235 réponses à ce sujet

[Shaigunjoe]

Hawke_12 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I wonder how much of it is stat gathering, I know BW collects a lot of stats, Maybe an overwhelming number of people just went with a default human.

80% of people in DAO played as a human. And this is counting all the characters created, not solely your first character.

Wow really? Thats a lot.

[Fast Jimmy]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Hawke_12 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I wonder how much of it is stat gathering, I know BW collects a lot of stats, Maybe an overwhelming number of people just went with a default human.

80% of people in DAO played as a human. And this is counting all the characters created, not solely your first character.

Wow really? Thats a lot.

Yes. Most people in DA:O played as a human.

And as a male. And as a warrior. And I'd be willing to bet if they had an easy way to look at such things, they would find most people played white characters.

Does any of that mean they should remove the ability to choose gender, class or overall appearance? Consensus should not limit options.  

[Enigmatick]

^The majority of DA:O players sound.....privileged.

[Palidane]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Hawke_12 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I wonder how much of it is stat gathering, I know BW collects a lot of stats, Maybe an overwhelming number of people just went with a default human.

80% of people in DAO played as a human. And this is counting all the characters created, not solely your first character.

Wow really? Thats a lot.

Yes. Most people in DA:O played as a human.

And as a male. And as a warrior. And I'd be willing to bet if they had an easy way to look at such things, they would find most people played white characters.

Does any of that mean they should remove the ability to choose gender, class or overall appearance? Consensus should not limit options.  

That sounds nice in a Social Justice way, but Bioware is a company, and they're out to make a profit. You're basically saying they should invest a huge amount of time and money on something only 20% of people play, because you think it's important. I liked the other origins, but when 8 out of 10 players roll human, is it any surprise human is our only option in DA3?

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Hawke_12 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I wonder how much of it is stat gathering, I know BW collects a lot of stats, Maybe an overwhelming number of people just went with a default human.

80% of people in DAO played as a human. And this is counting all the characters created, not solely your first character.

Wow really? Thats a lot.

Yes. Most people in DA:O played as a human.

And as a male. And as a warrior. And I'd be willing to bet if they had an easy way to look at such things, they would find most people played white characters.

Does any of that mean they should remove the ability to choose gender, class or overall appearance? Consensus should not limit options.  

Gender and appearance really aren't equivalent examples. There are a whole swath of reasons why removing those would be problematic, mostly relating to the representation of real-life minorities.

Elves and Dwarves are not real minorities, so there is no outside social pressure to keep those options. Just like there is no outside social pressure to let characters have blue or pink or green hair, because those are not naturally-occuring hair colours, and nobody is being disenfranchised by their absence.

[Fast Jimmy]

This wasn't an issue when the character was silent. The voiced PC and the more cinematic design made providing the option too expensive.

And it isn't a matter of social justice - it is free market economy. You have hundreds of thousands of your customers enjoying an aspect of your product. Yet you cut it out because millions more did not use it. That's like saying that Mountain Dew shouldn't be sold, since more people drink Coke. When, instead, if you made both products, you could reach the largest market base.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

This wasn't an issue when the character was silent. The voiced PC and the more cinematic design made providing the option too expensive.

And it isn't a matter of social justice - it is free market economy. You have hundreds of thousands of your customers enjoying an aspect of your product. Yet you cut it out because millions more did not use it. That's like saying that Mountain Dew shouldn't be sold, since more people drink Coke. When, instead, if you made both products, you could reach the largest market base.

Again, not an equivalent example. As you just said, removal of race options for DA2 was an issue of expense.

They wouldn't be cutting Mountain Dew just for being less popular, they would be cutting it because the cost of producing Mountain Dew was outweighing the benefits, and the money could be put to a more productive use elsewhere.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

That's not what was said, though. By Bioware or by you. It was to tell a "better" story. Just like, apparently, for DA3.

If you have a group of people saying they are not going to buy your product because you removed X feature, it may be all bluster. But if you lose half of your market going from one product to the next, it may be worth looking at, from an economic angle, the reasons why. Could it be because you removed Feature X?

[Shaigunjoe]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

This wasn't an issue when the character was silent. The voiced PC and the more cinematic design made providing the option too expensive.

