235 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

StreetMagic wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think it's best if Bioware just writes whatever story they think needs to be done. I'm a musician. If I was writing an album, I wouldn't conduct a poll and write it via consensus. I'd do what I thought I needed to express and if people hated it, screw em. I'd take my chances of losing fans, or creating new ones. Hopefully not the former, but you can't please everyone.

Interactive mediums are a whole different beast than passive ones. So your comparison is lacking.

You could just as easily say not having any way to differentiate your character is the same as if you cover a song, but have to play it, note for note, the same as the original song. Who are you to experience or express that song in a way different than the original composer?

I don't see what interactivity or passive has to do with it. If that's how people view games, then that's pretty sad. Artistic expression shouldn't be so subjected to outside whims. I don't envy game developers if this is the kind of reasoning they have to deal with. I'd probably rip my hair out if I was in the same position. Seriously. lol

Technically though, they don't have to deal with it. None of them are forced to listen. If they do, they do it out of the goodness of their hearts. The only outside people they truly have to answer to are shareholders.

And they have to answer to shareholders if their sale numbers dip. 

I don't envy game developers either that try and include choice and consequence, but that's the train Bioware has hopped on. If they want to deviate from that wheelhouse, they need to stop the series and open up some new IPs. Otherwise, they are "stuck" with an RPG IP that allows a lot player interactivity in creating the medium.

And that, by the way, is the difference. You are incapable of making a song that is different based on what the listener decides. Yet every video game is based on this principle. Whether that be as simple as "jump over the Goomba or die" or being able to evolve a story based on player decisions about who they want to play as... it is the same basic concept. Someone can only listen to your music and appreciate or hate it for what it is. A video game developer can have a video game that allows the player to guide their own experience, to tell their own story, within the confines of the system. 

THAT is the difference. This thread is not saying that Bioware should not create the story they want. It is saying that any story they do is infinitely better for many players if Bioware allows us choice in creating that story as well, rather than be passive watchers of one of three personalities.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

There are many ways to play an rpg. Two of the ways are to step into a role. The other is to create the role to a certain extent. Both can be considered role playing. Some gamers like one or the other. Some like both. It takes imagination to be able to step into a role as much as to create one. One is not inherently superior to the other . It comes down to a matter of taste and preference.

I can role play with either a voice or non-voiced PC. It has nothing to do with imagination. That has to do more with the limitations that the gamer has set with his or her preference.

Yes, and I have no problem with the "step into a role" type, my problem is that, at being in that role, I can only choose to be a good guy, a fun guy, or an aggresive guy. That said, I enjoyed DA2, but I really miss the choices that I had being The Warden, I mean, I would love a voiced protagonist but with all the choices of dialogue that I had in DA:O. I know that is nearly impossible because it requires too much resources, but for me it would be great .

The choices in dialogue that the warden had followed the same pattern as  the dialogue wheel Hawke used. The only difference is the lines are not labeled as such in DAO.  

Not only are they not labeled as such, but one could argue that they did not have to be delivered as such, either. If you are fine with NPCs misunderstanding what you were trying to say (which happened a fair number of times as well in DA2, except it was less them not understanding and instead your character not understanding the player's desire), then you can imagine a silent PC delivering the same words a multitude of ways. 

You cam imagine anything, but it will not change the reaction that the lines gnerate from the NPC. For example I thought a line in DAO was funny. The reaction I got from the NPC was anything but funny. In my head I delivered the line in a funny way, but it was not perceived by the game as funny. I can only assume like it said in Cool Hand Luke that " What we got here is a failure to communicate".

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

*looks at thread title* There is a character creation in DA3 just like there was in DA2 and DAO. Whatever there was a race creation is a different subject.

It is not a race creation. You are not devising a new species to populate the world of Thedas. 

You are creating a character. Choosing the race of said character is part of creating them. Just like choosing what weapon you specialize in, if you have a family, if you speak multiple languages and/or if you worship any given deity(ies).

If that choice is not there, that is fine... but it is an element of the character creator that is missing/omitted. It is not something that is inherently separate from the character creation process. 

