207 réponses à ce sujet

[Noviere]

The slope!!! It's sooooo slippery! 

[batlin]

krul2k wrote...

repoint in fact, why dont you all stop being ****s an enjoy the games for games an debate them on there merits or lack of instead of being you know wanks

It's that kind of thinking that keep CoD and Madden popular.

[Inquisitor Recon]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

This thread title should be "Strawman".

what do you have against the noble Strawmen? You humans are all racist.

[hoorayforicecream]

ReconTeam wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

This thread title should be "Strawman".

what do you have against the noble Strawmen? You humans are all racist.

Nothing against the noble Strawmen. Yea, this thread is a shining exemplar to all of their kind.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

It makes sense to exclude something that few people use. Otherwise it's like getting a combo burger chips and drink when you only want burgers. I even suggested the DLC idea before, this way you only pay for what you want.

And face it the game never truly lets you be evil. With a fixed story of going on a heroic quest most "evil" decisions just make the protagonist seem like a mentally unstable, bipolar sociopath. So until you can do something like join the darkspawn, it's no big loss as long as the quality of the other decisions make up for it.

[Plaintiff]

Addai67 wrote...

batlin wrote...

King Cousland wrote...

Oh, please. Take a look at this. 

Yay, some future DLC will let us play as other races maybe.

I'm guessing that is multiplayer, hence meaningless.

How is multiplayer meaningless? Because you personally don't want it?

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Plaintiff wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

batlin wrote...

King Cousland wrote...

Oh, please. Take a look at this. 

Yay, some future DLC will let us play as other races maybe.

I'm guessing that is multiplayer, hence meaningless.

How is multiplayer meaningless? Because you personally don't want it?

I guess it's meaningless to the story experience

[addiction21]

Pseudocognition wrote...

*takes a drink*

Right there with you.

[Ninja Stan]

Let's tone down the language in this discussion, please. There's no need for nastiness.

batlin, the choice to have only humans playable was not made for lack of creativity or player statistics. It is based primarily on finances and the amount of work required. A playable character isn't a frivolous decision to make, as he (or she) will be fully voiced, the character model will have the highest level of detail, and he will appear in pretty much all conversations and cinematics.

If a Dwarf character is made available to play, for example, that means that all conversations and cinematics will have to have at least two different camera heights, a not insignificant amount of work when it comes to having all scenes look right. It also means (probably) extra voicing, because in general, Humans have different accents than Dwarves. It means at least four copies of most armour (Human male, Human female, Dwarf male, Dwarf female). It means an extra rig for Dwarf animations, which may require additional mocap. Maybe it'll even mean some reactivity and some Dwarf-related story content, which is awesome, but again, requires extra time and effort.

Now, none of this means that it can't ever be done, or that BioWare is lazy for not doing it this time around. It means that the scope of the game and the amount of work required has to be planned months in advance. You don't embark on a project as large as a AAA videogame title and expect to be able to switch gears quickly. If BioWare planned DA3 with only a single, human protagonist in mind, that means that a certain amount of work has been scheduled. Any work that would have gone to additional player characters has been allocated to other critical features.

If BioWare decides to do another game which allows more than one playable race, you can bet that they will allocate their resources accordingly. But game development isn't really modular in the way you seem to think it is, nor are zots (essentially, work units or man-hours) as infinite as you seem to hope they are.

For DA3, I think it's more "most people played human characters, so in this game where we're planning for only one playable race, it makes the most financial sense to make it human.

"Most people played male characters, but BioWare fans have long expressed the need to be able to play either male or female in a BioWare game, so for this game where we're planning for only one playable race, it makes the most financial sense to allow both male and female characters."

"Most players choose good options, but BioWare fans have long expressed an enjoyment of not always being a goody-goody in BioWare games, so for this game set in our kinda rough and tumble dark fantasy world, players will likely be able to be not-so-nice people."

See where this logic eventually leads? At what point does catering to the masses become laziness?

To be fair, it's a fairly skewed kind of logic that doesn't appear anywhere but in your own mind.

[batlin]

Plaintiff wrote...

How is multiplayer meaningless? Because you personally don't want it?

Because if the game is a story-based RPG then multiplayer really isn't relevent to the game now, is it?

[Plaintiff]

batlin wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

How is multiplayer meaningless? Because you personally don't want it?

Because if the game is a story-based RPG then multiplayer really isn't relevent to the game now, is it?

