194 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So Final Fantasy is not an RPG series?

Not really.

You know, i keep waiting for UpsettingShorts to make that thread, so I can discuss this in depth--Sylvius and i discussed it briefly, but I'd like to talk to everyone about it.

But no. You aren't role-playing, at all. The characters are fixed, have been for the last ten games.

That just mean you are roleplaying a fixed role. It is still a role. (Though I do admit, I prefer JRPG where you get a little more choice in the narrative than you do in final fantasy).

As much as I would want to participate in this discussion, are we allowed? I though that what is a rpg was not an allowed topic?

[Virtual winter]

I really prefer to make the protagonist's character myself instead of he/she having a predetermined character. In the latter case it always vaguely feels like I'm not playing it right if I veer away from how the creators set his/her backstory or character.

That said, some of the more memorable RPG protagonists I know had both a predetermined character/history and started as a blank slate. How did they manage that? Simple... amnesia. While in bad hands amnesia can be an absolute cop-out and a cliche, in good hands this can really work wonders. Especially if this amnesia is worked into the plot and doesn't seem like it's just an overlay of the protagonist.

Examples: Revan from Knights of the Old Republic, The Nameless One from Planescape: Torment.

[esper]

Virtual winter wrote...

I really prefer to make the protagonist's character myself instead of he/she having a predetermined character. In the latter case it always vaguely feels like I'm not playing it right if I veer away from how the creators set his/her backstory or character.

That said, some of the more memorable RPG protagonists I know had both a predetermined character/history and started as a blank slate. How did they manage that? Simple... amnesia. While in bad hands amnesia can be an absolute cop-out and a cliche, in good hands this can really work wonders. Especially if this amnesia is worked into the plot and doesn't seem like it's just an overlay of the protagonist.

Examples: Revan from Knights of the Old Republic, The Nameless One from Planescape: Torment.

The problem is that there are only so many times that can work without feeling forced to the audience. For amesia to work into the plot it has to be done specifically clever.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

EntropicAngel wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

This reminds me of AC3 were the protagonist is annoying, and the antagonist is the best character in the game.

I would disagree. Conner wasn't annoying. He was actually quite tragic--how his idealism to save his people is actually what caused their end.

And, which antagonist? His father? I Wouldn't disagree there--but I definitely would if you meant Charles Lee.

I did mean his father, I was trying to not give any plot away for those who have yet to play it. Connor spent 90% of his part of the game acting like a petulant child, he was so bad that at times I swore it was Anakin Skywalker.

[Virtual winter]

esper wrote...

The problem is that there are only so many times that can work without feeling forced to the audience. For amesia to work into the plot it has to be done specifically clever.

I agree here, but good writers (and I do think Bioware has them) can make any cliche seem fresh and new. In essence it's one of the things every story needs to do, but especially here. 

But I don't think amnesia is in any way exhausted as a character backstory in video games. When done well it's exceptionally good.

[esper]

EntropicAngel wrote...

esper wrote...

That just mean you are roleplaying a fixed role. It is still a role. (Though I do admit, I prefer JRPG where you get a little more choice in the narrative than you do in final fantasy).

As much as I would want to participate in this discussion, are we allowed? I though that what is a rpg was not an allowed topic?

You're no more roleplaying than i role-play Sonic the Hedgehog. Or Ezio Auditore.

But yes, we really shouldn't be discussing non-DA3 stuff in this forum.

I disagree, but we can not discuss it more precisely.
To discuss the crux of the matter in a different way relating to the topic:

Why don't we dicuss how much or what off the protagonist we want to be able to define to make it interesting.
I personally wants to be able to form the personality. Looks are fine but secondary to me. I want a hand in the personality which is regonized by the game which is why I prefer da2 to da:o.

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So Final Fantasy is not an RPG series?

Not really.

You know, i keep waiting for UpsettingShorts to make that thread, so I can discuss this in depth--Sylvius and i discussed it briefly, but I'd like to talk to everyone about it.

But no. You aren't role-playing, at all. The characters are fixed, have been for the last ten games.

How about mechanically though?

