]

Monica21 wrote...

Well then you don't even need a game.

No, you don't need a game to role-play. Just like you don't need an internet forum to have discussions.

Yet, we use both because we find them useful.

If your argument comes down to 'you don't need it,' you don't have much of an argument for why it should be one way or another.

[Wulfram]

LinksOcarina wrote...

In all honesty, when people say  "laziness" for game companies, I cringe because laziness is in the really, really bad games out there that are obviouslly just cash grabs and cheap knockoffs. Big Rigs, Limbo of the Lost, Survivor the Interactive Game, Crow: City of Angels. These titles were lazy.

I'd guess the people working on those games worked just as hard as Bioware employees do.  Just not for as many man-hours in total, and probably not with as able people.

[Scott Sion]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


Define lazy.

Actually don't.  You can hate our decision, but just call a spade a spade and say you don't like the decision we made.  If you think I'm "lazy" then you don't know me, nor my colleagues.

We aren't sitting around with our feet up drinking cognac going "Good show mates, now that that's resolved there's not much to do but sit around and enjoy the sun!"

Well, are you going to tell us why you chose not to put other playable races in the game? People are just going to assume that there's no good reason for it you don't at least provide some explanation.

[Monica21]

Maria Caliban wrote...
No, you don't need a game to role-play. Just like you don't need an internet forum to have discussions.

You do need a second party with whom to have a discussion.

If your argument comes down to 'you don't need it,' you don't have much of an argument for why it should be one way or another.

My argument is that a good cRPG requires more than just a player's good imagination. It requires feedback from the game itself, otherwise it's just your imagination creating headcanon. Your own personal headcanon is useless in the framework of the gameworld.

[Lennard Testarossa]

plnero wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...


Define lazy.

Actually don't.  You can hate our decision, but just call a spade a spade and say you don't like the decision we made.  If you think I'm "lazy" then you don't know me, nor my colleagues.

We aren't sitting around with our feet up drinking cognac going "Good show mates, now that that's resolved there's not much to do but sit around and enjoy the sun!"

Well, are you going to tell us why you chose not to put other playable races in the game? People are just going to assume that there's no good reason for it you don't at least provide some explanation.

Not every story can accommodate different races as the main character. If the story they want to tell is one of these, they can't make other races playable.

[Rawgrim]

Master Shiori wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Arl Eamon gives your elf warden the title of Champion. The warden also becomes the champion of Thedas, after defeating the blight. So YES. Non humans can get titles. its not against the lore at all. Whats ridicilous is that you missed those parts. or deliberatly ignored them.

That's an annomaly. For one, you'e a Grey Warden, member of an organization that is effectively outside of the usual social norms and laws. People in DA:O don't care about your race, aside from an odd comment or two. What is important is the organization that you belong to or the people who you asociate with.

Not to mention that Grey Wardens are NOT supposed to have titles outside of their own order. DA:O Warden was a special case in that regard, since he/she could rise as high as a ruler of an entire nation.

Just because such an exception happened thanks to very specific set of circumstances doesn't mean it can easily be repeated or that it would even work in a completely different situation, which Hawke's story is.

That sort of special circumstance doesn't exist for Hawke. He/she would have been an ordinary citizen, unless you completely rewrite the story into something else, but then you may as well make a completely different game.

So what you are saying is that there are no way it would ever be possible for an elf or a dwarf, to somehow gain wealth or a title in the Free Marches? Just because the Warden was an annomaly.