194 réponses à ce sujet

[Fraq Hound]

@OP

The most interesting character should be the protagonist.

Well, since the protagonist is completely player controlled I would say that whether or not you find him/her interesting is dependent on how interesting you yourself are.

The Warden is simply a much cleaner starting slate then Hawke. I found the Warden to be alot more interesting, mostly because the events of DA:O were more interesting. I got to explore more aspects of his (my own) character,  and in the end I got to decide his fate.

I'm not against giving the characters a voice. I don't know if I could even stand to play another DA:O silent protagonist.

Just saying I don't associate the voice acting with whether or not the protagonist is interesting.

I think the world around him, the adversity he faces, and the decision's he makes in the face of that adversity has a much bigger impact on how interesting I find the character.

Modifié par Fraq Hound, 02 janvier 2013 - 08:17 .

[dreman9999]

op, you completely missed the point of roleplaying, have you?

[Hatchetman77]

I'm playing Secret World right now and really enjoying it. I think the voiceless "blank slate" protagonist still has a place in modern gaming. Skyrim also showed that this still works too.

[Overdosing]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

I'm playing Secret World right now and really enjoying it. I think the voiceless "blank slate" protagonist still has a place in modern gaming. Skyrim also showed that this still works too.

It definently does.

dreman9999 wrote...

op, you completely missed the point of roleplaying, have you?

This seems to be a case. I don't know. My thought was that the player made his/her character (protagonist) the most interesting character.

Modifié par Overdosing, 02 janvier 2013 - 11:52 .

[Plaintiff]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

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.

I felt the same for The Witcher, and for both KotORs. IMO, that disqualifies them from being RPGs: you're playing a predefined character. You do not create or define, because it has already been created and defined.

Not an RPG.

You can roleplay a predefined character. Actors do it for a living.

I'll concede that it's harder to do so when you don't get all the information beforehand.

Protagonists across a variety of media forms are often supposed to be more or less "normal". They serve as what is called "viewpoint characters" for the audience. In a way, they represent the audience. They go into a new situation without any prior knowledge, allowing the writers to dispense new inforation at will, to help the audience become acquanited with this new setting and the characters within it.

But in Dragon Age, the characters have been raised from birth in this fantasy world and should have a working knowledge of most of its concepts, so that approach doesn't really work. The only way to have the character be a "blank slate" is to throw in some cheap amnesia plot device and I'm getting pretty tired of those.

[Gibb_Shepard]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

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.

I felt the same for The Witcher, and for both KotORs. IMO, that disqualifies them from being RPGs: you're playing a semi-predefined character. You do not create or define, because it has already been created and defined.

Key word. If the character was wholely pre-defined, i'd agree with you. But there is still much of Geralt's character to customize. Semi-predefined characters are just another form of roleplaying; ones that have both pros and cons. And Revan can't even be considered semi-predefined, as basically one thing about his character history is set in stone. Absolutely everything else is up to you.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Plaintiff wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

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.

I felt the same for The Witcher, and for both KotORs. IMO, that disqualifies them from being RPGs: you're playing a predefined character. You do not create or define, because it has already been created and defined.

Not an RPG.

You can roleplay a predefined character. Actors do it for a living.

I'll concede that it's harder to do so when you don't get all the information beforehand.

Protagonists across a variety of media forms are often supposed to be more or less "normal". They serve as what is called "viewpoint characters" for the audience. In a way, they represent the audience. They go into a new situation without any prior knowledge, allowing the writers to dispense new inforation at will, to help the audience become acquanited with this new setting and the characters within it.

But in Dragon Age, the characters have been raised from birth in this fantasy world and should have a working knowledge of most of its concepts, so that approach doesn't really work. The only way to have the character be a "blank slate" is to throw in some cheap amnesia plot device and I'm getting pretty tired of those.

Or you can, y'know... just not reveal the player character's past. The amnesia plot device is only there for characters that I would consider 'predefined' in the first place.

Not that roleplaying a character with a background is a bad thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The only way to ensure that the protagonist is "interesting" to all players is to allow the players to define the protagonist's personality themselves.

I agree the protagonist should be the most interesting character, and when I get to define him he is. But I found Hawke really quite dull.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Or you can, y'know... just not reveal the player character's past.

Exactly.  This is the whole point of the mysterious stranger background.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

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.

