3855 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahglock]

Rawgrim wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

With all this D&D talk, I had this out of the blue weird wish that bioware would get the D&D CRPG license and make a Al Qadim game.

Now my next play test I run for 5e might be set there.

Al Quadim is part of the Forgotten Realms, actually. Takes place in the south of the world. Zakhara or something like that. Some trivia for people there. I`ve been playing rpgs for 20 years, and I just recently found out about that bit.

Yup it is one of the things I loved about the forgotten realms it included analogues from other cultures instead of just europe.  Maztecca, kara tura, al qadim all awesome all in the forgotten realms.  Or they were until the 4e forgotten realms retconed (some of)them.(yeah i know it isn't technically a retcon, but giant time jumps where a bunch of crap changes happen have the same feel as one especially since they were effectively erased from the universe and not taken over in a war or something more natural)

Hell make a series of games where the PCs are maybe from central FR and they are part of a trading company and travel, explore get wrapped up in crazy stuff in far away lands.  Basically pulp adventure it a bit.  I think my players will be in for it.  

[Monica21]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I did want to add something since I think I saw it mentioned in this thread.

Some people have commented that they are disappointed that this is the first feature cut. Just to be clear, that we mentioned it doesn't mean it's the first thing cut. Dozens of features have been cut because to start a project, it's pretty much "every idea is a good idea!" This one gets communicated out because people have various expectations for it. Sadly, having the big bad guy be a physical manifestation of Allan that shoots fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse are cut game ideas that people never hear about.

So, basically we could have an utter hot mess of a game if they incorporated all your ideas. Got it.  ; )

[Allan Schumacher]

Rawgrim wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I did want to add something since I think I saw it mentioned in this thread.

Some people have commented that they are disappointed that this is the first feature cut. Just to be clear, that we mentioned it doesn't mean it's the first thing cut. Dozens of features have been cut because to start a project, it's pretty much "every idea is a good idea!" This one gets communicated out because people have various expectations for it. Sadly, having the big bad guy be a physical manifestation of Allan that shoots fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse are cut game ideas that people never hear about.

Would be cool if you guys made a book about that. Ideas being left out, or changed alot. And loads of trivia about games you made. I would certainly buy it.

Allan Firearse...If thats not a good name for a dwarven badguy, I don`t know what is.

I think there's two problems with this.  It would indirectly create expectation of things that were cut ending up in future games.

In some regards not knowing what "could have been" could help fuel criticism (especially given the idea that you and others have that not allowing races in DA3 hurts more since DAO did allow races).


It could be fun though, but ultimately when it gets down to late project no one is thinking about this anymore.  Stuff like this actually does often come up earlier in the project for fun ideas to include in a CE or something.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 octobre 2012 - 05:00 .

[Rawgrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I did want to add something since I think I saw it mentioned in this thread.

Some people have commented that they are disappointed that this is the first feature cut. Just to be clear, that we mentioned it doesn't mean it's the first thing cut. Dozens of features have been cut because to start a project, it's pretty much "every idea is a good idea!" This one gets communicated out because people have various expectations for it. Sadly, having the big bad guy be a physical manifestation of Allan that shoots fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse are cut game ideas that people never hear about.

Would be cool if you guys made a book about that. Ideas being left out, or changed alot. And loads of trivia about games you made. I would certainly buy it.

Allan Firearse...If thats not a good name for a dwarven badguy, I don`t know what is.

I think there's two problems with this.  It would indirectly create expectation of things that were cut ending up in future games.

In some regards not knowing what "could have been" could help fuel criticism (especially given the idea that you and others have that not allowing races in DA3 hurts more since DAO did allow races).


It could be fun though, but ultimately when it gets down to late project no one is thinking about this anymore.  Stuff like this actually does often come up earlier in the project for fun ideas to include in a CE or something.

