48 réponses à ce sujet

[Terrorize69]

dversion wrote...

I really felt like that was the best part of DA:O. You felt like your character belonged in the world and had experience which you could base your decicions on as well as how you react to people in the world. Dragon Age 2 didn't really have that so much as it gave me a blank slate to work with, which has its advantages but I never felt like my character was unique to the story.

I imagine this might be a resource thing, considering that Dragon Age Origins took forever and DA2 was a rush job they might be hitting some middle ground here. However, I do think that the origin story was a key part of why I enjoyed the first game and didn't enjoy the second.

Anyone else feel the same?

The best part of the game was the opening 40mins? The other 70odd hours had no appeal?

[dversion]

Terrorize69 wrote...

dversion wrote...

I really felt like that was the best part of DA:O. You felt like your character belonged in the world and had experience which you could base your decicions on as well as how you react to people in the world. Dragon Age 2 didn't really have that so much as it gave me a blank slate to work with, which has its advantages but I never felt like my character was unique to the story.

I imagine this might be a resource thing, considering that Dragon Age Origins took forever and DA2 was a rush job they might be hitting some middle ground here. However, I do think that the origin story was a key part of why I enjoyed the first game and didn't enjoy the second.

Anyone else feel the same?

The best part of the game was the opening 40mins? The other 70odd hours had no appeal?

No, I explained in following posts that it made the following 70odd hours better. I had a mental image of my character and knew her motivations and when the origin story came up it felt special. It enhanced the rest of the game for me.

[frostajulie]

dversion wrote...

I guess my point was that the Origins stories were one of my favourite parts of DA:O, I don't know if that's the same experience for everyone, it clearly was not. I did feel like the removal of them hurt my enjoyment of DA2 (among a laundry list of other things.)

My fear isn't the bloat necessarily but the turn around time. Remember old bioware that took forever to come out with something but when they did, damn was it good? DA2 and ME3 both had about 2 years and they certainly felt rushed.

I'm hoping that the team working on DA3 has all the time they need to make a quality product.

For what its worth and I know its not much it was key to my ultimate passion for the game and provided endless hours of replayability and I thought it was the greatest thing I had ever experienced in a video game in my life.  Then I got to the actual story and whats so cool about DAO is depending on the origin story and on how you rp your character the rest of the story plays out the same but in your head it is always very different in tone and it is always fresh.  Origins had a huge part of that magic.

I too found origins to be one of my favorite parts of DAO

[Terrorize69]

dversion wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

dversion wrote...

I really felt like that was the best part of DA:O. You felt like your character belonged in the world and had experience which you could base your decicions on as well as how you react to people in the world. Dragon Age 2 didn't really have that so much as it gave me a blank slate to work with, which has its advantages but I never felt like my character was unique to the story.

I imagine this might be a resource thing, considering that Dragon Age Origins took forever and DA2 was a rush job they might be hitting some middle ground here. However, I do think that the origin story was a key part of why I enjoyed the first game and didn't enjoy the second.

Anyone else feel the same?

The best part of the game was the opening 40mins? The other 70odd hours had no appeal?

No, I explained in following posts that it made the following 70odd hours better. I had a mental image of my character and knew her motivations and when the origin story came up it felt special. It enhanced the rest of the game for me.

The other 70hours were the same for every race... apart from the odd "omg your a shortie!" or "omg a knife ear here!"

Yes it was a nice touch but it hardly added anything.

Regarding your topic title, you base that claim on what excatly? Without knowing anything about the "backgrounds" we are getting. All of them could give up motivations, ideals, believes etc etc, we don't know yet. No need to cast them aside.

[RaenImrahl]

dversion wrote...

Filament wrote...

Would the origins prove IT?

I'm sorry but I don't understand the question.

Filament's comment was Mass Effect-related, and therefore off topic.  Filament of all people should know better....<_<

On the subject at hand, I think the main value of the origin stories was to allow us to explore each culture in much more depth-- helpful if not essential to world-building in a new franchise.  Not sure if that needs to be a goal in DA3.

[dversion]

Terrorize69 wrote...

dversion wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

dversion wrote...

I really felt like that was the best part of DA:O. You felt like your character belonged in the world and had experience which you could base your decicions on as well as how you react to people in the world. Dragon Age 2 didn't really have that so much as it gave me a blank slate to work with, which has its advantages but I never felt like my character was unique to the story.