The selection of race is not necessary for a character creation system. It may be a nice addition but not necessary. As noted in the Fallout games you have character creation but the only race you can play is human. That fits the story being told since you are either a vault dweller or a courier.

Race selection is a nice addition but not if it does not fit the story being told.

[Ianamus]

Maybe it's just me, but I care a lot more about what my character does after I've created them then what they supposedly did before.

If having a fixed name and race means interaction with the characters family and people actually calling my character by their name rather than a vague title then I think it is an improvement. Origins were interesting, but they weren't what made me enjoy the original dragon age. 

Modifié par EJ107, 13 mai 2013 - 11:21 .

[mopotter]

StreetMagic wrote...

Twisted Path wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I think it's best if Bioware just writes whatever story they think needs to be done. I'm a musician. If I was writing an album, I wouldn't conduct a poll and write it via consensus. I'd do what I thought I needed to express and if people hated it, screw em. I'd take my chances of losing fans, or creating new ones. Hopefully not the former, but you can't please everyone.

If I wanted to play a game with a fixed plot and characterization I'd be playing virtually any game that isn't an RPG.

I didn't say anything about a specific fixed plot. I said they should make what they want, and let the chips fall where they will.

If they lose fans like you, it's unfortunate, but not that unfortunate.

If the history of BioWare is true, this is exactly what the Doctors did when they started the company.  They made the games they wanted to play.  I'm not positive if or when they stopped doing this.  I always liked the idea that the people working on the games enjoyed playing them.  Not totally sure this is still true, but I hope it is.  I do think DA is the story they want to do, as long as the same group is involved in the whole series.

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

There are many ways to play an rpg. Two of the ways are to step into a role. The other is to create the role to a certain extent. Both can be considered role playing. Some gamers like one or the other. Some like both. It takes imagination to be able to step into a role as much as to create one. One is not inherently superior to the other . It comes down to a matter of taste and preference.

I can role play with either a voice or non-voiced PC. It has nothing to do with imagination. That has to do more with the limitations that the gamer has set with his or her preference.

Yes, and I have no problem with the "step into a role" type, my problem is that, at being in that role, I can only choose to be a good guy, a fun guy, or an aggresive guy. That said, I enjoyed DA2, but I really miss the choices that I had being The Warden, I mean, I would love a voiced protagonist but with all the choices of dialogue that I had in DA:O. I know that is nearly impossible because it requires too much resources, but for me it would be great .

The choices in dialogue that the warden had followed the same pattern as  the dialogue wheel Hawke used. The only difference is the lines are not labeled as such in DAO.  

Not only are they not labeled as such, but one could argue that they did not have to be delivered as such, either. If you are fine with NPCs misunderstanding what you were trying to say (which happened a fair number of times as well in DA2, except it was less them not understanding and instead your character not understanding the player's desire), then you can imagine a silent PC delivering the same words a multitude of ways. 

You cam imagine anything, but it will not change the reaction that the lines gnerate from the NPC. For example I thought a line in DAO was funny. The reaction I got from the NPC was anything but funny. In my head I delivered the line in a funny way, but it was not perceived by the game as funny. I can only assume like it said in Cool Hand Luke that " What we got here is a failure to communicate".

If you've never said something that you thought was funny and gotten nothing but crickets in response, I'd say you haven't told that many jokes to people who aren't your immediate friends or family.

Real Life Example:

I was going to the grocery store last week to buy supplies for my daughter's one year birthday. I went to the cashier check out with yellow, white and pink inflated balloons, a container of pink cupcakes, flowers and a fruit tray. Jokingly, I said to the cashier

"Yeah, me and a couple of the guys are just going to watch the Playoffs today, have a few beers, you know... have a guy's day."
Cashier: "That sounds nice."
Me: "Ah, sorry, I was joking. We're doing a baby's birthday party."
Cashier: "Ah."

Did "my character" not say something with funny words, with a joking demeanor with a light-hearted tone? Of course. Sometimes people just don't react the way you want them to. Why is it that if this exchange happened with a voiced protagonist, it shows the flatness of the cashier, but with a non-voice protagonist, it somehow means I was giving the lines totally deadpan?

