289 réponses à ce sujet

[HurricaneGinger]

Interesting debate!

I'll have to disagree. Creating your own character, regardless if it's a board game or on a PC or console, brings your further into the game. It's a fun (if sometimes frustrating due to some limitations in CCs), and in my opinion, immersible. You become much more attached to that character, at least I do. It's a joy to see what you create come to life on the screen.

[Knight of Dane]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

And yet Dragon Age 2 was worse than Origins........................

Purty sure that is a subjective claim right there.

Nah, 'tis fact.

[Sanunes]

PhantomGinger wrote...

Interesting debate!

I'll have to disagree. Creating your own character, regardless if it's a board game or on a PC or console, brings your further into the game. It's a fun (if sometimes frustrating due to some limitations in CCs), and in my opinion, immersible. You become much more attached to that character, at least I do. It's a joy to see what you create come to life on the screen.

I agree, I might not need the same level of customization as some players, but it does need to be there.  I think its one of the things that really holds me back from enjoying The Witcher.

[Wulfram]

In theory I agree that you can make different decisions with the same character.

In practice, I find it very difficult to do so satisfactorily. There might be a couple of cases where it was a genuine 50/50, so they can go differently, but otherwise doing a, say, Adam Jensen that deviates significantly from my original playthrough just feels very wrong.

[greatcrusader44]

Knight of Dane wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

And yet Dragon Age 2 was worse than Origins........................

Purty sure that is a subjective claim right there.

Nah, 'tis fact.

I'm sure DA2 was worse than DAO because of the set background, and totally not because DA2 had like 1/4 of the development time as DAO. Oh no, definitely the former.


Didn't a dev say the Inquisitor was going to have multiple  human origins anyway? It was said while it wouldn't be playable, it would have more of an impact than DAOs origins, which didn't change much except for the first hour of the game and occasional dialogue. 

Of course then telling us they'll have more impact doesn't really mean anything til we see it.

Modifié par greatcrusader44, 14 mai 2013 - 12:08 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If he's the same person each time, why would he make different choices?

Because you are the one playing him?

I'm roleplaying him.  I am merely the mechanism through which he makes decisions.

A real person does not have the luxury of knowing what was to his left when he exited his door.

So neither should he.  If he's making in-character decisions, he can't take into account knowledge he doesn't possess.

In the virtual world, we have the luxury of "quickload" and "new game", that lets us pick the other road.

So, metagaming.

I want to roleplay characters.  The characters make decisions themselves - I don't make decisions for them.  I can't just decide that he's going to do something different without breaking his character.

EntropicAngel already pointed out how you can roleplay the same character differently each time. Having the same colour pallette does not neccesarily paint the same picture.

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

In theory I agree that you can make different decisions with the same character.

In practice, I find it very difficult to do so satisfactorily. There might be a couple of cases where it was a genuine 50/50, so they can go differently, but otherwise doing a, say, Adam Jensen that deviates significantly from my original playthrough just feels very wrong.

"I never asked for this..."

You didn't ask for incredibly-strong robot arms and super powers?

Well... maybe you should have! Because that all sounds really awesome.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 mai 2013 - 12:57 .

[mopotter]

If I had the choice between the Witcher or DA2 I'd pick DA2 every time. I have no interest in playing a fixed character whether it's Laura Croft or Gordon Freeman. At the bare minimum I want male/female choices but ideally I want each of my characters to look different. KOTOR didn't have a large selection to choose from, but they did have enough variety that each one could be different, and KOTOR is #1 in my top 10 list.

I replay games a lot and each one is a different characters that I play a little differently. This includes things like mage, ranger, warrior but also includes my decisions for that character. Mage Ann is bookish and a bit shy while Mage Sarah learned early how to get what she wanted from others and my decisions reflect that, The creation customization helps me set their style and it's important.

[ArcaneJTM]

I strongly, strongly disagree with the OP. The best stories are the ones that let you be part of it, not ones that force you to stand back and watch. Whether that means playing a pre-made character or one of your own, it's how it all fits together that's important.

You do not have to sacrifice good story telling for character customization. Seriously, it's not that hard to include alternate dialogue to take into account things like race, background, etc. For crying out loud, it's already common practice to do it with gender, and rumor has it that Bioware is planning the same for backgrounds in DA3.  That alone should disprove this nonsense that a single fixed background is necessary if you want a good story.

