3855 réponses à ce sujet

[frostajulie]

I hate the idea. DAO was magic in large part because we designed our PC race included. I don't play many games that restrict my ability to customize my PC if the game does that then the story is amazing ala ME1 and ME2. I won't buy the witcher because it makes me play as a man I wont buy Assassins Creed for the same reason. Its ok though I'll just buy DA3 from the bargain bin at walmart 2 years after the release. Its what I did with DA2 and that was an enjoyable game for $20. I can see now DA3 will be the same. Good to know.

[Dintonta]

Thank you Allan to have open that thread in replacement of the previous one!

In DA:O, roles and apparences were largely fixed by the race choice (and origin sub-choice.)
Humans, for exemple, were as much limited as the other races in their social status and look (and thus weren't an 'all encompassing' race, or even, for that matter, an equivalent of the RL humans we all are...)
I enjoy to play characters I can relate to, even in a distant and distorted way.

In DA:O, I rarely played humans, for reasons that were tied both to their situation in Ferelden and their limited range of physical apparence : I'm rather small and thin, while DA:O humans were rather the tall and 'thick' race (Kossith excepted).
Playing as an elf among humans (despite the pointy ears, which aren't as much important as the overall body frame) put the 'size scale' the way I usually see it.
It's a detail that greatly helps 'immersion' for me (I also rarely plays male characters for the same reason.)

As for the role, I had much more empathy with the 'low-classes' races and origins (DC and CE) or the outsider ones (elf mage, dalish.)
Humans, in comparison to their non-human counterparts, always seemed to me too much 'middle-class', 'upper-class', or 'well integrated fereldans' (which, in my headcanon only, isn't so much flattering).

If I can customize enough the apparence of the future human inquisitrix, thus I won't be forced to play through a character I could hardly identify with... And if at least one of her background choices could be one of a cultural outcast... And if this background choice really matters throughout the whole game...
...I think I'll be very, very, happy!

[John Epler]

Let's cut the bickering down to a reasonable level, please. You are making me want to drink at 2:30 on a Sunday.

[Nerevar-as]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

How so? They could have approached the conflicts from other POVs. Reflect Dalish looks on magic besides the couple of Merril´s comments, same with dwarves (who both lack mages and have partial immunity), or the quanri from an elf, who usually take the Qun as several steps in the right direction from the way human cultures treat them. It would have been worse only if it had limited itself to a change of skin and a few dialogue choices. Which considering the rest of DA2, would probably have been the case.

You realize that this isn't just a request for more races, but also more content to make sure that said racial choices are done better.

In other words, it boils down to a request for additional content. Which is something I expect every person to want.

Yes, I do. Otherwise it´s just a skin change. A great thing about Thedas is that it is a setting where race makes a big difference in society. So when I played as elf or dwarf I approached some situations in a different way than with the HN. Expanding the Origins feature was something I was really looking forward, so I was really dissapointed when that was removed and was limited again to a generic human one. That I found Hawke rather lacking as a main character didn´t help either.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

UpsettingShorts wrote...

You have no idea what the possible pro-DA2 implications of this position could be, do you?

It's not an implication, it's a fact. More variables throughout a playthrough = more replay value, plain and simple. If you think importing Origins saves morphed the game to have more replayability than Origins did, good for you... (but you'd be wrong, of course.)

[devSin]

John Epler wrote...

Let's cut the bickering down to a reasonable level, please. You are making me want to drink at 2:30 on a Sunday.

Almost an hour early?!

Keep it down, people! You're gonna wake the beast!

[TEWR]

John Epler wrote...

You are making me want to drink at 2:30 on a Sunday.

Well, it's five o'clock somewhere.

BSN, leading cause of cirrhosis of the liver! 

*Sigh*. If the fact that the BSN can induce drinking wasn't a fact, that might be funny. 

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 21 octobre 2012 - 08:40 .

[WhiteThunder]

Vicious wrote...

Still carrying a torch from a feature that Bioware hasn't had in a game since 2009? Gotta move on, man... they did.

Ironically, that was also the last time they released a great game...Now correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but...

And I have moved on.  To The Witcher, where, despite the defined protagonist, we have real, significant choices that actually affect a superior story.  To Project Eternity who will have a castle, and racial choices, and companion customization, and a story written by Chris Avellone.  And gameplay designed by Tim Cain and Josh Sawyer.  All led by Feargus Urquhart.  

If only BiowEAre had the resources to create a game that big and deep.  you'd think EA would be able to spare 4 million dollars...

[Jerrybnsn]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Just what do you think pre-production in this context means?

