207 réponses à ce sujet

[frostajulie]

I loved playing the city elf in DAO because of the origin story it was a powerhouse RP that sold me from the first line of dialogue. Same with the Dwarf PC both versions. Hawke had no such powerhouse of an origin. I could live with a human only PC if the origin story is powerful enough and motivating enough but I also agree that it is a shame to see that the 1st thing kicked from the game is what is usually an RPG staple- the choice to play as different races and play from that perspective in the game world.

As much as I despise where Bioware has been heading in their recent spate of games ME3 in particular, DA2 in part (I actually enjoyed that game except for what they did to Origin characters and the recycled maps) But I have played Blizzard, Bethesda, and Witcher games by CDred or whatever, I even bought Guild wars *barf* and except for Project red- the witcher guys- the only company that has the track record to pull off a good balance of rpg and cinematic story is bioware. And those witcher guys won't give me the option to play a female. So for all my recent displeasure over biowares lack of DAO options I really hope they are able to pull off another DAO style game rich in story and rpg-ability. Its not about being a fan anymore for me I am just really really bored and want to spend my money on a good game.

[hoorayforicecream]

batlin wrote...

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.

You keep saying that it is financial, but that isn't entirely true. They didn't cut the decision for multiple races because they wanted to save money; they cut the races because they have an allotted time, and they are erring on a more conservative design while they tackle the much larger task of building a game with an entirely new engine. They felt that they could provide a better game experience for the zots they have to spend by making the protagonist human.

Once they have more experience with the engine and have more established systems in place for future projects, race selection can come back into play. But they are first and foremost trying not to bite off more than they can chew, and with a entirely new engine and tool set, they've got a good amount to chew on already without putting in different races. The last time Bioware tried to be ambitious with their development cycle, they made DA2. They are being more conservative this time, because they are well aware of DA2's reception and giving themselves more space to breathe.

[Maria Caliban]

batlin wrote...


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.

Because women exist in the real world and actually play their games, unlike elves. And I'm pretty sure women are a staple of fantasy RPGs.

As for adding queer romances, we're talking about a few different lines and not having a gender check. It's not a large amount of work as opposed to, for example, having a dwarven PC.

[batlin]

Ponendus wrote...

Because it isn't necessary.

Everything I outlined in the OP isn't necessary either.

EntropicAngel wrote...

You know, what I said just the other day in the DG thread comes to mind:

"Bioware doesn't owe you anything."

Try to remember that.

Try to remember this: consumers don't owe them their money. I suppose if they want to continue making their games more like DA2 than DA:O that's their prerogative, but I hope they bear in mind that DA2 sold half as many copies as DA:O did.

[FieryDove]

I want the old bio boards re-opened.

Sigh

[iSkelzor]

Bioware loves their universe more than you do.

Bingo. Though I'd add that it isn't necessarily 'Bioware' who loves it, but the writers and designers and artists and what not who have spent years of their life creating it.

[RaenImrahl]

I think people sometimes forget that DA:O was in development for something like five or six years, at least. It was announced in *2004*... and did not debut until late 2009, IIRC. My point is that multiplying the number of character types-- through gender, race, social status (noble vs. commoner), and class (mage, warrior, rogue) increases greatly the amount of narrative that needs to be developed and tied together. Perhaps not exponentially, but certainly arithmetically.

So, while I have no insider knowledge as a volunteer mod, I'm taking Laidlaw at his word (on Twitter recently)... that they indeed desire to see a more Origins like set of character options in the future. What he did not say, but what we can infer, is that doing so would take a commitment of resources and time that they might not have for DAIII... especially considering they are moving to a new engine and (hopefully) finding a happy medium, system-wise, between the first two games.

[Maria Caliban]

I'd say creative types are less enamored of their work than fans are. That's not to say that the developers aren't passionate about their games, but fans tend to have a level of emotional connection to things that borders on obsessive.

[mousestalker]

It would be nice if we all prepared to evaluate the new game on its own merits without regard to the earlier games. That does seem unlikely, though, doesn't it?

