plnero wrote...
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.
Lennard Testarossa wrote...
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.
Modifié par plnero, 23 octobre 2012 - 08:13 .
Monica21 wrote...
You do need a second party with whom to have a discussion.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.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.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 wrote...
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.
plnero wrote...
Did they say this or are you just assuming this is the case? I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't want to hear guess from fans.
Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 octobre 2012 - 08:12 .
LinksOcarina wrote...
Considering Limbo of the Lost literally had plagirized images, levels, enemies and even scenes from various games and movies, I doubt that.
And Big Rigs and Survivor are a mess of code poorly strung together. The games are unplayable basically, so It is one of the few instances where I can say objectively no, they did not work hard at all.
I did qualify by saying "a good cRPG."Vandicus wrote...
Monica21 wrote...
You do need a second party with whom to have a discussion.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.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.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.
Since this is going OT, hopefully this will clear things up between you two.
There are multiple types of CRPG. They fall on a spectrum of what could be termed from sandbox to themepark. Sandbox is largely player created, and just gives them a ruleset in which to operate. Themepark is developer created, where the story and characters have more involvement from developers. Most crpgs fall in between these two extremes. You two prefer CRPGs on different portions of the spectrum. They're all CRPGs though.
hhh89 wrote...
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.
Skadison wrote...
Atakuma wrote...
No it isn't. I've played many a fantasy RPG without such a choice.Skadison wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
Customization can incorporate a lot more than just race choice. There's the obvious weapons/armor variation, but can also include things like crafting and stuff like that too.
With all due respect how is that a good point? That still doesn't change the fact that you have less choice. I'm not saying that these thing yoiu mentioned aren't a good thing but for crying out loud being able to choose a race especially in a fantasy setting is like an established tradition.
Really? BG, BG2, NWN, NWN2, Icewind Dale, Icewind Dale 2, Neverwinter, Guild Wars 2? Are these some obscure role playing games?
plnero wrote...
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.
Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 octobre 2012 - 08:31 .
xxLDZxx wrote...
Perfect. I am human and my avatar is human too. +1
Upsettingshorts wrote...
It's also easier to talk about things that won't be in the game at this stage versus things that will be. Since all that has to happen for something not to be in a game is for them to decide it won't be. Getting something into a game, getting it to work right, and making sure it's finished is an entirely different amount of work and that means more uncertainty.
There's plenty of time between now and release for details to emerge.plnero wrote...
Did they say this or are you just assuming this is the case? I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't want to hear guess from fans.
Narrative/story reasons are among the reasons given, yes.
Rawgrim wrote...
Doesn`t matter if the titles are related at all. The point I was making was that titles CAN, and HAVE been given to non humans. The reasons for them is of no consequence.
Allan Schumacher wrote...
To go on a small tangent:
This is why we can't just say "Well this feature shouldn't be very hard to implement" because frankly, there's always a lot of features that "shouldn't be very hard to implement." Hundreds if not thousands of them. So while you may see "This would only take a couple of days at the most!" for one particular feature, we see "Yeah, but the other hundreds of other things were in the same boat. How do we choose which one to do!?"
So to anyone that says "You could still work the story around an elf and a dwarf if you wanted" I say you are absolutely right. We could do it. However, that doesn't make it easy to do and doesn't fully appreciate how much time it could take within the context of the story or a host of other types of influences that could play a part. Eventually it comes to a point of "What are we willing to sacrifice in order to do it?"
Modifié par ArinTheirinCousland, 23 octobre 2012 - 08:53 .
Allan Schumacher wrote...
plnero wrote...
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.
Opportunity cost. To add this, and especially to do it well, is not free. So in order to do it, we'd have to not do something else.
At its simplest distillation, people are disappointed with the lack of races in large part because it represents a lack of content. I do not believe that many of these people would be content if we just had allowed Hawke to be an elf/dwarf in DA2 without making necessary story changes to accommodate the option. I'm sure some would have been, but dwarf mages running around would have certainly been setting breaking.
Trust me, I would love to have all four races be playable options. In an idea world, I'd love for all 4 races to be their own unique story. But once you get that far, costs start to get pretty intense. And no, I'm not talking about using different voice actors for the different races.
If you're asking me "what it is exactly we're doing instead?" the best answer I can give is "it's not cut and dry." For example (hypothetical), if a feature is deemed to take a month of work, cutting that feature could allow 20 different features that take 1 day of work to be implemented instead. Many of those features may not even be stuff that the gamer will see, but are things like tools improvements to ensure that other teams can keep their velocity high to get their goals done for the project on time and on budget as well.
To go on a small tangent:
This is why we can't just say "Well this feature shouldn't be very hard to implement" because frankly, there's always a lot of features that "shouldn't be very hard to implement." Hundreds if not thousands of them. So while you may see "This would only take a couple of days at the most!" for one particular feature, we see "Yeah, but the other hundreds of other things were in the same boat. How do we choose which one to do!?"
So to anyone that says "You could still work the story around an elf and a dwarf if you wanted" I say you are absolutely right. We could do it. However, that doesn't make it easy to do and doesn't fully appreciate how much time it could take within the context of the story or a host of other types of influences that could play a part. Eventually it comes to a point of "What are we willing to sacrifice in order to do it?"
Rawgrim wrote...
Playing Human in Origins was fun. Simply because I could play different humans, and the characters felt like they were my own. Hawke never made me feel that way at all. Nor did Sheparn, or Geralt for that matter.
Maclimes wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
Playing Human in Origins was fun. Simply because I could play different humans, and the characters felt like they were my own. Hawke never made me feel that way at all. Nor did Sheparn, or Geralt for that matter.
It might seem silly, but I really do think the name had a lot to do with it.
I know it's not proof of causality, but the examples you mentioned as not feeling like your own all had distinct names that the NPCs referred to them as. In DA:O, you were rarely addressed by your name (and even then, only if you played one of the two Noble origins). Food for thought.
Retour en haut