Yeah. I saw somewhere that Artemis Entreri was to be in BG2, but got cut. Someone found a portrait of the fellow deep in the coding thingys of the game. I think its being restored for the EE version of the game. And one quest involving Minsc. Boo getting kidnapped or something.

[dheer]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
Well to be fair they're data showed that most people played humans with only a small amount using elves and a tiny bit using dwarves.It's not like WOw where a sizable number of the fanbase used Night Elves.

Well on the data bit, I'm not so sure the human number is that reliable to keep going back to. I believe that humans would still probably be the most used race but were the numbers so high only because of the race or was the margain inflated by it being the default choice when you created a character?

Modifié par dheer, 24 octobre 2012 - 05:06 .

[Dominus]

I think there's two problems with this. It would indirectly create expectation of things that were cut ending up in future games. In some regards not knowing what "could have been" could help fuel criticism (especially given the idea that you and others have that not allowing races in DA3 hurts more since DAO did allow races).

That's likely why The Older BioWare Q&A tried to keep relatively recent games out of the picture. That sort of stuff is generally better when a franchise or IP is officially done and over with(or at least nearing its end). I'd like that sort of info, but how the fans in general may deal with an entire collection of unused ideas in one swoop is harder to say.

Modifié par DominusVita, 24 octobre 2012 - 05:08 .

[Rawgrim]

I allways play as a dwarf, whenever possible. I snoop around the character editors, for the most part, untill some kind of personality springs to mind, and i create my character from there if i decide on playing something other than a dwarf.

[vswiss23]

Is the option of choosing a race no longer going to be available in DA3, or any other future DA games? I would like to be able to choose a race when playing the game. I didn't choose human until my 3rd play though in DA:O.

[Rawgrim]

vswiss23 wrote...

Is the option of choosing a race no longer going to be available in DA3, or any other future DA games? I would like to be able to choose a race when playing the game. I didn't choose human until my 3rd play though in DA:O.

Only human in DA3. No info about future games.

[Vandicus]

Rawgrim wrote...

vswiss23 wrote...

Is the option of choosing a race no longer going to be available in DA3, or any other future DA games? I would like to be able to choose a race when playing the game. I didn't choose human until my 3rd play though in DA:O.

Only human in DA3. No info about future games.

They did state that it was their goal to have all four races playable in the future. That's info, if not specific info.

[upsettingshorts]

DominusVita wrote...

I think there's two problems with this. It would indirectly create expectation of things that were cut ending up in future games. In some regards not knowing what "could have been" could help fuel criticism (especially given the idea that you and others have that not allowing races in DA3 hurts more since DAO did allow races).

That's likely why The Older BioWare Q&A tried to keep relatively recent games out of the picture. That sort of stuff is generally better when a franchise or IP is officially done and over with(or at least nearing its end). I'd like that sort of info, but how the fans in general may deal with an entire collection of unused ideas in one swoop is harder to say.

Luke still couldn't say much about projects that never saw the light of day, like Jade Empire 2.  Except in one case to mention that the interrupts that eventually came to Mass Effect were originally conceived for JE2.  As such, that's a case of a cut feature (well, a cut game) eventually appearing in a later game.  

But yeah in general once fans find out something was cut - even if it was for logical reasons - they tend to get deeply upset at BioWare for denying them content that they view as rightfully theirs or whatever.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 octobre 2012 - 05:30 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't think all (or even most) would, but some would.

It's also really also the idea of "an unused idea is still an idea that could be used in the future." For instance, it's now entirely possible for a competing game company to have a big bad featured on me with Braveheart style weaponry and I have totally ruined it for BioWare to fully capitalize on. Expect rip offs in short time.

[deuce985]

I'm just curious to know what features we've gained by losing racial selection. That's the real question.

[Allan Schumacher]

I could see it being more writing specific, as (and I'm just musing here) I could see writing being the one most affected by it. So it's probably hard to nail down as a specific "feature" but rather some range of written content.