I imagine this might be a resource thing, considering that Dragon Age Origins took forever and DA2 was a rush job they might be hitting some middle ground here. However, I do think that the origin story was a key part of why I enjoyed the first game and didn't enjoy the second.

Anyone else feel the same?

The best part of the game was the opening 40mins? The other 70odd hours had no appeal?

No, I explained in following posts that it made the following 70odd hours better. I had a mental image of my character and knew her motivations and when the origin story came up it felt special. It enhanced the rest of the game for me.

The other 70hours were the same for every race... apart from the odd "omg your a shortie!" or "omg a knife ear here!"

Yes it was a nice touch but it hardly added anything.

Regarding your topic title, you base that claim on what excatly? Without knowing anything about the "backgrounds" we are getting. All of them could give up motivations, ideals, believes etc etc, we don't know yet. No need to cast them aside.

I believe they stated backgrounds would not be playable. As i mentioned before, I think there's a difference between playing a backstory and being told one. Actually interacting with it gives a more visceral experience and creates a larger sense of ownership.

[dversion]

However, I will admit that the topic title is a bit accusatory. It was just my feelings on the matter and I didn't mean for it to come off as angry or anything.

Modifié par dversion, 27 octobre 2012 - 10:56 .

[RaenImrahl]

dversion wrote...

I believe they stated backgrounds would not be playable. As i mentioned before, I think there's a difference between playing a backstory and being told one. Actually interacting with it gives a more visceral experience and creates a larger sense of ownership.

The background in DA2 was very linear (you really didn't have much of a choice where to go, when) and largely used as a tutorial, at least until you got to the big dialogue bit.  I'll agree, however, that the general premise-- being allowed to role-play something as oppose to being told what happened-- is correct.  I just don't know if it needs to be to the extent that it was in DA:O. 

[RaenImrahl]

dversion wrote...

However, I will admit that the topic title is a bit accusatory. It was just my feelings on the matter and I didn't mean for it to come off as angry or anything.

You can always go back and edit the first post.  That will allow you to also edit the title.

[dversion]

RaenImrahl wrote...

dversion wrote...

I believe they stated backgrounds would not be playable. As i mentioned before, I think there's a difference between playing a backstory and being told one. Actually interacting with it gives a more visceral experience and creates a larger sense of ownership.

The background in DA2 was very linear (you really didn't have much of a choice where to go, when) and largely used as a tutorial, at least until you got to the big dialogue bit.  I'll agree, however, that the general premise-- being allowed to role-play something as oppose to being told what happened-- is correct.  I just don't know if it needs to be to the extent that it was in DA:O. 

My personal feelings on the matter is that the origin stories were a part of what really made that game special. If it is a matter of resources I wouldn't mind it being scaled down like I said. However, I felt it was missing in DA2 and was dissapointing. I understand they were going for a different approach but I guess I didn't appreciate the direction they took.

[Rawgrim]

dversion wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

dversion wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

dversion wrote...

I really felt like that was the best part of DA:O. You felt like your character belonged in the world and had experience which you could base your decicions on as well as how you react to people in the world. Dragon Age 2 didn't really have that so much as it gave me a blank slate to work with, which has its advantages but I never felt like my character was unique to the story.

I imagine this might be a resource thing, considering that Dragon Age Origins took forever and DA2 was a rush job they might be hitting some middle ground here. However, I do think that the origin story was a key part of why I enjoyed the first game and didn't enjoy the second.

Anyone else feel the same?

The best part of the game was the opening 40mins? The other 70odd hours had no appeal?

No, I explained in following posts that it made the following 70odd hours better. I had a mental image of my character and knew her motivations and when the origin story came up it felt special. It enhanced the rest of the game for me.

The other 70hours were the same for every race... apart from the odd "omg your a shortie!" or "omg a knife ear here!"

Yes it was a nice touch but it hardly added anything.

Regarding your topic title, you base that claim on what excatly? Without knowing anything about the "backgrounds" we are getting. All of them could give up motivations, ideals, believes etc etc, we don't know yet. No need to cast them aside.

I believe they stated backgrounds would not be playable. As i mentioned before, I think there's a difference between playing a backstory and being told one. Actually interacting with it gives a more visceral experience and creates a larger sense of ownership.