And it isn't a matter of social justice - it is free market economy. You have hundreds of thousands of your customers enjoying an aspect of your product. Yet you cut it out because millions more did not use it. That's like saying that Mountain Dew shouldn't be sold, since more people drink Coke. When, instead, if you made both products, you could reach the largest market base.

I would say it is more like pepsi not making pepsi clear because it didn't sale very well....which is exactly what happened.

[ArcaneJTM]

Hawke_12 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I wonder how much of it is stat gathering, I know BW collects a lot of stats, Maybe an overwhelming number of people just went with a default human.

80% of people in DAO played as a human. And this is counting all the characters created, not solely your first character.

I have to wonder if this is just counting all characters created or characters that finished the game or got past a specific point.

Example, someone makes several characters, including human, and plays to ostagar or just after, but plays the rest of the game with a dwarf or something.

There is another matter.  Just for the sake of argument, say there are a million characters.  If 80% are human, that still leaves 200,000 characters that are not.  That's no small number.

[Shaigunjoe]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

This wasn't an issue when the character was silent. The voiced PC and the more cinematic design made providing the option too expensive.

And it isn't a matter of social justice - it is free market economy. You have hundreds of thousands of your customers enjoying an aspect of your product. Yet you cut it out because millions more did not use it. That's like saying that Mountain Dew shouldn't be sold, since more people drink Coke. When, instead, if you made both products, you could reach the largest market base.

I'm not sure how I feel about the silent hero but everyone else is voiced, the scenes came off as very goofy, even though you do have a lot more dialogue options.

If the cost of multiple voice actors for various races/genders is the biggest issue, I really feel like we are at the point were we could probably open source that, why not have a store where people provide voices for the various builds (similiar to how valve does their clothing store, where people design and build their own cosmetic items and sale it).  I think that would be pretty neat.

[ArcaneJTM]

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yes. Most people in DA:O played as a human.

And as a male. And as a warrior. And I'd be willing to bet if they had an easy way to look at such things, they would find most people played white characters.

Does any of that mean they should remove the ability to choose gender, class or overall appearance? Consensus should not limit options.  

Gender and appearance really aren't equivalent examples. There are a whole swath of reasons why removing those would be problematic, mostly relating to the representation of real-life minorities.

Elves and Dwarves are not real minorities, so there is no outside social pressure to keep those options. Just like there is no outside social pressure to let characters have blue or pink or green hair, because those are not naturally-occuring hair colours, and nobody is being disenfranchised by their absence.

Thats not "a whole swath of reasons".  That's one reason, and a very poor one at that.  People play games, generally speaking, to escape reality.  Saying games should match reality is quite literally taking the fun out of it.

It's not about social justice or representation of real life minorities or somesuch.  It's fantasy.  Saying they don't exist in real life and therefore there's no reason to have them in the game is ridiculous.  Having things in the game that don't exist in real life is the entire point of fantasy games.

And no outside social pressure to keep elves and dwarves?  Really?  What do you call multiple threads doing just that then?

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

That's not what was said, though. By Bioware or by you. It was to tell a "better" story. Just like, apparently, for DA3.

If you have a group of people saying they are not going to buy your product because you removed X feature, it may be all bluster. But if you lose half of your market going from one product to the next, it may be worth looking at, from an economic angle, the reasons why. Could it be because you removed Feature X?

Well, I was going by what you said.

It could be, it could also be for any number of reasons. Telemetry only tells Bioware the what, not the why, and while there are methods of analysis that would help them find any number of whys, there's no way to find a concrete answer, and not a lot that they can do about it without one.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Sure there is. Bring Feature X back. If the numbers return, one could assign there is, at least in some part, a portion of the reason why.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm not sure how I feel about the silent hero but everyone else is voiced, the scenes came off as very goofy, even though you do have a lot more dialogue options.

If the cost of multiple voice actors for various races/genders is the biggest issue, I really feel like we are at the point were we could probably open source that, why not have a store where people provide voices for the various builds (similiar to how valve does their clothing store, where people design and build their own cosmetic items and sale it).  I think that would be pretty neat.

It is not 100% about VA cost, though. It is about synching up animations with voiced characters, hiring cinematic designers to set up scenes, actions, placement and movement of your character, adding weeks into the schedule to change a few lines of dialogue and/or making the entire development experience more cumbersome. 

