194 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

PurebredCorn wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

I'm curious as to how they intend to implement the background choices--I'd really love it if the background gives you a general overview and then maybe you get some dialog choices that let you expound upon it if you so choose, so when people ask about your history you could tell them a tale about some defeat you oversaw or some strange thing you witnessed.  This could be alongside a more bland option if you don't like that sort of thing.

Damn girl... you got some good ideas.

Yeah, if I actually had some implementation skills I would totally be a juggernaut of destruction, ruling the industry!

[PsychoBlonde]

mmarty wrote...

For me, the villain of the piece should be the most interesting character. Every hero needs a compelling nemesis.

Because the hero is generally a bowl of undifferentiated oatmeal.  A great many of my favorite writers instead make fascinating protagonists, and the enemy isn't necessarily even a PERSON.

[mmarty]

True, the enemy needn't be a person but they have to be interesting whatever they are.

[PsychoBlonde]

LobselVith8 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I think the fans who prefer to define who their protagonist is would have an issue with having a pre-defined protagonist, which was the issue some fans had with Hawke. With the Surana Warden, you were given the opportunity to determine where the protagonist was from, their view on blood magic, what fraternity they thought was correct, and whether they believed in the Maker and Andraste or not. That wasn't the case with the Champion of Kirkwall, which put some people off. Personally, I prefer games like New Vegas and Skyrim, where I determine who the protagonist is.

But you can do all of that without making the character boring. Say the PC is a posssed mage, struggling with an inner demon (or spirit). That would be an interesting mechaninic. 

More importantly, the bold, you don't get to do in DA:O any more than you get to do in DA2. 

I respectfully disagree with your comments on the bold. My Surana protagonist could tell Duncan and Jowan his view on blood magic, he sided with the Libertarian fraternity in his discussion with the Senior Enchanters, and he told the Priestess of the Chantry that he saw the Maker as a god of the human religion, while he told Leliana that he believed Andraste wasn't divine, but simply an ordinary woman.

Origins had a few decent options, sure, but you can have a good conversation in DA2 with Aveline about what you think of the Chantry, you can talk with Anders, Merril, and Fenris about your views on magic/the Circle/blood magic, you can have a fun and fairly long discussion with the Arishok about the Qun, you can talk to Seamus about the Qun, Orsino and Meredith about the Circle, Petrice about the Qun, Reverend Mother Elethina about the Chantry, Sebastian about the Chantry . . . and you can express a variety opinions in those conversations.  About the only person you CAN'T have a significant conversation with is, um, Varric.  (Actually, I tell a lie, you can when Bartrand shows back up.)  Origins was quite bland and shallow by comparison.

Modifié par PsychoBlonde, 30 décembre 2012 - 10:22 .

[PsychoBlonde]

mmarty wrote...

True, the enemy needn't be a person but they have to be interesting whatever they are.

Well, yeah, because nobody wants to read a story about somebody fighting dryer lint.

[mmarty]

But if the hero is dryer lint, a dull as dishwater type who happens to go on fantastic adventure against a charismatic nemesis, is that better?

[Isaidlunch]

It's hard for me to connect with player characters when they're treated like a piece of the scenery. The Exile (KOTOR 2) and the Imperial Agent (TOR) are my favorite PC's in any game simply because the story was about them, that was enough to make them "interesting" to me.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Uh, no.

Also Hawke was hardly interesting even with a voice. Plus, most of the sarcastic line for the Wardens were 10x more funnier.

[LobselVith8]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I respectfully disagree with your comments on the bold. My Surana protagonist could tell Duncan and Jowan his view on blood magic, he sided with the Libertarian fraternity in his discussion with the Senior Enchanters, and he told the Priestess of the Chantry that he saw the Maker as a god of the human religion, while he told Leliana that he believed Andraste wasn't divine, but simply an ordinary woman.

Origins had a few decent options, sure, but you can have a good conversation in DA2 with Aveline about what you think of the Chantry, you can talk with Anders, Merril, and Fenris about your views on magic/the Circle/blood magic, you can have a fun and fairly long discussion with the Arishok about the Qun, you can talk to Seamus about the Qun, Orsino and Meredith about the Circle, Petrice about the Qun, Reverend Mother Elethina about the Chantry, Sebastian about the Chantry . . . and you can express a variety opinions in those conversations.  About the only person you CAN'T have a significant conversation with is, um, Varric.  (Actually, I tell a lie, you can when Bartrand shows back up.)  Origins was quite bland and shallow by comparison.

Hawke can't tell Aveline his thoughts on the Chantry; he's written to be religiously Andrastian. He can only tell Merrill that her blood magic act was useful once, on Sundermount. Hawke can hear what the Arishok says, but the player isn't really given much variety in how he can respond to what the Arishok says (especially with the auto-dialogue). The same is the case with your other examples, from Hawke's conversation with Petrice to Elthina. I don't see how limited, narrow dialogue I have little control over is a "variety of expression."

Furthermore, the player is extremely limited in his conversations with Orsino and Meredith, having no where near the kind of freedom of expression Origins offered. I found the dialogue in Dragon Age II to be horrendous and atrocious, as well as confining.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 31 décembre 2012 - 02:09 .