Well, read Knowles comments himself blog.brentknowles.com/2010/08/15/bioware-brent-year-10-fall-2008-summer-2009/

"Discussion on Dragon Age 2 began around this time and looking ahead I knew that I wasn’t going to be satisfied with what Dragon Age 2 would be. Party control/tactical combat are huge factors in my enjoyment of a role-playing game as is adopting the role of the hero (i.e., customizing my character). I was fairly certain Dragon Age would transition towards more of a Mass Effect experience, which while enjoyable is not the type of role-playing game I play. Could I be the lead designer on such a title? Certainly… though if I were going to work on a game adopting a set-in-stone protagonist I’d rather work on something lighter, like a shooter.

So they were talking about things?  Wow, I guess that means everything had been set in stone for DA2 and for all time.  

There's no going back from talking about things!

Isn't that what Knowles meant by "set-in-stone protagonist" as  "there's no going back"......that's why he declined the lead job for DA2. 

[upsettingshorts]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

UpsettingShorts wrote...

You have no idea what the possible pro-DA2 implications of this position could be, do you?

It's not an implication, it's a fact. More variables throughout a playthrough = more replay value, plain and simple. If you think importing Origins saves morphed the game to have more replayability than Origins did, good for you...

...you don't understand.  You said that anything that adds any kind of variation adds value and that opinions as to the quality of that variation don't matter.  Ergo, I could claim that say... the Friend/Rival paths that existed in DA2 that didn't exist in DAO offered that value.  I could claim that the three supported personality types that are tracked by the game add value.  I could claim that the two worldstate endings (As opposed to: Archdemon dead) have value.  I could claim that the fate of your siblings add value.  If variation in of itself adds replayability no matter what anyone thinks, you've just set an impossible standard if you're trying to assert that DAO was inherently better on it alone.

Except subjective opinions on quality do matter.

That's before you went and...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

(but you'd be wrong, of course.)

...contradicted yourself.

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Isn't that what Knowles meant by "set-in-stone protagonist" as  "there's no going back"......that's why he declined the lead job for DA2. 

No.  He means not a blank slate protagonist in a single game.   He's talking about the earliest pre-production of what would become DA2, they hadn't done any actual work on the game yet. But Brent Knowles quote mining is tiresome.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 octobre 2012 - 08:43 .

[J0HNL3I]

Disapointed i wont be able to be a dwarf again but im not going "hurr durr wtf bioware? no buyin!!!!!!!1!!!1"

[InvaderXX]

I have no problems with a human protagonist in DA3......other than that multiple races in DA2 would have messed up the game completely because race selection would lead to CONFLICTS with the DA2 world and since its the story of just one person its still good.

[LobselVith8]

Atakuma wrote...

The fact that you can actually equip them in armor is what makes it a compromise

I don't share the opinion you and Upsetting have about the fixed companion armors of Inquisition. There are some variations of fixed companion armor. I still prefer how Origins handled it, where I'm not restricted in choosing optimal armor for my companions.

[Shadow Fox]

Considering the only reason I bought Origins was because you could play as a dwarf I think you can guess what my thoughts on that subject are.

And ironically when I first played Origins it was god awful as I tried to use a two hander than a mage both were terrible,tedious,slow and boring even after learning some patience via grinding in COH playing as those classes are barely tolerable.

DA2 was somewhat better but still far from perfect in that regard.

Frankly if I want to play as a fixed protaganist in a quasi-cinematic narrative in an rpg I'll stick with Square-Enix and other JRPGS since I believe they're better at it then Bioware.

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 21 octobre 2012 - 08:46 .

[Peranor]

I'm a little disapointed, but it's not a game breaker.

[upsettingshorts]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

The fact that you can actually equip them in armor is what makes it a compromise

I don't share the opinion you and Upsetting have about the fixed companion armors of Inquisition.

It's not an opinion.  It's an objective difference.  An opinion would read like, "Wow DA3 looks like it will be getting it perfectly this time!" Which neither of us said.

LobselVith8 wrote...

There are some variations of fixed companion armor.

See.

LobselVith8 wrote...

I still prefer how Origins handled it, where I'm not restricted in choosing optimal armor for my companions.

That's fine if you'd have preferred Origins' approach.  But don't say it isn't a compromise just because it's one you don't feel is optimal for you.  To do so is to invalidate their efforts because they don't meet your specific needs, which isn't fair.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 octobre 2012 - 08:47 .

[Allan Schumacher]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't share the opinion you and Upsetting have about the fixed companion armors of Inquisition. There are some variations of fixed companion armor. I still prefer how Origins handled it, where I'm not restricted in choosing optimal armor for my companions.