Not to mention that A) your feeling that a silent PC looks "goofy" is entirely your opinion and not at all the view of others and I'd be terrified to see what we would get with amateur hour of voice acting for open source. Remember, you need voices for every language the game would ship in that would require proper localization as well. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 15 mai 2013 - 05:16 .

[freche]

I highly doubt that the reason why DA2 sold less then DAO is because you where forced to play a human or because the voiced character. If that was the case it would have been seen on the pre-orders and the initial sales.
It's much more likely that changes in gameplay and reviews made people not buy it.

[Plaintiff]

ArcaneJTM wrote...
Thats not "a whole swath of reasons".  That's one reason, and a very poor one at that.  People play games, generally speaking, to escape reality.

"Minority representation" is a blanket term that covers a lot of specific issues.

Yeah, I fantasise all the time about being a straight guy. I love escaping into a make-believe world where people like me don't exist, and certainly never get to be heroes!

Giving me the ability to roleplay as a homosexual just ruined Dragon Age, because then it was too close to my reality.

Yeah, right.

Saying games should match reality is quite literally taking the fun out of it.

Good thing I didn't say that then.

It's not about social justice or representation of real life minorities or somesuch.  It's fantasy.

It's absolutely about "social justice". The underrepresenation of minorities is a big problem in all media, including fantasy. Especially fantasy.

You don't think it's even slightly problematic that you're more likely to see dragons in any given fantasy story than a single black or gay person? You don't think that says something even slightly concerning about our media and the society that produces it?

You don't think giving someone the ability to choose their gender or skin colour might take slight precedence over ear shape?

Saying they don't exist in real life and therefore there's no reason to have them in the game is ridiculous.

Again, not what I said. Please God, learn to read.

Having things in the game that don't exist in real life is the entire point of fantasy games.

"Having make-believe creatures is way more important than a fair and balanced representation of genders, sexualities or different ethnic groups! All those women and black people who might've liked to play a protagonist they can relate to for once can go **** themselves! None of that crap is as important as having pointy ears or being short!"

And no outside social pressure to keep elves and dwarves?  Really?  What do you call multiple threads doing just that then?

I could tell you, but I think it'll be more fun to let you guess.

Hint: it's not very nice.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 15 mai 2013 - 05:34 .

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Sure there is. Bring Feature X back. If the numbers return, one could assign there is, at least in some part, a portion of the reason why.

Maybe, but if Feature X is race choice, I really doubt it.

[Gregolian]

While I really liked the customization of the character in the beginning of Origin compared to the customization for Hawke it felt weird in this day and age to have a protagonist that never spoke.

Like, the dialogue I could maybe get but you're supposed to be leading the Grey Wardens and for some reason instead of the defacto Warden Commander (you, the player) giving the final moving speech before charging into Denerim Alistair gives the speech....

I like voiced protagonists.

[Shaigunjoe]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm not sure how I feel about the silent hero but everyone else is voiced, the scenes came off as very goofy, even though you do have a lot more dialogue options.

If the cost of multiple voice actors for various races/genders is the biggest issue, I really feel like we are at the point were we could probably open source that, why not have a store where people provide voices for the various builds (similiar to how valve does their clothing store, where people design and build their own cosmetic items and sale it).  I think that would be pretty neat.

It is not 100% about VA cost, though. It is about synching up animations with voiced characters, hiring cinematic designers to set up scenes, actions, placement and movement of your character, adding weeks into the schedule to change a few lines of dialogue and/or making the entire development experience more cumbersome. 

Not to mention that A) your feeling that a silent PC looks "goofy" is entirely your opinion and not at all the view of others and I'd be terrified to see what we would get with amateur hour of voice acting for open source. Remember, you need voices for every language the game would ship in that would require proper localization as well. 

Why do you make it a point to point out that the silent protaginst is goofy is my opinion?  Do you know how forums work?  99.9% of everything on here is opinion!

I am well aware its not the view of others, which is why I think the open source VO would work, when the NPC talk they don't really display any emotion as it is, and the lip synching is incredibly poor, so I don't think it would bother most people.  Besides, with all the developments in visual sensor, it is becoming easier to map facial expressions into games.  I don't think this is as far fetched as you think it is.