[Sharn01]

Vandicus wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

vswiss23 wrote...

Is the option of choosing a race no longer going to be available in DA3, or any other future DA games? I would like to be able to choose a race when playing the game. I didn't choose human until my 3rd play though in DA:O.

Only human in DA3. No info about future games.

They did state that it was their goal to have all four races playable in the future. That's info, if not specific info.

My goal is to win the lottery and become a millionaire, just because I have that goal doesn't mean it will come to fruition.  Its easy to say they have a goal to add additional races in some future game, could be a game that comes out twenty years after I am dead, it could also never happen.

[upsettingshorts]

deuce985 wrote...

I'm just curious to know what features we've gained by losing racial selection. That's the real question.

Here's the thing.

There are some folks, a lot of them are the same people in threads like these saying they're fine with human only, who already see what features are gained just by playing DA2.  A family that matters, characters that reference your past, and yes cinematics.  

DA3 might have that, and it might (and I'm guessing will) have more.  But people who are already down with the human protagonist already know about that, and probably even expect it.  Some who are upset at the loss of racial choice have even voiced disbelief that such people could even exist!  But more on them...

Folks who are against racial choice restrictions likewise fall into three camps:  Ones who indeed could be swayed by additional features but need the kind of convincing BioWare isn't prepared to offer yet, ones who believe anything that could be gained from losing the racial selection is simply not worth it, and ones who refuse to acknowledge or cannot perceive those gains.

Only one of those three actually has any chance at being happy with the eventual answer.

With regards to group three:  This happens with quite a few features around here.  There will be some feature announced that will offer X at the expense of Y, and people who love Y and don't even understand X will then turn and blame EA, some new audience, or some other feature they also dislike (like the VA or multiplayer), instead of trying to understand that X has its own appeal, even if it's one they don't personally subscribe to.  I don't expect this attitude will change any time soon.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 octobre 2012 - 06:36 .

[Brohammed]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Here's the thing.

There are some folks, a lot of them are the same people in threads like these saying they're fine with human only, who already see what features are gained just by playing DA2.  A family that matters, characters that reference your past, and yes cinematics.  

DA3 might have that, and it might (and I'm guessing will) have more.  But people who are already down with the human protagonist already know about that, and probably even expect it.  Some who are upset at the loss of racial choice have even voiced disbelief that such people could even exist!  But more on them...

Folks who are against racial choice restrictions likewise fall into three camps:  Ones who indeed could be swayed by additional features but need the kind of convincing BioWare isn't prepared to offer yet, ones who believe anything that could be gained from losing the racial selection is simply not worth it, and ones who refuse to acknowledge or cannot perceive those gains.

Only one of those three actually has any chance at being happy with the eventual answer.

This happens with quite a few features around here.  There will be some feature announced that will offer X at the expense of Y, and people who love Y and don't even understand X will then turn and blame EA, some new audience, or some other feature they also dislike (like the VA or multiplayer), instead of trying to understand that X has its own appeal, even if it's one they don't personally subscribe to.  I don't expect this attitude will change any time soon.

The trade-offs are nowhere close to equal, and even the numerical supremacy of features means absolutely nothing in terms of quality. Your arguement is more or less nonsense.

[labargegrrrl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

I'm just curious to know what features we've gained by losing racial selection. That's the real question.

Here's the thing.

There are some folks, a lot of them are the same people in threads like these saying they're fine with human only, who already see what features are gained just by playing DA2.  A family that matters, characters that reference your past, and yes cinematics.  

DA3 might have that, and it might (and I'm guessing will) have more.  But people who are already down with the human protagonist already know about that, and probably even expect it.  Some who are upset at the loss of racial choice have even voiced disbelief that such people could even exist!  But more on them...

Folks who are against racial choice restrictions likewise fall into three camps:  Ones who indeed could be swayed by additional features but need the kind of convincing BioWare isn't prepared to offer yet, ones who believe anything that could be gained from losing the racial selection is simply not worth it, and ones who refuse to acknowledge or cannot perceive those gains.