EDIT : Before I comment further, what precisely was stated?  Your impressions of how the companion armor are not along the lines of what my impressions are.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 21 octobre 2012 - 08:47 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Isn't that what Knowles meant by "set-in-stone protagonist" as  "there's no going back"......that's why he declined the lead job for DA2. 

No.  He means not a blank slate protagonist in a single game.   He's talking about the earliest pre-production of what would become DA2, they hadn't done any actual work on the game yet. But Brent Knowles quote mining is tiresome.

So why did he say the he couldn't work on a game that was going to have a set protagonist?  Is he just a big self-entitled whiner to you?

[upsettingshorts]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Isn't that what Knowles meant by "set-in-stone protagonist" as  "there's no going back"......that's why he declined the lead job for DA2. 

No.  He means not a blank slate protagonist in a single game.   He's talking about the earliest pre-production of what would become DA2, they hadn't done any actual work on the game yet. But Brent Knowles quote mining is tiresome.

So why did he say the he couldn't work on a game that was going to have a set protagonist?  Is he just a big self-entitled whiner to you?

I don't know, I try not to read into the Brent Knowles quote-mining around these parts as I don't know the guy.  Presumably because he has his preferences like anyone else.  I think the way people appropriate him as some kind of singular "voice of reason" is kind of distasteful.  I'd also appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 octobre 2012 - 08:48 .

[challenger18]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't share the opinion you and Upsetting have about the fixed companion armors of Inquisition. There are some variations of fixed companion armor. I still prefer how Origins handled it, where I'm not restricted in choosing optimal armor for my companions.

EDIT : Before I comment further, what precisely was stated?  Your impressions of how the companion armor are not along the lines of what my impressions are.

That is the impression I got from watching the panel during the "hypothetical" DA3 conference. The only "fixed" notion about NPC armor is how it will look on them, not that you won't be able to give them different armor sets you find throughout the game.

[WhiteThunder]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

The fact that you can actually equip them in armor is what makes it a compromise

I don't share the opinion you and Upsetting have about the fixed companion armors of Inquisition.

It's not an opinion.  It's an objective difference.  An opinion would read like, "Wow DA3 looks like it will be getting it perfectly this time!" Which neither of us said.

LobselVith8 wrote...

There are some variations of fixed companion armor.

See.

LobselVith8 wrote...

I still prefer how Origins handled it, where I'm not restricted in choosing optimal armor for my companions.

That's fine if you'd have preferred Origins' approach.  But don't say it isn't a compromise just because it's one you don't feel is optimal for you.  To do so is to invalidate their efforts because they don't meet your specific needs, which isn't fair.

I think the issue is that lack of total companion armor customization is bad.  This compromise has made it less bad.  Less bad is still bad.

[Allan Schumacher]

That is the impression I got from watching the panel during the "hypothetical" DA3 conference. The only "fixed" notion about NPC armor is how it will look on them, not that you won't be able to give them different armor sets you find throughout the game.

Okay. This impression matches mine too

[Emzamination]

challenger18 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't share the opinion you and Upsetting have about the fixed companion armors of Inquisition. There are some variations of fixed companion armor. I still prefer how Origins handled it, where I'm not restricted in choosing optimal armor for my companions.

EDIT : Before I comment further, what precisely was stated?  Your impressions of how the companion armor are not along the lines of what my impressions are.

That is the impression I got from watching the panel during the "hypothetical" DA3 conference. The only "fixed" notion about NPC armor is how it will look on them, not that you won't be able to give them different armor sets you find throughout the game.

^ Yeah, I got this impression too.

[upsettingshorts]

WhiteThunder wrote...

I think the issue is that lack of total companion armor customization is bad.  This compromise has made it less bad.  Less bad is still bad.

But distinctive looks for followers is good to other fans.  

That's what compromises are about.  Learn to share, people.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 octobre 2012 - 08:51 .

[Nerevar-as]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't share the opinion you and Upsetting have about the fixed companion armors of Inquisition. There are some variations of fixed companion armor. I still prefer how Origins handled it, where I'm not restricted in choosing optimal armor for my companions.

EDIT : Before I comment further, what precisely was stated?  Your impressions of how the companion armor are not along the lines of what my impressions are.

OK, this was for the post before you edited it. Can you tell if there´ll be restrictions (beyond class), or will companions be able to wear any armor a PC of the same class can? I mean it in the sense that if there are kind of iconic armor sets (Ancient Elven Armor, Juggernaut,...) will the party be able to use it too, and will it also change appeareance on them?