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

How about mechanically though?

That's exactly why i want that thread, so i can discuss it without it being offtopic. Tell him to hurry up--though I suspect he's given up on it.

Hmm...

Interesting...i'd jump in on that too.

[Lord Issa]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

You mean the loudest and most obnoxious people on the forum "favor" DA:O. 

Come now, that's hardly fair. The Dragon Age 2 hate is worse away from the forums. As someone who enjoyed DA2 (but preferred the first in all honesty) DA2 was far more reviled. Although there are loud and obnoxious people on both sides, that much I will agree on. 

On topic: I agree that the protagonist should be interesting, but I feel that what DA:3 needs is for the protagonist to feel like the same person, no matter what options they pick. An issue with DA2 was how bipolar Hawke felt when you picked an agressive option for a Hawke who was typically diplomatic or sarcastic. They sounded like different people, rather than the same person in different moods.

[AstraDrakkar]

All I know is that in DA3, I hope to be able to define and customize my character as much as possible. That includes my responses in conversations.

Modifié par AstraDrakkar, 01 janvier 2013 - 10:49 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So Final Fantasy is not an RPG series?

Not really.

You know, i keep waiting for UpsettingShorts to make that thread, so I can discuss this in depth--Sylvius and i discussed it briefly, but I'd like to talk to everyone about it.

But no. You aren't role-playing, at all. The characters are fixed, have been for the last ten games.

I'd agree with this, since VI they have been getting less RPG like with each new release until XIII which is an action game with some very poor RPG elements.

Remember when Bioware use to make fun of Square and Final Fantasy. Then came Dragon age 2 and they suddenly stopped.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 01 janvier 2013 - 11:07 .

[LinksOcarina]

DinoSteve wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So Final Fantasy is not an RPG series?

Not really.

You know, i keep waiting for UpsettingShorts to make that thread, so I can discuss this in depth--Sylvius and i discussed it briefly, but I'd like to talk to everyone about it.

But no. You aren't role-playing, at all. The characters are fixed, have been for the last ten games.

I'd agree with this, since VI they have been getting less RPG like with each new release until XIII which is an action game with some very poor RPG elements.

Remember when Bioware use to make fun of Square and Final Fantasy. Then came Dragon age 2 and they suddenly stopped.

Really? When did they make fun of them.

Their design philosophy is a sort of hybrid copy of what Square has done for years, creating a hybrid style of game that borrows from the so-called Computer RPG and Light RPG realms. 

If anything, BioWare just perfected what Square usually does since 1998.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 02 janvier 2013 - 04:50 .

[Dr. Doctor]

What I really liked about Hawke is that his back story is well defined enough to make me want to learn more about where he came from, what it was like having an apostate father, etc. Interacting with Carver and Bethany gave me a little more information gives hints that let the player fill in the gaps with their imagination. Compared to Shepard where his psych profile and personal history really are only brought up about four times in the series I find what Bio ware did with Hawke to be the better role-playing option.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
What about the conversation with Duncan and Jowan, where you can advocate blood magic?

I honestly can't comment more specifically on conversations which I don't even remember without more context. Could you please give me the line?

When Hawke condemns it without my input, it's an issue.

I can't recall any point where Hawke condemns BM without player input.

Only because the scene bugged the Landsmeet.

No, the scene is beyond stupid. Alistair, who up to that point was entirely opposed to blood magic, is suddenly gee-golly happy to be there with you, after you kill a bunch of templars and a few mages? He wanted to execute the blood mage in the Tower.

BM being available at all breaks characters.

Race isn't ignored. It could be handled better, but it's factually inaccurate to claim it's ignored.

It absolutely isn't. Magic isn't "ignored" in DA2 - often Hawke gets called a mage. Hawke also gets ignored as a mage at the most nonsensical moments. And the same happens in DA:O. Like when Emon doesn't ever bother to note that you're an elf when he declares you champion of the land, or how the Landsmeet doesn't seem to give a fig that you're one either.

Except it's primarily a debate about the technology, and no option to advocate blood magic. No improvement on the options avaliable in Origins.