This. The character feels like he or she is your own. Shepard, for example, never felt that way at all to me.

[dversion]

Rawgrim wrote...

This. The character feels like he or she is your own. Shepard, for example, never felt that way at all to me.

I actually felt this in ME3 where shepard had all these relationships and friends that I had expereinced. No one in that game came up to me and said "hey, its me the guy that you know!" without me, the player, actually having my own experience with that character. It was really wonderful.

[dversion]

RaenImrahl wrote...

dversion wrote...

However, I will admit that the topic title is a bit accusatory. It was just my feelings on the matter and I didn't mean for it to come off as angry or anything.

You can always go back and edit the first post.  That will allow you to also edit the title.

Is this one less jerkish?

[Terrorize69]

dversion wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

dversion wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

dversion wrote...

I really felt like that was the best part of DA:O. You felt like your character belonged in the world and had experience which you could base your decicions on as well as how you react to people in the world. Dragon Age 2 didn't really have that so much as it gave me a blank slate to work with, which has its advantages but I never felt like my character was unique to the story.

I imagine this might be a resource thing, considering that Dragon Age Origins took forever and DA2 was a rush job they might be hitting some middle ground here. However, I do think that the origin story was a key part of why I enjoyed the first game and didn't enjoy the second.

Anyone else feel the same?

The best part of the game was the opening 40mins? The other 70odd hours had no appeal?

No, I explained in following posts that it made the following 70odd hours better. I had a mental image of my character and knew her motivations and when the origin story came up it felt special. It enhanced the rest of the game for me.

The other 70hours were the same for every race... apart from the odd "omg your a shortie!" or "omg a knife ear here!"

Yes it was a nice touch but it hardly added anything.

Regarding your topic title, you base that claim on what excatly? Without knowing anything about the "backgrounds" we are getting. All of them could give up motivations, ideals, believes etc etc, we don't know yet. No need to cast them aside.

I believe they stated backgrounds would not be playable. As i mentioned before, I think there's a difference between playing a backstory and being told one. Actually interacting with it gives a more visceral experience and creates a larger sense of ownership.

The only difference is, how its told or how it plays out.

Either way you get the same results, in DAO the origins always had the same result, they were the most linear part of the game (ironic given some peoples arguements).

We have no idea how the backgrounds will be told, will we get choices still? We don't know. Will it be a 10mins ish interactive cutscene where we get the background of the char but can set some choices?

[Captain Crash]

Custom origins and back story creation was a nice feature. I dont think its as critical as some make it out to be though.

Bioware have a story in mind for DA3 which is obviously vital since origin and race has been set already. Im quite interested to see how it plays out. I would rather have an immerse backstory thats integral to the plot then five or six loose origins. Well if that happens that is.

Plus it seems they seem to want to focus more on options for specializations and play styles. I think these types of stories/quests are more important as a focus then an origin backstory. The obliviousness playing a mage in DA2 was so crazy it almost made me want to stop playing...

Modifié par Captain Crash, 27 octobre 2012 - 11:16 .

[dversion]

Captain Crash wrote...

Custom origins and back story creation was a nice feature. I dont think its as critical as some make it out to be though.

Bioware have a story in mind for DA3 which is obviously vital since origin and race has been set already. Im quite interested to see how it plays out. I would rather have an immerse backstory thats integral to the plot then five or six loose origins. Well if that happens that is.

Plus it seems they seem to want to focus more on options for specializations and play styles. I think these types of stories/quests are more important as a focus then an origin backstory. The obliviousness playing a mage in DA2 was so crazy it almost made me want to stop playing...

Bioware can tell relly good stories, I was dissapointed with DA2's core story but it wasn't awful.
The role-playing aspects of DAO were really great and helped me enjoy that game. I'd rather experience my character's background then being told my character's background.

[MichaelStuart]

While I did like the playable Origins, I didn't feel they were vital to me enjoying the game.

[Rawgrim]

Terrorize69 wrote...

dversion wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

dversion wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

dversion wrote...

I really felt like that was the best part of DA:O. You felt like your character belonged in the world and had experience which you could base your decicions on as well as how you react to people in the world. Dragon Age 2 didn't really have that so much as it gave me a blank slate to work with, which has its advantages but I never felt like my character was unique to the story.