[UnderlAlDyingSun]

Why does everybody care so much about this?

Lol and it keeps you from enjoying the game? Get over yourselves, these feats were a lot easier to implement back when rpg's looked and played like absolute crap. Given the nature of the central conflict taking place here as well as your probable background it makes more sense to play a human now then ever.

To add all that dialogue, NPC acknowledgements, variable import data etc... No thanks. You'd be lucky to even get a voiced char. if they attempted this again. Humans > The Rest so I don't care.

[Fast Jimmy]

iiReaperZz wrote...

Why does everybody care so much about this?

Lol and it keeps you from enjoying the game? Get over yourselves, these feats were a lot easier to implement back when rpg's looked and played like absolute crap.

Yes, yes... and every other game genre, that looked similarly like crap, was somehow above this standard? Try playing a racing game back in 2001. It makes Baldur's Gate look like a Rembrandt, yet Baldur's Gate offered a game design that was infinitely more complex and engaging.

Given the nature of the central conflict taking place here as well as your probable background it makes more sense to play a human now then ever.

I will give you this. Then again... where exactly did the idea of the Inquisitor come from? Nothing in DA2 or its DLC seemed to indicate that this previously unknown organization would have anything to do with anything.

Oh, that's right... it was the game developer's. So they could have just as easily had a different starting scenario that would be less tied to the Chantry and human affairs as the Inquisition. Which, BTW, appears to also have tons of non-human members from the Book of Thedas... so this argument doesn't even hold up that strongly.

To add all that dialogue, NPC acknowledgements, variable import data etc... No thanks. You'd be lucky to even get a voiced char. if they attempted this again. Humans > The Rest so I don't care.

I consider myself UNLUCKY that we have a voiced character. EXTREMELY unlucky. That someone at Bioware thought this was the end-all-be-all of game experience is very unlucky for those who realize how much has been sacrificed in order to accomodate it.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 mai 2013 - 11:59 .

[Deebo305]

If you really want to know Reaper this thread is really just about no elf butthurt and I hate humans hur dur

Frankly I feel it doesn't matter so long as the game is good and cuz I usually play human characters anyway

[Fast Jimmy]

Deebo305 wrote...

If you really want to know Reaper this thread is really just about no elf butthurt and I hate humans hur dur

Frankly I feel it doesn't matter so long as the game is good and cuz I usually play human characters anyway

Please do not respond if you have nothing of input to bring to the conversation besides the vocabulary of a twelve year old.

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Did "my character" not say something with funny words, with a joking demeanor with a light-hearted tone? Of course. Sometimes people just don't react the way you want them to. Why is it that if this exchange happened with a voiced protagonist, it shows the flatness of the cashier, but with a non-voice protagonist, it somehow means I was giving the lines totally deadpan?

Because odds are I'm not getting the "That was a joke" option that you took in your example there.

[robertthebard]

Yeah, when I read the thread title, I figured some information had squeaked out that we were going to play a fixed protagonist. Whew. Never been so glad to see the same old thread.

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Did "my character" not say something with funny words, with a joking demeanor with a light-hearted tone? Of course. Sometimes people just don't react the way you want them to. Why is it that if this exchange happened with a voiced protagonist, it shows the flatness of the cashier, but with a non-voice protagonist, it somehow means I was giving the lines totally deadpan?

Because odds are I'm not getting the "That was a joke" option that you took in your example there.

Point taken. But why not MAKE that an option? Arena did this, where you had a Tone choice for every dialogue option you did. It would be easier to do that with less resources with a pure text system than it would be to do a voiced protagonist and have multiple conversation options.

[Deebo305]

I actually did respond awhile ago Jimmy but judging from the post I've read not much has changed. What I told Reaper is basically a summary of most of this thread. Don't need to put up a wall of text to tell anyone that, the real change happened when people actually paid attention to Streetmagic's post but you gladly sit there a pretend like I'm wrong if like

[Fast Jimmy]

Deebo305 wrote...