No, it isn't. You think it's about technology because you believe so strongly in Merril's nonsense - but that's not what it's about. It's about Merril's actions, and what she's doing to get at using this mirror, including becoming a BM.

Bellow?You mean have opinions that aren't avaliable in Dragon Age II to express my Warden's views, while I don't have such range with Hawke.

No, I mean bellow. If you can't actively advocate for BM, suddenly you can't play your character. That's a need to shout out your views which I personally can't relate to.

Like when he tells Merrill that Leandra is with the Maker. Why can't I determine if the protagonist is religiously Andrastian or not?

You keep bringing this point up, so you know what? I've taken a look at that scene. And now I understand why I think you're absolutely wrong about this (and why I never ran across the option).

Here is the dialogue:

Merril: Leandra is in a better place right now.
Hawke: [paraphrase option - You're right.]
Hawke [spoken line - She's with the Maker].

This is absurd. Merril makes the most religious reference possible - that Leandra is in the afterlife. And you have the option agreeing that Leandra is in the afterlife.

If you voluntarily choose to make Hawke religious, then he is an Andrastian. Which makes sense - nowhere in DA:O can your HN express worship of the creators or ancestors.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

What about the conversation with Duncan and Jowan, where you can advocate blood magic? [/quote]

I honestly can't comment more specifically on conversations which I don't even remember without more context. Could you please give me the line? [/quote]

I can give you more information about the lines, and where you can specifically find them. Duncan's conversation with the Surana Warden transpires in the Magi Origin, and the issue of blood magic can arise, where the protagonist can make it clear he would use it; Duncan can also make it clear that Grey Warden mages use it to give them an edge against the darkspawn. Jowan's dialogue with the Surana Warden about the Rite of Tranquility can lead to the Surana protagonist voicing that he doesn't think that he has no problem with blood magic. Even the scene with the blood mage in "Broken Circle" can have the blood mage Warden conscripting her into service to fight the darkspawn because her power can help defeat the darkspawn.

When Fenris, Aveline, or Varric talk about Merrill's blood magic being dangerous, Hawke doesn't have any dialogue option to defend blood magic. Hawke can't advocate blood magic in any measure by saying he has no problem with it, that it's not bad, or even that he would use it himself. Even the scene where Aveline brings up Merrill (in the Act II discussion about her feelings for Donnic) doesn't have Hawke defend her, or her use of blood magic. I feel like Hawke is as narrowly defined as the story he's in.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Only because the scene bugged the Landsmeet. [/quote]

No, the scene is beyond stupid. Alistair, who up to that point was entirely opposed to blood magic, is suddenly gee-golly happy to be there with you, after you kill a bunch of templars and a few mages? He wanted to execute the blood mage in the Tower. 

BM being available at all breaks characters. [/quote]

The developers said it was disabled because it bugged the Landsmeet, your opinion of the scene notwithstanding.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Race isn't ignored. It could be handled better, but it's factually inaccurate to claim it's ignored. [/quote]

It absolutely isn't. Magic isn't "ignored" in DA2 - often Hawke gets called a mage. Hawke also gets ignored as a mage at the most nonsensical moments. And the same happens in DA:O. Like when Emon doesn't ever bother to note that you're an elf when he declares you champion of the land, or how the Landsmeet doesn't seem to give a fig that you're one either. [/quote]

Hawke doesn't get called out often as a mage; it's often ignored. Decimus ignores it; Thrask ignores it, Kerran ignores it; Cullen ignores it; a myriad of people in Kirkwall ignore it, including one of Hawke's companions: the Prince of Starkhaven, Sebastian. This is why everyone in Kirkwall being 'blind' to Hawke's status as a mage is a joke in numerous posts and comic strips.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Except it's primarily a debate about the technology, and no option to advocate blood magic. No improvement on the options avaliable in Origins. [/quote]

No, it isn't. You think it's about technology because you believe so strongly in Merril's nonsense - but that's not what it's about. It's about Merril's actions, and what she's doing to get at using this mirror, including becoming a BM. [/quote]

"Nonsense"? You're welcome to formulate an actual argument, you know. I certainly prefer Merrill being proactive about the plight of the People, in contrast to simply walking across Thedas and hoping to stumble across an answer to their dilemma. It appears you disagree.