I felt the same for The Witcher, and for both KotORs. IMO, that disqualifies them from being RPGs: you're playing a semi-predefined character. You do not create or define, because it has already been created and defined.

Key word. If the character was wholely pre-defined, i'd agree with you. But there is still much of Geralt's character to customize. Semi-predefined characters are just another form of roleplaying; ones that have both pros and cons. And Revan can't even be considered semi-predefined, as basically one thing about his character history is set in stone. Absolutely everything else is up to you.

He is pretty much predefined. The choices he makes always have to be in sync with his character. Essentially, it's Geralt making the choices, not 'us'.

[nicethugbert]

HJF4 wrote...

It would be hard to juggle having an interesting character with giving players ways to roleplay.

This!  The protagonist is your character, your vehicle for navigating an interesting world.  The most interesting characters should be your squaddies.  And, they shouldn't necessarily stick around until the very end.  They should go off and be interesting then get replaced by the next squady to be explore.  None of these NPcs are particularly sane people. They should be driven.  They should be  ..... interesting.

[daft inquisitor]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

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.

I felt the same for The Witcher, and for both KotORs. IMO, that disqualifies them from being RPGs: you're playing a semi-predefined character. You do not create or define, because it has already been created and defined.

Key word. If the character was wholely pre-defined, i'd agree with you. But there is still much of Geralt's character to customize. Semi-predefined characters are just another form of roleplaying; ones that have both pros and cons. And Revan can't even be considered semi-predefined, as basically one thing about his character history is set in stone. Absolutely everything else is up to you.

He is pretty much predefined. The choices he makes always have to be in sync with his character. Essentially, it's Geralt making the choices, not 'us'.

That really depends if you're talking about The Witcher or The Witcher 2. In 2, a lot of his choices were trimmed down. You could select going with Iorveth over Roche, but that was about the extent for major decisions. In TW1, you could choose EVERYTHING about Geralt.

Also, he was talking about Revan in KotOR as far as being able to choose everything about the characer.

Modifié par ShadowDragoonFTW, 04 janvier 2013 - 03:12 .

[aedan901]

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.

I'm very glad DA2 actually made the protagonist to have a character. Sarcastic Hawke often was a blast to listen to, though I found other two personalities hardly distinguishable from paragon/renegade of ME.

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

Hawke sucks,compared to the Warden.

[FieryDove]

If you want to set it up as the protag is the most interesting character you have to go all the way I would think? Fully pre-defined like Geralt.

For others they can role-play better how interesting or not a character is.

Which is better? For some both. For some only one. I wouldn't play a pre-defined character like geralt so yes I miss out on all ther witcher games. I like some *wiggle* room in defining my character. Also I like playing females with the option to play males later if I so desire.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

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.

I felt the same for The Witcher, and for both KotORs. IMO, that disqualifies them from being RPGs: you're playing a semi-predefined character. You do not create or define, because it has already been created and defined.

Key word. If the character was wholely pre-defined, i'd agree with you. But there is still much of Geralt's character to customize. Semi-predefined characters are just another form of roleplaying; ones that have both pros and cons. And Revan can't even be considered semi-predefined, as basically one thing about his character history is set in stone. Absolutely everything else is up to you.

He is pretty much predefined. The choices he makes always have to be in sync with his character. Essentially, it's Geralt making the choices, not 'us'.

That really depends if you're talking about The Witcher or The Witcher 2. In 2, a lot of his choices were trimmed down. You could select going with Iorveth over Roche, but that was about the extent for major decisions. In TW1, you could choose EVERYTHING about Geralt.

Also, he was talking about Revan in KotOR as far as being able to choose everything about the characer.

The amount of 'auto-dialogue' in both games primarily made me feel that Geralt is not 'my character'. In both game he often seems to act during cutscenes or say things without much input from the player. Aside from that, he is always more or less a swordmaster with some magical powers and can't use other weapons properly even if he comes across them.

I see him more like Adam Jensen from Human revolution. Not that either have to be bad games, I just don't buy them if I'm looking for a roleplaying game.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The only way to ensure that the protagonist is "interesting" to all players is to allow the players to define the protagonist's personality themselves.

I agree the protagonist should be the most interesting character, and when I get to define him he is. But I found Hawke really quite dull.