[Maria Caliban]

DA:I will have a dull as dishwater PC surrounded by colorful companions who goes on an epically generic save-the-world quest. After DA 2 and the ME 3 ending backlash, BioWare is going to play it safe.

Maybe in DA 4, they'll inject real personality and have a protagonist centric story.

[El Mito]

All I want is a protag that's not a total Mary Sue, or an idiot like Hawke.

[Nonoru]

mmarty wrote...

For me, the villain of the piece should be the most interesting character. Every hero needs a compelling nemesis.

[LilyasAvalon]

Strongly disagree. The warden is the perfect example of TRUE RPG in my opinion. Something for the player to shape.

The villain should be the most interesting thing. It's what I'll be fighting after all.

[Nerevar-as]

The villain should be both interesting and powerful (not necessarily in fighter/mage, master manipulator could work too). After all, a hero is usually as good as the villain s/he must fight.

But allowing us to develop the hero (think Shepard in ME1, definetely not in ME3) helps a lot. Bethesda games start as a blank slate and AFAIK end the same. That´s not the way to go in a narrative-heavy game.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 31 décembre 2012 - 03:48 .

[Realmzmaster]

IMHO, true rpgs can have either a set, a blank slate or a hybird protagonist. If you really want to get technical Bioware has never made a "true rpg".
The warden background is set by the origin that the gamer picks. The gamer is not allowed to create their own background for the PC which was possible in other series like Might & Magic, Alternate Reality, Ultima, Wizardry and the Bard's Tale.

Fallout 3 and Fallout:New Vegas have set origins. In Fallout 3 the PC is the Lone Wanderer and in Fallout: New Vegas The Courier. The background is already set, The ethnicity and race (only human) of the character plays no part in the story.

Since Morrowind all TES games have the same origin. The PC is a prisoner for an unnamed crime. The PC in TES games are far more blank slate than the warden in DAO. If we follow the line of reasoning TES games must be truer rpgs than DA games. The reasoning being that TES games allow the gamer to construct the background of the PC. What crime did the PC commit to get imprisoned and other background information.

What about the Witcher series? I assume the Witcher is not a true rpg because Geralt is a set protagonist, but it has a great branching story and gamers say the choices matter.

Geralt is not the most interesting character in The Witcher series. In fact other characters around Geralt are more interesting which is probably intentional.

Hawke in DA2 is more of a hybird not as blank slate as the prisoner in TES games and not as set as Geralt in The Witcher series.

Who is to say what is a true rpg. I find all the above games to be true to the roleplaying genre.

BG1 and BG2 had the PC as the Bhaalspawn. No matter what race the PC was the Bhaalspawn. The story that Bioware wanted to tell required that origin. Does that make BG1 and BG2 less than true rpgs?

The villains to me are what make the Movie, story or game. In the movie Goldfinger, Bond was not the most interesting character. I thought that was Oddjob. The villains in the Bond movies are far more interesting than Bond in fact Q is sometimes more interesting.

The same can be said for Star Trek the Next Generation Data (interesting companion) and Q (interesting enemy) are more interesting than Picard.

Sherlock Holmes while interesting is not as interesting as his nemesis Professor Moriarty even though Moriarty only appears in two of the 60 Holmes stories.

I remember the quote from Loghain:

"'A man is made by the quality of his enemies.' Maric told me that once. I wonder if it's more a compliment to you or me."

[mmarty]

The protagonist in DAO was a shop window dummy onto which we, the player , superimposed ourselves. The Warden could have been a cardboard box and the game would not have suffered. A compelling antagonist is more important.

[In Exile]

Herr Uhl wrote...
I think VTM: Bloodlines would have been a harder sell if you were forced to be a Malkavian. They're a blast to play, but a bit hard to decipher and understand with no foreknowledge of the setting.

All of these are very true, and the Malk is absolutely an extreme on the personality scale. My point is only that you can do personality - even with a silent PC, as long as the writing is there.

Hard to make a character that is insane if there is VO though (if you want a sane option) as that means double the dialouge. Now, they could limit it to one gender instead of two, or make one gender the insane one.

Of course. But you don't need to go that far. You can, like I said, just have (say) demonic possession (i.e., you're Anders and the gameplay mechanic is resisting the being inside of you). Or you can just have more colourful dialogue, beyond just three tones. Have several - mix and match them.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I respectfully disagree with your comments on the bold. My Surana protagonist could tell Duncan and Jowan his view on blood magic, he sided with the Libertarian fraternity in his discussion with the Senior Enchanters, and he told the Priestess of the Chantry that he saw the Maker as a god of the human religion, while he told Leliana that he believed Andraste wasn't divine, but simply an ordinary woman.

I didn't say you couldn't do that, I said DA2 didn't give you less lattitude. But we've argued about this many times before and disagree, and so there's no point in rehashing.