Brian Fargo has stated on several occasions that the voice work is one of the hardest things to do in RPGs because you have to set things in stone way earlier, and makes the story more rigid (indeed, you can see it by only have a voice protagnist for one race)  Open sourcing it would be a way to please both crowds, and if you are truely terrified of what it might produce, then guess what? You don't have to download any VO.

[ArcaneJTM]

Plaintiff wrote...

"Minority representation" is a blanket term that covers a lot of specific issues.

Yeah, I fantasise all the time about being a straight guy. I love escaping into a make-believe world where people like me don't exist, and certainly never get to be heroes!

Giving me the ability to roleplay as a homosexual just ruined Dragon Age, because then it was too close to my reality.

Yeah, right.

So its OK for you to demand gay people be included, but it's not OK for anyone to demand non-humans?

That doesn't seem just a little hypocritical to you?

Saying games should match reality is quite literally taking the fun out of it.

Good thing I didn't say that then.

Uh, yeah, you kinda did.  "mostly relating to the representation of real-life minorities"  "Elves and Dwarves are not real minorities,"

It's not about social justice or representation of real life minorities or somesuch.  It's fantasy.

It's absolutely about "social justice". The underrepresenation of minorities is a big problem in all media, including fantasy. Especially fantasy.

You don't think it's even slightly problematic that you're more likely to see dragons in any given fantasy story than a single black or gay person? You don't think that says something even slightly concerning about our media and the society that produces it?

No, I don't see a problem with it.  Dragons have been a part of fantasy stories throughout history.  Gay people, not so much.  Really I think people are more concerned with the fire breathing lizard turning the village to ash than whether the dragon slayer prefers beards or boobs.  Part of that whole idea of saving the world from evil instead of playing a dating sim.

You know, since your overall assersion is that variety takes away from narative, perhaps homosexuality should be removed from the game entirely?  Much better if the protagonist has a set love intrest that is whoever was the most popular among focus groups.  That way the devs can focus on making that one relationship the best it can be than providing a choice for people to romance who they want.

Makes sense, doesn't it? 

You don't think giving someone the ability to choose their gender or skin colour might take slight precedence over ear shape?

It doesn't have to be a choice between one or the other.  You've been making a mountain out of a molehill because you hate elves so much that you don't even want them to be an option.  That's what I take issue with.

Having things in the game that don't exist in real life is the entire point of fantasy games.

"Having make-believe creatures is way more important than a fair and balanced representation of genders, sexualities or different ethnic groups! All those women and black people who might've liked to play a protagonist they can relate to for once can go **** themselves! None of that crap is as important as having pointy ears or being short!"

Since you mention it, it is more important, but that's beside the point.  You are way too obsessed with being politically correct and hating anything that doesn't fit your ideal character.  What about people who can relate more to dwarves than human characters?  What about short people or tall people?  What about fat people, or skinny men, or muscular women that don't have D cup boobs? 

There are more ways to relate to a character than gender and sexuality.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

StreetMagic wrote...

Catroi wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I say again.. For the love of the Maker, please make some these glorious real RPGs some of you have in mind. "If you build it, they will come". I would definitely give it a chance, in all honesty. You all sound like you've graduated from players of RPGs into full blown competitors, ready to face the world on your own, and make your own stuff.

Jean Luc Godard was once a film critic, y'know. And then went on his own and became one of the great French film directors, and ushered in a new wave of cinema. You could be just like him, and show us the light.

Otherwise, I'm tired of hearing about great ideas, and then never see anything come of them. All my time on the internet, I must've heard the rantings of many visionaries, and all of them were full of empty promises. Except the promise of more complaints about other people's games, of course

So basically you cant critique something if you havent made better in that domain but you can praise the living **** out of it even if you have no idea what you're talking about?

logic, you fail at it

I never said anything about not critiquing. I said myself that each approach has advantages and disadvantages. I think that's a "logical enough" premise for a fair critique. I'm not depending on emotional judgements. I can be realistic in where a game succeeds or fails. I also said Bioware wasn't perfect. So that's hardly "prasing the living **** out of it".  If you want to have a mature conversation about DA2's faults, I'm all for it, and there are good ways of going about it.