The game needs to react to that personality for it to be interesting, or at least to give dialogue options that are not incredibly bland or passive. Because, otherwise, the game only supports a subset of personalities, and if you don't find those interesting, then it doesn't matter what concept you mgiht come up with de novo.

[Fredward]

It depends. I don't have a problem with being like a spectator to the bigger story, like reacting to events instead of setting events in motion BUT it has to be made clear. Like in DA2 Hawke really wasn't all that important, everything could've happened without her/his involvement. BUT I didn't get the feeling Hawke was a kind of regular person just reacting to events. I got the idea he/she was a hero with like a secondary storyline. Almost like a sidekick. Nice to have along but not necessary.

I'd actually like to see more games playing with the "you're not that important!" brush but I'm not actually really sure it would work. Then again books do it often, well not often but sometimes, regular person just reacting to events (see China Mieville's Bas-Lag series. The first two books anyway the Iron Council totally had a hero, yes I'm looking at you Judah) it just has to be set up differently.

[HiroVoid]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
I'd actually like to see more games playing with the "you're not that important!" brush but I'm not actually really sure it would work. Then again books do it often, well not often but sometimes, regular person just reacting to events (see China Mieville's Bas-Lag series. The first two books anyway the Iron Council totally had a hero, yes I'm looking at you Judah) it just has to be set up differently.

I'll admit one thing I've missed about playing JRPG's is how in a lot of them, you start off fairly weak, and it's very obvious there are people much more powerful than you that exist.  With almost all WRPG's, you're the absolute best at combat and nobody can match you.  Even Hawke who people like to praise as a flawed protagonist still suffers this.

Edit: On the subject, this is actually something I enjoy at the beginning of some of the SWTOR origins.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 04 janvier 2013 - 09:35 .

[In Exile]

HiroVoid wrote...
I'll admit one thing I've missed about playing JRPG's is how in a lot of them, you start off fairly weak, and it's very obvious there are people much more powerful than you that exist.  With almost all WRPG's, you're the absolute best at combat and nobody can match you.  Even Hawke who people like to praise as a flawed protagonist still suffers this.

In a JRP you're just a prodigy who hasn't had years of experience. But every RPG needs you have to be special and talented and have no one match you. Because otherwise all of the RPG-esque feats we expect become stupid.

It's like saying you want a story about a nobel prize winning physicist of average to below average IQ. There is a prerequisite level of ability necessary to make the story work.

[HiroVoid]

Except the problem is usually when the protagonist is miles away from all other enemies. I remember talking about why Meredith needed the idol to power up, and not why she couldn't be powerful enough on her own to fight Hawke.

[daft inquisitor]

Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy VII, Grandia 2...

Oh, don't mind me, I'm just trying to come up of a list of JRPG's I've played where there's a character early in the game that will definitively kick your ass that you spend the majority of the game getting more powerful to be able to defeat.

Let's see, .hack, Dragon Quest VIII, Golden Sun, Legend of Dragoon...

See, I'm with Hiro on this one. The main difference is that, if there is some supremely-powerful character in a Western RPG, you spend the entire game just finding the guy, and by the time you do, you can pretty much just wipe the floor with him, or are expected to win regardless of anything.

With JRPGs, it's different. They show you that you just can't win against this enemy. Most of the games I've listed, and a lot more, have a sequence where you meet the bad guy, he mops you up, and then leaves you to die. Cue you spending the next 40 - 80 hours of play time leveling up and getting awesome gear to the point where you might win.

Though, this entire discussion is off topic. I just felt the need to chime in.

[Fiddles dee dee]

I can back interesting choices and a unique beginning but I don't get the necessity of making the protagonist the most interesting character. The villain is usually the most interesting and necessarily so to make choice complex and conflate justification.

I tend to think the protagonist needs to be surrounded by interesting characters and a fascinating world rather than be interesting in themselves at the exclusion or limitations of others.

[_- Songlian -]

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.

I disagree. All my Wardens had plenty of personality. It was a joy to create them from scratch and follow their story. 

It was fun to role play Hawke as well, just that I had less freedom in creating background and attributes.

Different experiences, all good. But if I had to chose the character that had most personality in all my games, that would definitely be my Warden PC. 

Modifié par - Songlian -, 05 janvier 2013 - 12:30 .