Only one of those three actually has any chance at being happy with the eventual answer.

This happens with quite a few features around here.  There will be some feature announced that will offer X at the expense of Y, and people who love Y and don't even understand X will then turn and blame EA, some new audience, or some other feature they also dislike (like the VA or multiplayer), instead of trying to understand that X has its own appeal, even if it's one they don't personally subscribe to.  I don't expect this attitude will change any time soon.

i find that just a touch offensive.  not that you're not entitled to your own opinion of those of us who would very, very, VERRY strongly suppost racial choice.  and i admit, i've thrown one or two whiny fantrums about it that are worthy of being lumped into X, Y, or whatever.  but that doesn't meen we're ALL discarding everything else out of hand.

i would list everything else i DO like in every single post about what i don't, but that would be one SERIOUSLY long post.  that, and i'm pretty sure i'm not even conciously aware of all of them.

and for the record, i think that a family that mattered, characters that reference the p/c's past, cinematics, and a few other issues that you haven't brought up (just the lore involving a single race could be a semantic nightmare in a million different ways)...  i personally think all those things could still be done well in DA3 (and could have been done well in DA2) with this particular feature.  they've decided it's not worth it, i've responded.  c'est la vie.

(now if you'll excuse me, i'm going to go back to drooling at concept art of castle and wondering about specialization for a couple of hours.)

[upsettingshorts]

Brohammed wrote...

The trade-offs are nowhere close to equal, and even the numerical supremacy of features means absolutely nothing in terms of quality. Your arguement is more or less nonsense.

Says you, group two.

Unless you are you denying that it's possible for someone to view "racial choice" as being a "quantity" feature and "narrative relevance" as being a "quality" feature, as you put it? 

Because then you'd be in group three.

Which is it?

labargegrrrl wrote...

i find that just a touch offensive.  not that you're not entitled to your own opinion of those of us who would very, very, VERRY strongly suppost racial choice.  and i admit, i've thrown one or two whiny fantrums about it that are worthy of being lumped into X, Y, or whatever.  but that doesn't meen we're ALL discarding everything else out of hand.

I apologize for this impression, as I did not make it clear:  My rant, such as it is, in the last paragraph is directed squarely at group three.  I will make the appropriate edit.

I don't actually have any issues with 1-2, aside from disagreeing with them.  Group 3's position is inherently insulting because it denies other peoples' preferences are valid, or even exist.  I have a lot of problems with them.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 octobre 2012 - 06:39 .

[Fredward]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

I'm just curious to know what features we've gained by losing racial selection. That's the real question.

Here's the thing.

There are some folks, a lot of them are the same people in threads like these saying they're fine with human only, who already see what features are gained just by playing DA2.  A family that matters, characters that reference your past, and yes cinematics.  

DA3 might have that, and it might (and I'm guessing will) have more.  But people who are already down with the human protagonist already know about that, and probably even expect it.  Some who are upset at the loss of racial choice have even voiced disbelief that such people could even exist!  But more on them...

Folks who are against racial choice restrictions likewise fall into three camps:  Ones who indeed could be swayed by additional features but need the kind of convincing BioWare isn't prepared to offer yet, ones who believe anything that could be gained from losing the racial selection is simply not worth it, and ones who refuse to acknowledge or cannot perceive those gains.

Only one of those three actually has any chance at being happy with the eventual answer.

This happens with quite a few features around here.  There will be some feature announced that will offer X at the expense of Y, and people who love Y and don't even understand X will then turn and blame EA, some new audience, or some other feature they also dislike (like the VA or multiplayer), instead of trying to understand that X has its own appeal, even if it's one they don't personally subscribe to.  I don't expect this attitude will change any time soon.

I like you. You are smart.