[In Exile]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Hawke can't tell Aveline his thoughts on the Chantry; he's written to be religiously Andrastian. [/quote]

I take that back. No, he isn't. Diplomatic Hawke gets a few lines about it, but many of them make sense in context for an atheist raised in a religious family (because both Bethany and Leandra are Andrastian).

[quote]He can only tell Merrill that her blood magic act was useful once, on Sundermount.[/quote]

Which about equal the number of times the Warden can actually say blood magic is all kewl instead of saying nothing.

[qutote]Hawke can hear what the Arishok says, but the player isn't really given much variety in how he can respond to what the Arishok says (especially with the auto-dialogue). The same is the case with your other examples, from Hawke's conversation with Petrice to Elthina. I don't see how limited, narrow dialogue I have little control over is a "variety of expression." [/quote]

Now you've stopped giving actual examples. I don't even know what we're contrasting this with - but let's go with your views on the GW.

Things you can't say:

Duncan is a kidnapping sack of crap that let your parents die.
The Wardens are all idiots for lying about how the archdemon dies and staying in the Vanguard.
You don't identify with the GWs and you're saving Ferelden because its your home instead.

[quote]Furthermore, the player is extremely limited in his conversations with Orsino and Meredith, having no where near the kind of freedom of expression Origins offered. I found the dialogue in Dragon Age II to be horrendous and atrocious, as well as confining.[/quote]

Because it didn't give you enough lattitude to do what you want. Well, DA:O doesn't let you play a character who loathes Duncan or the GWs (more than just whine at Alistair for whining) but you don't see me complaining.

[Alexander1136]

 The warden had an awesome personality!  "Are you joking!? surely you're joking" as he blocks enemy attacks and the proceeds to decapitate them.  Not to mention all the poking fun at alistair and conversations with the other party members that were far deeper in value that anything hawke did. and that was just my warden, other wardens could have been suave or battle hardend even violent.  

Hawke had three generic characters, nice, ruthless, and what I call "david gaider sarcasm" rhys, alistair, and sarcastic hawke share a similar tone of silly quips(not that i dislike them).

What I'm saying is that the main character should have a larger variety of personalities the 3 hawke one were stale imo.  but worked to define that character. if you want to create a character that truly belongs to the user than the options have to be moreso, if you want to create a definable character than you limit the options on what they say and offer only different ways of saying it . I prefer the former but from a storytelling point of view can understand the latter. 

[mmarty]

The warden only had the personality you gave them. Point fun at Alistair or not was the players decision.

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

He can only tell Merrill that her blood magic act was useful once, on Sundermount.

Which about equal the number of times the Warden can actually say blood magic is all kewl instead of saying nothing.

I disagree. You can support or condemn it in conversations with Duncan and Jowan in the Magi Origin, as well as in conversation with the blood mage in the Circle Tower; in addition, you can even ask to learn the craft with the Desire Demon or the Baroness (so it isn't ignored like it is in Dragon Age II).

Modifié par LobselVith8, 31 décembre 2012 - 10:51 .

[Ponendus]

I feel the opposite is true. I would rather inject my chosen personality into the PC, within the limits of what BioWare gives me of course.

I prefer the protagonist to be a blank slate.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I disagree. You can support or condemn it in conversations with Duncan and Jowan in the Magi Origin as well as in conversation with the blood mage in the Circle Tower;

Which is precisely what you can do with Merril, and then moreover with the Eluvian (as a parallel to Duncan/Jowan).

As far as the blood mage in the tower, I can't recall you being able to speak favourably about BM - just about the mages efforts to be free.

in addition, you can even ask to learn the craft with the Desire Demon or the Baroness (so it isn't ignored like it is in Dragon Age II).

Point taken here: DA2 totally fails to have you learn your specializations in-game. The cloest you have to this sort of deal is Fenriel - which DA2 could have used as a point to learn BM.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]In Exile wrote...

Hawke can't tell Aveline his thoughts on the Chantry; he's written to be religiously Andrastian. [/quote]

I take that back. No, he isn't. Diplomatic Hawke gets a few lines about it, but many of them make sense in context for an atheist raised in a religious family (because both Bethany and Leandra are Andrastian). [/quote]

Which doesn't mean Hawke needed to be as well, and his dialogue makes it clear he isn't atheist.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]In Exile wrote...

Hawke can hear what the Arishok says, but the player isn't really given much variety in how he can respond to what the Arishok says (especially with the auto-dialogue). The same is the case with your other examples, from Hawke's conversation with Petrice to Elthina. I don't see how limited, narrow dialogue I have little control over is a "variety of expression." [/quote]

Now you've stopped giving actual examples. I don't even know what we're contrasting this with - but let's go with your views on the GW. 

Things you can't say:

Duncan is a kidnapping sack of crap that let your parents die.
The Wardens are all idiots for lying about how the archdemon dies and staying in the Vanguard. 
You don't identify with the GWs and you're saving Ferelden because its your home instead. [/quote]

You can condemn Duncan to Alistair. Also, Dragon Age II prohibits you from doing things that were possible in Origins, like having an atheist protagonist.[/quote]

Modifié par LobselVith8, 31 décembre 2012 - 11:02 .