I imagine this might be a resource thing, considering that Dragon Age Origins took forever and DA2 was a rush job they might be hitting some middle ground here. However, I do think that the origin story was a key part of why I enjoyed the first game and didn't enjoy the second.

Anyone else feel the same?

The best part of the game was the opening 40mins? The other 70odd hours had no appeal?

No, I explained in following posts that it made the following 70odd hours better. I had a mental image of my character and knew her motivations and when the origin story came up it felt special. It enhanced the rest of the game for me.

The other 70hours were the same for every race... apart from the odd "omg your a shortie!" or "omg a knife ear here!"

Yes it was a nice touch but it hardly added anything.

Regarding your topic title, you base that claim on what excatly? Without knowing anything about the "backgrounds" we are getting. All of them could give up motivations, ideals, believes etc etc, we don't know yet. No need to cast them aside.

I believe they stated backgrounds would not be playable. As i mentioned before, I think there's a difference between playing a backstory and being told one. Actually interacting with it gives a more visceral experience and creates a larger sense of ownership.

The only difference is, how its told or how it plays out.

Either way you get the same results, in DAO the origins always had the same result, they were the most linear part of the game (ironic given some peoples arguements).

We have no idea how the backgrounds will be told, will we get choices still? We don't know. Will it be a 10mins ish interactive cutscene where we get the background of the char but can set some choices?

Text based ones, like in ME. Its been confrimed.

[JamieCOTC]

Back stories themselves cannot make or break a game. As Crash said, they are a nice addition. However when they are bungled (as in DA2) or made irrelevant (as in ME2 & ME3) they cause attention to themselves and that does take away from the game experience.

[dversion]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Back stories themselves cannot make or break a game. As Crash said, they are a nice addition. However when they are bungled (as in DA2) or made irrelevant (as in ME2 & ME3) they cause attention to themselves and that does take away from the game experience.

One could make the arguement that ME1 was the back story to ME2 and 3 which really enhanced those game.

[Reptillius]

robertthebard wrote...

Not really. Other than a handful of references at different key points, depending on the Origin, it was by and large just an appearance thing. For the most part, I was Warden, which is as it should be, since that's what I was, no matter where I started. How many people ran away from a mage Warden? Wouldn't you technically be an Apostate? How many refused to take orders from an Elf? How many looked sideways at a Dwarf Commoner giving orders, especially where it would have mattered most, Orzammar? You got a few footnotes, and other than that, you were treated exactly the same as any other Warden. So no, there wasn't significant impact. I hope that these backstories carry more weight than the Origins did.

Being a Dwarf Commoner(technically less than a commoner) actually wouldn't count against you in Orzammar. Being a Warden supersedes that and all dwarves have a great ammount of respect for the wardens.  This is in the lore details if you read them. The Wardens are given honour in much the same was as the regiment that go out from all walks of dwarven life to fight until they die amongst the deeproads. Their pasts do not matter.  They are the only ones besides the dwarves themselves that stand endlessly against the darkspawn and go into the deeproads to fight them at their source.  So once you are a Warden in Dwarven eyes you are a Warden.

[emeraldtrader]

dversion wrote...

I felt like playing through the origin story, while it may not have had a huge impact on the core story, filled out my character and how I perceived the world.

For instance my female city elf never took off her wedding ring, that was just something I did but it helped me enjoy the world....

I did the exact samething! My CE kept her wedding ring with her through the whole game. It just felt right for my character.

[dversion]

emeraldtrader wrote...

dversion wrote...

I felt like playing through the origin story, while it may not have had a huge impact on the core story, filled out my character and how I perceived the world.

For instance my female city elf never took off her wedding ring, that was just something I did but it helped me enjoy the world....

I did the exact samething! My CE kept her wedding ring with her through the whole game. It just felt right for my character.

Can't let Nelaros' sacrifice go unforgotten

[Archyyy]

Involving a character into the game world is always a huge plus in an rpg. I dont think a blank slate is best for roleplaying as it doesnt provide anything for my character to reflect on nor for the world to recognize my character from. Of course there should be options for origins but even just one origins to help tie my character into the world would be better than nothing. Helps immersion. As long as its something my character never had a say in and doesnt define him as a person (a social class or other social circumstances hes born into for example) it doesnt hurt roleplaying.