Regardless, the debate is over the Eluvian; this is made clear time and time again in the conversations between Hawke and Merrill. Everything else is tied to the schism between Merrill and Marethari over this ancient technology.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Bellow?You mean have opinions that aren't avaliable in Dragon Age II to express my Warden's views, while I don't have such range with Hawke. [/quote]

No, I mean bellow. If you can't actively advocate for BM, suddenly you can't play your character. That's a need to shout out your views which I personally can't relate to. [/quote]

It isn't bellowing to express an opinion. The Warden can express his opinion on the Chantry in Ostagar, he can express his opinion about Andraste to Leliana after the Urn of Sacred Ashes, and he can express his opinion about whether the Maker is real or not to Justice in the City of Amaranthine. The same isn't true for Dragon Age II. And if I'm restricted to condemning blood magic as the only opinions that Hawke can have about this specific school of magic, then it's an issue.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Like when he tells Merrill that Leandra is with the Maker. Why can't I determine if the protagonist is religiously Andrastian or not? [/quote]

You keep bringing this point up, so you know what? I've taken a look at that scene. And now I understand why I think you're absolutely wrong about this (and why I never ran across the option).

Here is the dialogue:

Merril: Leandra is in a better place right now.
Hawke: [paraphrase option - You're right.]
Hawke [spoken line - She's with the Maker]. 

This is absurd. Merril makes the most religious reference possible - that Leandra is in the afterlife. And you have the option agreeing that Leandra is in the afterlife. 

If you voluntarily choose to make Hawke religious, then he is an Andrastian. Which makes sense - nowhere in DA:O can your HN express worship of the creators or ancestors. [/quote]

Are there any lines where Hawke says he doesn't believe in the Maker? Then my point stands. He is written to be religiously Andrastian; he can only voice a perspective that is religiously Andrastian. Hawke is only allowed to voice one single perspective on the matter in that scene: that Leandra is with the Maker. That's it. Hawke can't say that the Maker isn't real, he can't disagree with Merrill about Leandra being in a "better place", he can only say that Leandra is with the Maker as his perspective on the matter; otherwise, he's simply being rude to Merrill in two lines that don't contradict that he's religiously Andrastian.

It's either expressing a view that's obvious from his other lines - like Hawke telling Feynriel that he hopes the Maker guides him, or his combat lines where he invokes the Maker's name - or two lines where he's a belligerent idiot towards someone trying to comfort him that never dispute his religious views.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 02 janvier 2013 - 04:22 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...
The warden is not much of a character, (s)he's rather an empty vessel used by players to navigate the world of DA:O.

You and I have different view on what constitue interesting. I prefer an empty vessel than any well developed protagonist made by the developer. 

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

I'm very glad DA2 actually made the protagonist to have a character.

Well I don't

IntoTheDarkness wrote..

Sarcastic Hawke often was a blast to listen to, though I found other two personalities hardly distinguishable from paragon/renegade of ME.

Correction. It's BioWare's sarcastic Hawke. Not MY sarcastic Hawke. And so are the other two personalities.

IntoTheDarkness wrote..


Adding a flavour of personality on the top of the main character's deeds, whether it is good or bad, could make the protagonist a much more dynamic character, someone players can sympathize with and love. Unfortunately, in this regard DA2 only had one personality; sarcastic, as doing good or bad things is related with player's conscience rather than a character's unique personality.

 Unfortunately, even with sarcastic, BioWare fail to provide greater player control over protagonist's personality dynamic. And that's such a shame.

IntoTheDarkness wrote..



I would love to see more personalities available for the main character in DA3.

Finally something we can agree with. However, personality is useless if it's lack flexibility in term of actor's expression, tone and acting. I don't prefer to choose from a template of predefined personality created by BioWare. I prefer to create my own unique individual.    

[NRieh]

*shrug*
I'm perfectly fine with headcanon-ing things that make my PC interesting.