Also, stop trying to compare games to prove a point on this topic. Skyrim is it's own game, focused on being as open world as possible. ME is also it's own game, focused on the story of first human spectre overcoming the reapers. Neither of these prove anything about customization v.s. story telling.

Modifié par ArcaneJTM, 14 mai 2013 - 01:33 .

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

"I never asked for this..."

You didn't ask for incredibly-strong robot arms and super powers?

Well... maybe you should have! Because that all sounds really awesome.

I know, right? With all Jensen's whining he's worse than Cloud!

I don't know about that? If Jensen ever forgot to activate his power limiter before sex he could accidently tear a woman in half, thus c*ckblocking himself and potentially being charged with involuntary manslaughter.

[Plaintiff]

eyesofastorm wrote...

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

*snip*

We have so many RPGs that let you create your own really unique characters,like Skyrim,...

*snip*

So many?  You listed one.  The fact is that set protagonists have been way more prevalent in the AAA space recently.  Dispute that... if you dare.  

Most AAA games don't market themselves as RPGs, which is what the thread is talking about. Not AAA games in general.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 mai 2013 - 01:47 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

mopotter wrote...

If I had the choice between the Witcher or DA2 I'd pick DA2 every time. I have no interest in playing a fixed character whether it's Laura Croft or Gordon Freeman. At the bare minimum I want male/female choices but ideally I want each of my characters to look different. KOTOR didn't have a large selection to choose from, but they did have enough variety that each one could be different, and KOTOR is #1 in my top 10 list.

I replay games a lot and each one is a different characters that I play a little differently. This includes things like mage, ranger, warrior but also includes my decisions for that character. Mage Ann is bookish and a bit shy while Mage Sarah learned early how to get what she wanted from others and my decisions reflect that, The creation customization helps me set their style and it's important.

Odd that you bring up Kotor, since Kotor's protagonist was as set as set can be. The only choice you had was what sex and class, the rest was set in stone. You ARE Revan, everything else is implanted memories. False.

[Plaintiff]

Having a set character certainly can allow for a better story, but it doesn't always.

Frankly, I think having things like race choice in a setting where racism is prevalent (like Skyrim and Dragon Age) just creates a cognitive dissonance and damges the integrity of the setting. I always play Khajiit in TES games and Khajiit are banned from the cities in Skyrim. Oh, except for you, Dragonborn guy, you're special, even though hardly anybody is actually aware of your identity. You can even join the Stormcloaks in their mission to ethnically cleanse the entire country. Because that makes sense.

Dragon Age was better at this, elf characters still experience the racism to which elves generally are subjected, but it's minor instances and only acheiveable because there are so few race options to begin with. Developers aren't prepared to actually limit the players based on what the setting would allow, so race choice serves no purpose beyond the purely cosmetic. That doesn't mean it's not important; the ability to make any choice is valuable in and of itself, regardless of impact.

But I think the claims that race options are needed in an RPG, or somehow make an RPG better, are stupid claims. There are plenty of RPGs set in fictional worlds where alternative races do not exist, or are different from the usual (if I made RPGs, I would never include a single elf or dwarf, or the option to play as one, because I am sick to my ****ing back teeth of elves and dwarves). What would the complainers in this thread do then? Their precious elves and dwarves would still not be available to them.

What people mean when they say "it's not a real RPG" is "it doesn't let me play exactly the way I want, or accommodate my head canon".

Frankly, I'm not interested in the "role-playing" aspect of RPGs. I play RPGs because fantasy games don't come in any other genre. I couldn't care less about race choices or "telling my own story". I'm a writer, I tell my own stories all the ****ing time. I play games because I want to experience other people's stories, and since the game doesn't accommodate or even acknowledge my head canon (nor would I want it to), there's no point at all in thinking one up. It doesn't enhance the story or the gameplay in the least.

Being able to influence outcomes within the narrative is a nice feature, but not as important as making sure that the narrative doesn't suck to begin with, and that means making sure it fits within the rules you already laid out for your setting.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 mai 2013 - 05:41 .

[Plaintiff]

The Hierophant wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

"I never asked for this..."