I actually did respond awhile ago Jimmy but judging from the post I've read not much has changed. What I told Reaper is basically a summary of most of this thread. Don't need to put up a wall of text to tell anyone that, the real change happened when people actually paid attention to Streetmagic's post but you gladly sit there a pretend like I'm wrong if like

Sorry, I read both of your posts you made in this thread. Both of them included the phrase "butthurt." That tells me you had nothing of value to say on the topic. 

I don't agree with Streetmagic's stance, but at least he is/was discussing the idea without reducing the argument to something as dismissive and juvenile as "butthurt."

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 mai 2013 - 12:26 .

[Deebo305]

How sadly wrong you are Jimmy, true my second post added next to nothing but if actually did read my first I was talking about the flaws in Origins dialogue system and quick comparison to Jade Empire another Bioware game which uses a format similar to Origins but had I known seeing "butthurt" would have you weak in knee then I would've avoided it but my sarcasm does get the best of me

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Point taken. But why not MAKE that an option? Arena did this, where you had a Tone choice for every dialogue option you did. It would be easier to do that with less resources with a pure text system than it would be to do a voiced protagonist and have multiple conversation options.

So if Bio didn't want to do a voiced-PC dialogue system, they could theoretically  improve the non-voiced system over what they did in DA:O?

I suppose so, but it's kind of academic.

[Mornmagor]

I think that since Bioware has decided on a voiced protagonist, it is an absolute necessity to have a voice distorter in the character creation, so you can alter your voice to an acceptable tone you like.

There is nothing more immersion-breaking for those that like to roleplay as something specific, when your character opens his mouth, sounding totally different that you would like him/her to.

So i think the best of both worlds, is the voice altering effect/distorter, like the one soul calibur 4-5 uses. Since we are stuck with a voiced protagonist, i simply can't accept a voice that i don't like.

I like my pc to sound hoarse, like he has a sore throat or whatever, and calm, it makes him more badass in my opinion. How could i ever like Hawke's voice?

You ever heard the protagonist's voice from Full Throttle? It's an old adventure game. That was the most amazing voice i heard, ever. Badass, calm, wise, everything.

Roy Conrad, R.I.P.

Modifié par Kuroi Kishin, 14 mai 2013 - 03:36 .

[Sir JK]

My big problem with the classical fantasy tabula rasa character is that while it generally offers you a semblance of choice, this is largely cosmetic. I can choose between races, but only rarely will I get the odd comment mentioning that I am race X. I can choose haircolour, but even if I choose the most garish colour noone will ever bat an eyelash in my direction. I could cover my face with scars, and the grizzled veterans will still ask if I have seen a single fight in my life.

At the most it's the odd quest that unlocks based on class and a different array of LI's based on gender.

While the choice is given, it's largely ignored. It's like me asking whether you'd prefer chicken or beef and then present you with a textureless soup that lacks taste. Sure... there might be chicken or beef in it and I probably respected your choice, but it's not like it made a difference.

This is also, I suspect, that games featuring a tabula rasa character either requires an extremely strong villain or tend to lack a bit in the story department. The former because they need to carry the entire story by themselves. There's no protagonist to speak of in this story... just a blank agent that you cannot work with, so you need the villain to be so much better.
And as many of us has pointed out... the Elder Scrolls are great, but it does not exactly carry a thrilling and engaging story. In the more interesting narratives it provides, you're more along for the ride than involved. Precisely because your character is a non-entity.

So while these choices can be very rewarding with the player, they're extremely difficult to work with narratively. In PNP the DM could adjust the story on the fly to fit your character, use elements of your character to spice the story. Drag in background, family, race and so on. In a game though, we create the character after the narrative is finished (on the author's side anyways). So it could only react to choices it provides to you, to anything written prior to release.