I wonder if it's the RACES people miss or the ORIGINS. Cuz see when it comes down to it the races weren't all that important apart from the Orgins. I mean, I enjoyed them, they added flavor and I'm planning on playing a City Elf soon, but they weren't THAT important. I'm reminded of the first time I visited the Dalish with my mage elf. I wasn't treated differently AT ALL. The reason given was that I was a "city elf" lol no. I was a mage. I didn't even have the "choice" of fleeing the city to look for 'em. Now me being a mage... there was a BUNCH of times when I could go "Lulz I mage, u b 'fraid!!!1!!!1" DA2 didn't have any much of that, 'cept the totally awesome class kills. But what it DID have was pretty cool, rogue Hawke chucking that knife in that guy's throat anyone?

Anyway, what I'm GETTING at is that, and I know the race diehards are gonna have a aneurysm over this, is that VARIETY is the operative word here. Not race. If my new Protag who has like a commoner background or something, can burp or fart while speaking to some high nobleman that would be really cool. Or my noble Protag could trade subtle jabs with another noble. That kind of thing. The important thing here is that it has to be a continuous thing. In Origins it wasn't always obvious via dialogue that you were some different race, BUT you always had the visual standing right there to remind you. Since we're being humans this time the difference between our origins needs to be made clear, not always cuz that would be forced, but often.

Of couse I might be contributing to my chances of Carpal for nothing here and the devs will be sticking to the largely irrelevant vignettes of ME. Meh. C'est la vie.

[labargegrrrl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Brohammed wrote...

The trade-offs are nowhere close to equal, and even the numerical supremacy of features means absolutely nothing in terms of quality. Your arguement is more or less nonsense.

Says you, group two.

Unless you are you denying that it's possible for someone to view "racial choice" as being a "quantity" feature and "narrative relevance" as being a "quality" feature, as you put it? 

Because then you'd be in group three.

Which is it?

labargegrrrl wrote...

i find that just a touch offensive.  not that you're not entitled to your own opinion of those of us who would very, very, VERRY strongly suppost racial choice.  and i admit, i've thrown one or two whiny fantrums about it that are worthy of being lumped into X, Y, or whatever.  but that doesn't meen we're ALL discarding everything else out of hand.

I apologize for this impression, as I did not make it clear:  My rant, such as it is, in the last paragraph is directed squarely at group three.  I will make the appropriate edit.

I don't actually have any issues with 1-2, aside from disagreeing with them.  Group 3's position is inherently insulting because it denies other peoples' preferences are valid, or even exist.  I have a lot of problems with them.

i am likewise sorry if i misinterpreted what you were trying to say as well.  (it's always so hard to make things come off right around here, isn't it?)  

[upsettingshorts]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

I wonder if it's the RACES people miss or the ORIGINS.

Here's where opinion splits even further.  The BSN, no matter what the subject, is full of people - not naming names, just in case anyone feels singled out - that asserts that whatever their opinion is represents the majority.  But it's often more divided than they expect.  There are exceptions, nobody likes the repeated environments in DA2 for example, but for something like racial choice/origins you get a fair bit of it.

There are some, when questioned on this very issue, who will answer races.  Others will answer origins.  Both will then look at each other like they're crazy.  Okay, I added that part for dramatic effect.  But truly, those features aren't attached at the hip, they can and in every game other than DA:O, have existed seperately.  It would be interesting to see how people do genuinely break down if they had to choose between them.  That's a discussion I'd like to see happen.

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Anyway, what I'm GETTING at is that, and I know the race diehards are gonna have a aneurysm over this, is that VARIETY is the operative word here. Not race.

I don't know.  Don't take my position here the wrong way, I acknowledge there are a host of perfectly good reasons to prefer racial options and be disappointed at their lack of availability in DA3. 