[RaenImrahl]

mousestalker wrote...

It would be nice if we all prepared to evaluate the new game on its own merits without regard to the earlier games. That does seem unlikely, though, doesn't it?

It would be nice, and I think it does happen sometimes.  All of the positive feedback I've read about Skyrim rarely mentions previous versions of the Elder Scrolls series.

I would also suggest, however, that if a game is branded as a sequel... especially an iterative sequel (i.e., a Roman numeral in the title)... then it is natural and proper to make comparisons.  If a developer or publisher is trying to tie into past success in order to sell games, then I think comparisons with those past games are... well... fair game.   :innocent:

Modifié par RaenImrahl, 12 janvier 2013 - 02:59 .

[Paul Sedgmore]

RaenImrahl wrote...

mousestalker wrote...

It would be nice if we all prepared to evaluate the new game on its own merits without regard to the earlier games. That does seem unlikely, though, doesn't it?

It would be nice, and I think it does happen sometimes.  All of the positive feedback I've read about Skyrim rarely mentions previous versions of the Elder Scrolls series.

I would also suggest, however, that if a game is branded as a sequel... especially an iterative sequel (i.e., a Roman numeral in the title)... then it is natural and proper to make comparisons.  If a developer or publisher is trying to tie into past success in order to sell games, then I think comparisons with those past games are... well... fair game.   :innocent:

Which is why I don't think that the Dragon Age games should include a number as they aren't really sequals just stories in the same world (I can understand it from a marketing point of view as it is a lot easier to sell a game as a sequal than selling a fresh story) 

[DarthLaxian]

scyphozoa wrote...

lol, this is what a lot of people think. They see that EA is a billion dollar company and think that all those billions of dollars should be available to craft their "masterpiece"

Consumers are so painfully uninformed it is actually becoming a detriment to the industry. 

then tell me - please - what i see wrong here?

EA is a billion-dollar-company and it could allow for the same amount of development time Activision-Blizzard does.

greetings LAX
ps: yes not all that money is available on the spot, but there would be enough for this...DA:O was grand an that did not break the budget either...neither should DA:I even more after they are using an engine they already have (Frostbite was it not) and thus save money there!

Modifié par DarthLaxian, 12 janvier 2013 - 03:20 .

[DarthLaxian]

krul2k wrote...

, they cannot handle progrerssion an they cannot handle De-evolution, DA2 is evolution from DAO an DAO fans do not like it <_<

there fi fixed that for you and it is good that we can't hande DE-EVOLUTION (as in going backwards!) because that ist just stupid

greetings LAX

[Paul Sedgmore]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Paul Sedgmore wrote...

RaenImrahl wrote...

It would be nice, and I think it does happen sometimes.  All of the positive feedback I've read about Skyrim rarely mentions previous versions of the Elder Scrolls series.

I would also suggest, however, that if a game is branded as a sequel... especially an iterative sequel (i.e., a Roman numeral in the title)... then it is natural and proper to make comparisons.  If a developer or publisher is trying to tie into past success in order to sell games, then I think comparisons with those past games are... well... fair game.   :innocent:

Which is why I don't think that the Dragon Age games should include a number as they aren't really sequals just stories in the same world (I can understand it from a marketing point of view as it is a lot easier to sell a game as a sequal than selling a fresh story) 

No different from the TES games, really.

I don't know about Skyrim, but I do know that every time I open up ObIVion it goes through that point where they make it abundantly clear that this is a sequel, the fourth one (hence the IV:wizard:).

But then the TES games have a subtitle which is what most people know when discussion of the game. If you started talking about The Elder Scrolls 4 how many people would associsate it with Oblivion? 

[JimboGee]

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?

Do yourself a favour buddy look up logic in the dictionary and then come back. While your doing that unplug your pc throw it out the window then set fire to it and run it over with your ca- oh you probably dont have a car well you get the idea.

[Thibax]

Romance for everybody.
All should have a chance in love

[Face of Evil]

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."

A classic slippery slope fallacy.