This has nothing to do with stopping critics. It's about people who tell me of a "promised land" of "real RPGs", and then never show me what they actually mean. Once someone drops the "Real RPG" line, the conversation is OVER. It's the same empty criticism that's been going on for years. I've been playing RPGs for a long time, and I keep running into people who are never satisifed, who tell me they know something better. No matter what games are out at any given time, there's always someone who knows where the "real RPGs" are at. It's very frustrating to hear about all of this great stuff, and never get much out of it. It's like going to a party, and being around some guy who's constantly saying he was once at a better party, or knows where a better party is, but then never invites me. Or some guy who tells me he's going to hook me up with some hot girls, but never does it. I'm all for checking a new party out, but it never goes anywhere.

My guess is that they think "real RPGs" means the type that uses: books, pen, paper, and dice like Dungeons & Dragons where the only limit is your imagination. That is just a guess however.

[Bleachrude]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...


DA:O was excellent in how it handled and allowed for wide variety of player-character types, yet still kept a pretty well executed plot line. The argument that they are now more focused on telling a tight-knight story just doesn't hold water for me; their plots are not even the stronger parts of their writing. If I want to experience a story with a well establish protagonist who has a linear and defined plot arc, I will read a book or watch a movie. They are more suited to doing that better anyway.

I was spoiled early on by RPGs which understood that the fictional world should be the player's sandbox. Some of those games were made by BioWare, some by related companies like Black Isle. For BioWare to abandon that concept in favor of making interactive films with one version where the protagonist is diplomatic, and one where it is a d-bag, is a major step backwards in my eyes.

That's kind of a bad example though...

In Faerun for example, there's little effect on the world if you are a dwarf or an elf. In the Forgotten Realms novels, there's little to no discrimination against dwarves and elves among the common people (Drow, yes, and the Drizzt novels utilize this). Sure, a dwarf can't become the king of Cormyr but other than similar positions, there was no actual social difference between an elf, human or dwarf.

Now, if you created a drow or half-orc, that's when you actually should see different responses to you.

BW, rightly or wrongly, has created Thedas in which there ARE significant social differences between the races and the classes. In the FR, an elven mage could casually stroll in any temple, place of business or royal palace and the only reaction would be "guards will come down on you if you use magic". Bioware's thedas is distinctly different.

DA:O got around this by simply having "The grey Warden" overwrite any societal effects. Would a random human noble adventurer be able to even get a meeting with Zatharian?  Would the Shaperate even allow a city elf into its archives or even Orzammar? Would a casteless dwarf even be allowed into the circle tower?

The thing is, all these type of situations in previous Bioware/Black Isle worlds would work since like I said, race and class had no societal effect. Race and class ironically, had NO effect on the plot/world.

So I can see why BW believes that focusing on one race is better...

And as others have stated, many think mage Hawke is one of the weakest elements of the game....

[ArcaneJTM]

Bleachrude wrote...



In Faerun for example, there's little effect on the world if you are a dwarf or an elf. In the Forgotten Realms novels, there's little to no discrimination against dwarves and elves among the common people (Drow, yes, and the Drizzt novels utilize this). Sure, a dwarf can't become the king of Cormyr but other than similar positions, there was no actual social difference between an elf, human or dwarf.

Now, if you created a drow or half-orc, that's when you actually should see different responses to you.

BW, rightly or wrongly, has created Thedas in which there ARE significant social differences between the races and the classes. In the FR, an elven mage could casually stroll in any temple, place of business or royal palace and the only reaction would be "guards will come down on you if you use magic". Bioware's thedas is distinctly different.

DA:O got around this by simply having "The grey Warden" overwrite any societal effects. Would a random human noble adventurer be able to even get a meeting with Zatharian?  Would the Shaperate even allow a city elf into its archives or even Orzammar? Would a casteless dwarf even be allowed into the circle tower?

The thing is, all these type of situations in previous Bioware/Black Isle worlds would work since like I said, race and class had no societal effect. Race and class ironically, had NO effect on the plot/world.

So I can see why BW believes that focusing on one race is better...

And as others have stated, many think mage Hawke is one of the weakest elements of the game....

To that I would point out that those issues only become appearent if you play as those particular characters.  (elf, dwarf, mage, whatever)  Nobody is forcing you to do so.  So what's the harm in letting people play as those other characters if they want to, even if the only difference is an occasional comment from a random NPC?  How does knowing that some complete stranger on the other side of the world could potentially be playing one of these alternate choices completely ruin any chance you have of enjoying your own game experience?