People have their preferences and roleplaying say... non-humans because it's a fantasy game, or desiring to represent an underprivileged group like the elves, or maybe they just think dwarves are cool.   I get that.  It's not me, but I don't have to share an opinion to understand it.  

labargegrrrl wrote...

i am likewise sorry if i misinterpreted what you were trying to say as well.  (it's always so hard to make things come off right around here, isn't it?)  

No worries.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 octobre 2012 - 06:52 .

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

There are some folks, a lot of them are the same people in threads like these saying they're fine with human only, who already see what features are gained just by playing DA2.  A family that matters, characters that reference your past, and yes cinematics. 

That's very subjective -- personally, i've had much more attachment to the family of my city elf than the Hawkes, despite minor role they've gotten. I imagine a dwarf noble player would similarly see their family as people who "mattered", going by occasional mentions from such players in various threads. I'm also not really sure what you mean by the cinematics, as DA2 didn't make any memorable impression on me in that regard (in terms of improvement from DAO) And finally regarding references of your past, these would vary depending on characters origin, but also happened in DAO. Was there more of that in DA2? Perhaps, but even then it'd be just an increase in amount, rather than some sort of newly introduced element.

So overall, i'd have to say this idea of "features gained as visible by playing DA2" is arguable. Perhaps as result of different people valuing and/or viewing things differently, and maybe DA2 failing to make a really good showcase of these supposed "gains", idk.

Modifié par tmp7704, 24 octobre 2012 - 06:56 .

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

So overall, i'd have to say this idea of "features gained as visible by playing DA2" is arguable. Perhaps as result of different people valuing and/or viewing things differently, and maybe DA2 failing to make a really good showcase of these supposed "gains", idk.

I'd argue it's both.

I didn't mean subjective attachment, or even the effectiveness of any given example.  Only the measurable, objective differences.  More quests, more references, more dialogue, more narrative relevance, etc.  Things you can count in numbers if not in enjoyment.  For example, more dialogue that makes reference to and asks you to comment on Hawke's past exists than does for any Warden.  Whether or not players valued it is an entirely different matter, as you point out.  

If we hold the origins and racial choice in DAO to the same standard, if people didn't enjoy what it offered - because it stopped being a big deal to them at Ostagar, or whatever reason - does what it offered still have value?  If you're a fan of racial choice, you're kinda obligated to answer yes.

If there's a tenuous part of my argument, I think, it's that players pleased by (or indifferent towards) the human-only restriction are also part of the camp that noticed that stuff and liked it.  I'm not sure I could prove that, it's only a hunch.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:05 .

[Gyrefalcon]

I will be both respectful and honest. This decision does bother me. I actually waited nearly a year to even try DA2 because of this very issue. I can play NBA Jam, or Prototype, or a whole host of other games if I want to play a human. I really enjoyed DA: Origins specifically because I could immerse myself in fantasy. Even in a lot of space games, you do not get to be an alien. I am a human all day, after a long day, I would like to be something else in a game!

That said, if we were playing set characters such as Cassandra, then it would not be as bad. I do not mind playing a human when it is Batman, for example. So having a human character that is clearly tied to the story is more palatable, even acceptable. (Although I do hope that a different race choice might be an option in DA4...perhaps an elven uprising??)

And if you allow Anders to show up, for those of us who let him live, and be out there fighting with the mages, I will forgive you anything! ;D Likewise, it would be good to see Fenris or Carver out with the Templars or Seekers depending on what side they chose. Letting us have griffin mounts or a hunting cat as an option would also be a pleasant surprise that would help soothe the sadness of not having a choice in races. Thanks for listening!

Edit:  On the question of replayability, there are really expensive items that I never manage to afford during the first play-through, but when I beat the game, I don't get to start again with access to a bunch of my stuff.  I would actually like to continue my adventures after the main storyline is run so I can see what these items are like.  Who cares if it breaks the game at that point?  I like getting a chance to use the items that I had to save up for in more than a final boss fight.  Will that be a possibility in DA3?

Modifié par Gyrefalcon, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:05 .