It's made considerably more complex by the fact that Thedas itself deals with more difficult issues and that there's more to reactivity than just altering how to address the character. Humans calling our elves "knife ears" while not changing anything else is not a reaction, it's calling us a racistic slur but then treating us like an equal.
Them refusing us service, calling us knife ears, mocking us and then gathering a few friends to drive us back to the alienage? Now that's a reaction. Noble young ladies taking pity on us and giving us alms where they to otherwise ignore us ( and despite that we don't need it) is a reaction. That's what we should expect for being elves. That people alter their entire behaviour in our presence.
That calls for an entirely different way to present the story. What is a city elf without the endemic racism? It's their theme as much as any in Thedas. Looking like an elf but not getting that essentially means we didn't choose elf at all... we just thought we did.

That's why I feel certain choices on their own are overvalued. A race choice that has no more reactivity than haircolour isn't really a race choice at all. It's just adjusting the face morph. So if limiting the race choice means that my character is recogniced for what they are, for good and especially for ill, then I am for it.
And the day someone makes a race choice that alters how every npc reacts to you... that's the day I'll dance and sing of joy. But until then I'll settle for more limited choices that anchors my character into the story and allows me to participate, rather than spectate.

[Naitaka]

I can think of at least two reasons. First because according to their statistic most people don't play game more than once let alone even finish them in the first place so they're better off with a single more polished protagonist than something that encourage multiple playthrough. Secondly, triple A video games are all about "cinematic experience" now a day and a voiced protagonist with well recognized face makes it much easier to market to their demographic. I think gamers just need to come to the realization that Bioware has not been for awhile and will not be making cRPG for the purists and they should simply look elsewhere (InXile and Obsidian just to name a few) for that kind of experience.

Modifié par Naitaka, 14 mai 2013 - 05:15 .

[LinksOcarina]

It goes back to the age-old debate of plot vs narrative, and one being manipulated by the gameplay while the other masks the manipulaton.

If you look back at the games made by BioWare, it has always been a hybridization of sorts between the mechanical styles of RPGs, the open world confined to a storyline. It's basically what CD Project Red is promising with Witcher 3, but its already been done before by BioWare, and to an extant Black Rock and Obsidian regarding games like Fallout: New Vegas, Planescape: Torment, and Betrayal at Krondor.

That said, BioWare is also restrictive of their worlds because they have to be. There are certain events you need to go through in order to reach the finish, and the role-playing comes from not what type of character you create, but what you decide to do with the character you are given. At least, that is what it has always been for me. And it has to be because of what its trying to do; Skyrim had a specific endpoint to it, getting there is dependent on the player though, and part of the fun was delaying the inevitable to find stuff to do, as well as saying and doing what you want without reprisal from others.

Now take Kotor for example. Other than the fact that I am forced to become a jedi, I can choose my starting class, Jedi class, and whether or not I return to the dark side or stay on the light side. The remainder of the game is somewhat unaffecting because its all flavor text, it changes the narrative but not the plot, but it is always going towards the ending itself. So you get freedom of choice and exploraton on the hub worlds, but it is linear in design regardless of what you do.

In a sense, BioWare has always restricted role-playing for the plot. The voice acting has made it more noticable because we see the performances and words on the page come to life. But it really is a prevelant aspect of BioWares style of RPGs, this hybridization of story-teller and power fantasy makers.

So really, customization meant little until you add backstories for your character mean something. In Dragon Age: Origins it was about giving flavor to your character. In Mass Effect, anecdotes of your accomplishments. Previous games it was more about utility and combat prowess, pure mechanical choices to give you better aptitude for magic or missile weapons, appearance and overall imagination to be something or someone else. There is value in that, but it was valueless in terms of BioWare's focus until 2007.

For Inquisition I believe we will get customization anyway in the form of backgrounds to choose from. I would argue that is enough to shape ideals for players to follow, if they so choose. It is the middle ground of again, giving us options while letting BioWare tell the story.

[BigGuy28]

The fact that once again we aren't getting to make our own character and having one forced on us is a major part of why I won't be bothering with DA3 at all. I could deal with it with Shepard because it was the first game in the series and I could still make Shepard my own. I hated Hawke, didn't care about the character at all and his/her "lets sit around and wait for things to happen then react" method of "heroism" was horrible.