Says who?

[batlin]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Let's tone down the language in this discussion, please. There's no need for nastiness.

batlin, the choice to have only humans playable was not made for lack of creativity or player statistics. It is based primarily on finances and the amount of work required. A playable character isn't a frivolous decision to make, as he (or she) will be fully voiced, the character model will have the highest level of detail, and he will appear in pretty much all conversations and cinematics.

If a Dwarf character is made available to play, for example, that means that all conversations and cinematics will have to have at least two different camera heights, a not insignificant amount of work when it comes to having all scenes look right. It also means (probably) extra voicing, because in general, Humans have different accents than Dwarves. It means at least four copies of most armour (Human male, Human female, Dwarf male, Dwarf female). It means an extra rig for Dwarf animations, which may require additional mocap. Maybe it'll even mean some reactivity and some Dwarf-related story content, which is awesome, but again, requires extra time and effort.

Now, none of this means that it can't ever be done, or that BioWare is lazy for not doing it this time around. It means that the scope of the game and the amount of work required has to be planned months in advance. You don't embark on a project as large as a AAA videogame title and expect to be able to switch gears quickly. If BioWare planned DA3 with only a single, human protagonist in mind, that means that a certain amount of work has been scheduled. Any work that would have gone to additional player characters has been allocated to other critical features.

If BioWare decides to do another game which allows more than one playable race, you can bet that they will allocate their resources accordingly. But game development isn't really modular in the way you seem to think it is, nor are zots (essentially, work units or man-hours) as infinite as you seem to hope they are.

For DA3, I think it's more "most people played human characters, so in this game where we're planning for only one playable race, it makes the most financial sense to make it human.

"Most people played male characters, but BioWare fans have long expressed the need to be able to play either male or female in a BioWare game, so for this game where we're planning for only one playable race, it makes the most financial sense to allow both male and female characters."

"Most players choose good options, but BioWare fans have long expressed an enjoyment of not always being a goody-goody in BioWare games, so for this game set in our kinda rough and tumble dark fantasy world, players will likely be able to be not-so-nice people."

See where this logic eventually leads? At what point does catering to the masses become laziness?

To be fair, it's a fairly skewed kind of logic that doesn't appear anywhere but in your own mind.

I think you and most everyone else in this thread is mistaking my meaning. Yes, I am aware that the idea to make the protagonist human-only is a financial one and that if corners were to be cut it's only logical to stick witht he race most players picked. But why is the same logic not made for other character creation options? Yes, fans have long expressed the need to play as both males and females, but have fans not praised the multiple playable races and all their origins in DA:O? Why is that the first thing to be tossed into the bin rather than gender or dialogue options?

My point is that it's awfully disconcerting that the corners that are being cut are staples in fantasy RPGs.

[Addai]

Plaintiff wrote...

How is multiplayer meaningless? Because you personally don't want it?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that most people who want to play a non-human PC want to do so in the main story.  Just being able to run some unconnected gameplay module with an elf doesn't count.

[Ponendus]

Filament wrote...

Good thing they never used that ****ty logic, that's all you buddy.

This. With any creative enterprise things have to be cut and changed. Nobody is cutting all the things the OP listed, it's a silly strawman argument.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

batlin wrote...

"Most people played male characters, so from now on all protagonists will be male."

"Most people chose straight romance options, so from now on only females will be romanceable."

"Most people chose good options over evil options, so from now on the player will only have the option to be good."



See where this logic eventually leads? At what point does catering to the masses become laziness?

They aren't using logic to solve the problem. They're just making a choice and in turn taking choice away from the player.

[Ponendus]

batlin wrote...

But why is the same logic not made for other character creation options? 

Because it isn't necessary. Developers are quite likely given a number of options, a limited budget and time etc and a list of things that cost time and money. They may need to get that list down so they choose x number of things to cut. Happens in every business or creative enterprise.

This time... race got the cut. Next time, who knows?

[addiction21]

batlin wrote...

My point is that it's awfully disconcerting that the corners that are being cut are staples in fantasy RPGs.

No they are not.

[Dysjong]

Batlin.

My guess would be that a human is something everyone can relate to. The same goes for the graphic, that the more realistic and true to things in RL, the more appeal and relation the customer has towards the game, something i took notice off when i worked with selling games and my observations on different forums, regarding difference games.

Just my thought on the topic.