You didn't ask for incredibly-strong robot arms and super powers?

Well... maybe you should have! Because that all sounds really awesome.

I know, right? With all Jensen's whining he's worse than Cloud!

I don't know about that? If Jensen ever forgot to activate his power limiter before sex he could accidently tear a woman in half, thus c*ckblocking himself and potentially being charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Assuming Jensen still has his penis, and he may well not.

I'd like to see how the people who accuse Jensen of "whining" would cope if they had unnecessary surgeries performed on them while they were unconcious.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 mai 2013 - 02:27 .

[JamieCOTC]

No, what you need are better writers who don't depend on auto-dialogue and predefined characters to tell better stories. I know that's not a small order, but had DA2 been given the development time it needed It certainly would have been much, much better. And possibly we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Twisted Path]

If you want to customize your character go play D&D? Uh...originally Dragon Age was marketed as the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, which was D&D in video game form. For me being able to define your character is one of the most crucial parts of a good western RPG, and if it looks like Inquisition is a game where the writers decide what the PC thinks and believes for me then it just won't be a game I'll buy.

Of course as someone who doesn't have any desire to play an elf or a dwarf I'm totally fine with that option being taken away. I just don't want to see the ability to define the PC's personality taken away the way it was in Mass Effect 3.

[Nefla]

My opinion is the opposite. A fixed protagonist completely kills replayability for me and makes the game much less enjoyable over all. I played TW2 and really liked the branching plot and non obvious choice conveniences but I only played through once and bought no DLC. Same with The Walking Dead, loved the story and options but only played it once and bought no DLC. DA:O and even ME 2 I played countless times and bought every DLC.

The reason for this in both cases is that it's much harder for me to become attached to a character that I am not helping to create. I didn't identify with Geralt at all and felt he was bland and uninteresting. I was much more able to become attached to Lee but he will still always be the same basic person with the same motivations, only different reactions. I love approaching a story and world from a different perspective each time and each time it's different. Playing through origins as a noble Dwarf and then a casteless gives a completely different outlook on the election, playing as a city elf makes later playthroughs where you find Vaughn Urien and Soris in Howe's dungeon realize what a scumbag Vaughn is and makes you not want to help him. People treat you differently depending on your race, even if its not that often. I love that stuff, it's the bread and butter of RPGs to me. For you to say "go play D&D" I could easily say to you "go read a book or watch a movie if you want a fixed protagonist."

Also, a fixed protagonist has a high probability of being the last type of character I would ever choose to play: the straight, white, male, "special" or privileged emotionally constipated warrior like so many other games. If a game has a fixed protagonist I will be much MUCH less likely to buy it. It will have to have other elements that are stellar to make up for it and its still a detriment even so. No thanks!

Modifié par Nefla, 14 mai 2013 - 02:44 .

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Assuming Jensen still has his penis, and he may well not.

I'd like to see how the people who accuse Jensen of "whining" would cope if they had unnecessary surgeries performed on them while they were unconcious.

Hey, I'd like to see people who accuse Cloud of whining go through Mako poisoning themselves and have their OTP mentor die trying to protect them. I'd like to see the people who accuse Fenris of whining have their body branded with lyrium, which by the way causes bleeding upon contact in normal situations.

I'm only joking.

IIRC Jensen only had his legs below the knees removed so he should be good, whereas the surgeons would have to needlessly go out of their way to castrate him. Though Jensen's case should serve as a good lesson on fully reading a contract before signing it.

EA, Cloud's emoness after FF7 seemed redundant as he came to terms with Aerith's and Zack's deaths during his faux psycho analytical mind trip after the mako dip. 

[NoForgiveness]

I actually agree. in infamous cole is his own character but your allowed to go good/evil. I would really like it if it was taken beyond basic choices like that and put in a da type world with more in depth choices. The ability to be a different race is good and all but to me the companions are more interesting then the warden because I can't make her exactly as I would want to, I can make her sort of similar by choosing the best options and that's it. And in skyrim its even worse you can make any race or gender but the dialogue options just plain suck.

also to be honest I suck at actually making a character it just takes forever and you mess something up and cant fix it, it gets frustrating. plus the default femhawke gets way awesome hair that's better then the others, which makes making my own hawke quite unappealing.