This. Many times. I know everything I need to about Shepard and Hawke. And the reason I dislike Warden is not lack of the voice itself. Warden does not trigger headcanoning. And before someone started about "lack of imagination" - I've spend something like 15 years with all sorts of PR, from P&P with dices to RPing in MMOs.

Good RP does not force you into character (autoShepard from ME3) and it does not leave you with empty hands. It gives you options. It's hard to play in a sandbox with no sand, you know.

Warden has no voice, but what is worse - Warden literally has nothing to say. Take a look at any dialogue from game. It's not even a dialogue, because where NPC has few full well-written and voiced sentences, Warden has a neutral phrase short enough to fit UI. Yeah, I know that DAO anti-wheel fans are going to eat me alive for this. But take a look at any dialogue-list from DAO. Damn, remember "lamp post in winter" and see the difference between the nature of Alistair's and Warden "lines" in that "conversation"! Each word Alistair says brings more of his character. Each line you can pick is dull like hell.

So, my thought is that game does not need to make charater interesting or bright - it should give enough things for your imagination to play with (because, you know, if I needed "blank" character from a scratch - I'd never use a videogame for that). But it should also keep away from "auto-emotions" as much as possible. Game should make me feel things instead of telling me what am I supposed to feel at the moment.

Modifié par Nrieh, 02 janvier 2013 - 12:06 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Have just finished playing The Witcher 2 with the protagonist and his memories being a big part of the games focus.

All it did was detach me from the game and make me lose interest. Even if his story was interesting the fact that it still feels like someone else's story just cheapens the whole experience.

Shepard in ME 1 is one of the few examples where RPG's have got it right. I still felt enough of a participant to be relative to the character and the game.

[Wulfram]

Slightly tangential to the thread but:

I really hate it when the PCs background is dribbled out gradually through the game. If it's going to be relevant to the game, tell me about it in the origin story, don't dump it on me hours in and then make me have to rewrite my character because they no longer make sense.

edit:  I'm currently playing KotOR2, which is why this came to mind.  Though The Walking Dead had an issue with that too I thought.

Modifié par Wulfram, 02 janvier 2013 - 02:09 .

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Nrieh wrote...

Damn, remember "lamp post in winter" and see the difference between the nature of Alistair's and Warden "lines" in that "conversation"! Each word Alistair says brings more of his character. Each line you can pick is dull like hell.

Replying back with "I've licked my share of lampposts and then some." isn't dull and the reaction you get from Alistair is priceless.

Modifié par DarkKnightHolmes, 02 janvier 2013 - 02:27 .

[Huntress]

Dragon age is not about a particular character or group is about Thedas, to me the games focusing on Humans and (soon) Humans affairs (for the second time) is a down side but, hopefully Bioware start writing about everything also happening in Thedas and not just humans and their fanatical organization/s, cells, groups, religion, believes and how wonderfully righteous they are.. meh

And to finish i would love for Bioware to focus more on Thedas and to include  the other races.

Modifié par Huntress, 02 janvier 2013 - 05:59 .

[b09boy]

[quote]Nrieh wrote...

[quote]Warden has no voice, but what is worse - Warden literally has nothing to say. Take a look at any dialogue from game. It's not even a dialogue, because where NPC has few full well-written and voiced sentences, Warden has a neutral phrase short enough to fit UI. Yeah, I know that DAO anti-wheel fans are going to eat me alive for this. But take a look at any dialogue-list from DAO. Damn, remember "lamp post in winter" and see the difference between the nature of Alistair's and Warden "lines" in that "conversation"! Each word Alistair says brings more of his character. Each line you can pick is dull like hell.[/quote]



I find this very close to objectively wrong.  Even in the example you gave there are interesting lines of dialogue you can choose.  You claim your dislike for the Warden isn't because of your lack of imagination, but from what I can tell it's pretty close.  Hell, I thought the Warden had some of the best dialogue options I've seen out a CRPG, complete with some actual give and take with characters.

Modifié par b09boy, 02 janvier 2013 - 07:24 .