194 réponses à ce sujet

[Gibb_Shepard]

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'.

The decisions you make on Geralt's behalf further solidify certain aspects of his character. So no, i don't agree. 

[TMZuk]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

...........

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

..........

A pretty loud and obnoxius remark, mhm? I love DA:O. I despise DA2. If that makes me "loud" and "obnoxius", so be it, but I will translate an old Danish saying for you:

Thou shall not accelerate geological fragments whilst residing in a transparant domicile.

Or in modern terms: Do not throw rocks while residing in a hothouse!

Modifié par TMZuk, 05 janvier 2013 - 04:44 .

[nightscrawl]

In Exile wrote...

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.

I know this was from three days ago, but I wanted to reference this.

I've never done a Merrill romance so I have never had this scene with her. There is similar context with Fenris though. One of the options is to just ask him to say anything, where he responds, "They say that your soul goes to the Marker when you die," I think here you have a followup auto-dialog, to which he replies, "I've heard that too." However, the other two options are to ask him about his own mother, which I dislike, knowing that he doesn't remember his mother, and to blame yourself, which I also don't like because it sounds whiny.

I believe I've read that one of the other options with Merrill is to blame mages/magic, which causes her to leave. My point is that, even if there are other available options, they might be so unappealing that you feel forced into picking the least offensive, which isn't much of a choice.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 05 janvier 2013 - 05:20 .

[Fallstar]

The game should provide the framework for us to make our protagonists interesting.

[King Cousland]

The beauty of the Warden was that they were an empty vessel to be filled by us (Dragon Age is a roleplaying series after all).

While responses were often in the same vein as DA II, I felt they were in fact more varied, and allowed the Warden to respond to the situation rather than being confined to three very generic personality types. This allowed us to shape much more well-rounded and deeper characters, which is what I look for in an RPG. 

So, needless to say, "interesting" is subjective. I find it much more interesting to shape my character starting out as an empty vessel which I can fill than having a character for whom I can only pick three flavours. 

[Leones Maneres]

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.

I agree that sarcastic Hawke was entertaining. 

Once. 

The joke is never as funny the second time around, making replayability marginal at best. 

Which is why I'd be happy to sacrifice that voiceover element for more freedom in game.  BW has never produced a truly open world RPG like the TES series.  I'd love to see what they could do with something like that.

[daft inquisitor]

I'd be interested as well, but it would have to be a new IP. I wouldn't want them taking Dragon Age in that direction.

[Maria Caliban]

Cynical reaction: Even if BioWare stripped all choice from the PC and made a completely pre-defined protagonist, they would not make an interesting one. They'd make a generic hero who'd appeal to a broad number of people and not really bother anyone.

Actually, I struggle to think of any RPG with an interesting protagonist.

[daft inquisitor]

Played Grandia II? I thought Ryudo was an interesting protagonist. He was kind of a gruff jerk at the beginning, but he had reason to be, and went through a bit of character evolution by the end of the game.

Then again, you might not consider that an RPG, because there was really no role-playing element.

Modifié par ShadowDragoonFTW, 05 janvier 2013 - 06:31 .

[Maria Caliban]

Unfortunately, my gaming is limited to the PC. Maybe it's just the keyboard and mouse crowd that flocks to dull-as-butter-knife personalities.

[Sol Downer]

No way, the protagonist should be stale white bread compared to everybody else in the Dragon Age series.

[daft inquisitor]

Possibly. In the meantime, I'll make an effort to think of some computer RPGs I've played with interesting characters. This may take me a while.

[In Exile]

nightscrawl wrote...
I believe I've read that one of the other options with Merrill is to blame mages/magic, which causes her to leave. My point is that, even if there are other available options, they might be so unappealing that you feel forced into picking the least offensive, which isn't much of a choice.

But this doesn't mean the character is forced to have that view. Becuase if it does, DA:O did the same thing. The best example being the conversation with Wynne, where you have to identify with the Grey Wardens and the only somewhat dodge you get is "Why does it have to mean anything at all?"

I'm not happy with any of the options in that conversation - but I think many here will contest my claim that DA:O forces every character to be I<3Wardens after Ostagar. 

[daft inquisitor]

EntropicAngel wrote...

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

Then again, you might not consider that an RPG, because there was really no role-playing element.

Well, yeah. If there's no roleplaying, it's not an RPG.

Then what do you consider games with a turn-based combat system with a level-up system and exchangable equipment? If you strip out the role-playing aspect, that's pretty much the definition of the original RPGs, the pen-and-paper systems like D&D.

Alternatively, look at some of the first video game RPGs. Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy. In those games, there was no "role playing". There was a linear plot with a character that had no choices, no roles to play. Yet, that's still the title the genre was given. That's still the roots from what all RPGs (even Dragon Age) came from.

It is what it is.

[daft inquisitor]

EntropicAngel wrote...

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

Then what do you consider games with a turn-based combat system with a level-up system and exchangable equipment? If you strip out the role-playing aspect, that's pretty much the definition of the original RPGs, the pen-and-paper systems like D&D.

Alternatively, look at some of the first video game RPGs. Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy. In those games, there was no "role playing". There was a linear plot with a character that had no choices, no roles to play. Yet, that's still the title the genre was given. That's still the roots from what all RPGs (even Dragon Age) came from.

It is what it is.

I don't agree, but this is amusingly enough a topic of debate i came upon myself when debating someone on JRPGs.

I personally think it's a terminology issue. I don't think "RPG" should have ever been associated with those games to begin with. In the video game world, an RPG is defined as a primarily number-heavy gaming system that includes personal character optimisation (a non-linear power increase system). Usually, but not always, included is equipment, a level-progression system, and some form of [pseudo-]turn-exchange combat.

"Roles" never had any part of the first video game RPGs, which is why I think the entire genre is a misnomer. And also why I despise the fact that the Zelda franchise is commonly referred to as an RPG, when only ONE GAME in the series even adheres to the traditional definition of "RPG". <_< But, that discussion is neither here nor there.

My point is, regardless of whether you agree with the naming or not, this is what an RPG is.

Anyway, getting off topic...

Modifié par ShadowDragoonFTW, 05 janvier 2013 - 07:30 .

[daft inquisitor]

I'm just going from the roots up. Fact is, Dragon Quest was THE first "RPG" video game, with Final Fantasy 1 hot on its heels, and my definition, I believe, describes them perfectly. But, others are welcome to their own interpretations. As long as we agree the definition itself is flawed, then I have no reason to argue the point further here.