289 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Knight]

Truth be told, it isn't the number of dialog options that concerns me, it is what the proagonists says. I have no memory of Hawke ever really uttering anything intelligent in DA2, and what I hate is how 90% in the game has him speaking in one line. Other games, like The Witcher, Geralt is an intelligent character, and who often surprises me by how knowledgeable he is (him persiading an alchemist is wrong is just brilliant!), simply being an intelligent character.

It isn't a problem whether there is only 3 dialog options, or whether Hawke says something different than what I expected, it is if he utters something completely stupid that annoys me.

[WardenWade]

I can only speak for myself but I am always in favor of more options and character customization, including races, for example. To me added options make for a deeper, more nuanced gaming and RP'ing experience.

And it does seem, given some tweets recently by Mike Laidlaw, that outcry about bringing customization options like race back have been heard and may indeed be returning, much as limited origins are returning in DA:I.

Modifié par WardenWade, 14 mai 2013 - 03:14 .

[InfinitePaths]

I think some people don't understand what is my point.

I am not saying we should set back and look as the story goes on by itself,because that isn't an RPG.
I am using The Witcher just as an example.Everyone sees Geralt differently,everyone plays Geralt differently and there are so many choices in both of the witcher games.

You can't expect to create you own character in a universe,exmp:you can't play like a Asari prostitue/bartender at Omega,you must play Shepard,you must become a spectre.Now choices and forming the character in the way you want is great.But you can't create you own character examp:Shepard was a truck driver in earth who on accident got in to the blitz because of apple maps.

You have to play these set stories.Don't get me wrong I think we should shape these stories in to different directions.That was the most enjoyable thing in The witcher 2 for example,you can experience and shape Geralt in so many different ways,he has so many sides to him and it really is great.I'm not saying DA3 should be like the witcher,I'm just using an example.

I agree with Plaintiff,playing an elf makes in Origins should make for an entire different reactions from people on you,but actually you mostly get the same reaction like human.The same thing with mages in DA2,these choices just take away from the game IMO.The development time that it took to make elves and dwarves in DA:O should have been spent to make more decisions and character development for the human.

And yeah,there is tons of set stories in AAA titles,but almost NONE in RPGs.I'm talking lot of choices is what i want to see in an RPG,I don't want to create my own characters in an RPG because I can't,I can't be a asari bartender/prostitute at Omega in ME.I want to role-play a charcater like Geralt and form his personality and moral values and make hard decisions.

This is just my opinion i wanted to clear everything out.

[LinksOcarina]

 Baldurs Gate was a set story, the only change was how you got to the ending.

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. 

In truth, customization meant little until you had 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. 

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. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 14 mai 2013 - 03:28 .

[Ravensword]

EntropicAngel wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

:huh:So I have to ask: How long have you been playing video games?

I've been playing games for over ten years and the first real dialog system I encountered was Alpha Protocol then Mass Effect 2.

He wasn't asking you, you privileged killer whale.

[Kurisumasu]

You're high if you think I'm reading all of this

[Zelto]

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

I think some people don't understand what is my point.

I am not saying we should set back and look as the story goes on by itself,because that isn't an RPG.
I am using The Witcher just as an example.Everyone sees Geralt differently,everyone plays Geralt differently and there are so many choices in both of the witcher games.

You can't expect to create you own character in a universe,exmp:you can't play like a Asari prostitue/bartender at Omega,you must play Shepard,you must become a spectre.Now choices and forming the character in the way you want is great.But you can't create you own character examp:Shepard was a truck driver in earth who on accident got in to the blitz because of apple maps.

You have to play these set stories.Don't get me wrong I think we should shape these stories in to different directions.That was the most enjoyable thing in The witcher 2 for example,you can experience and shape Geralt in so many different ways,he has so many sides to him and it really is great.I'm not saying DA3 should be like the witcher,I'm just using an example.

I agree with Plaintiff,playing an elf makes in Origins should make for an entire different reactions from people on you,but actually you mostly get the same reaction like human.The same thing with mages in DA2,these choices just take away from the game IMO.The development time that it took to make elves and dwarves in DA:O should have been spent to make more decisions and character development for the human.

And yeah,there is tons of set stories in AAA titles,but almost NONE in RPGs.I'm talking lot of choices is what i want to see in an RPG,I don't want to create my own characters in an RPG because I can't,I can't be a asari bartender/prostitute at Omega in ME.I want to role-play a charcater like Geralt and form his personality and moral values and make hard decisions.

This is just my opinion i wanted to clear everything out.

The time taken to develope an elf or dwarf character was zero. They have the models for NCP's all they need to do was allow the models to swap. The time is in the origin story for them all. That includes the human mage story as well, without which we couldn't be a mage in DA:O. They didn't even have to make the armours fit because the NCPs for the most part use the same armour meshes.

Given that DA:3 is a text backstory by the sounds of it, they could easily have made a text backstory for a elf or dwarf. The only other issue comes with peoples reactions to you as a character. That will add time but you don't need every NCP to react differntly just enough for it to feel different, and maybe a few key quests.

So I personally can't see how it will negativly effect the game/story, unless it is story orientated that the PC is a certain something, whether that is race (shepard), sex, class, age, height. If in DA:3 you are ment to be the general of the Orlesian armies then being a elf is silly, they would never become that. But if the story is simply that you are a highly skilled operative who is trying to sort the mess out then your race becomes significantly less important.

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

Voiced protag/silent protag, human-only protag/various species options are just design choices. There is no universal "right" or "best" way to roleplay. These different designs facilitate and promote different kinds of gaming and roleplaying experiences. I sort of wish people would stop insisting that their way of roleplaying is best, and instead try to appreciate the variety of approaches, as they all have their own merits.

There is no right or best way, you're correct. But there are better and worse ways.

A voiced protagonist is worse because it forces certain emotions (or lack thereof) on your character based on the line you pick.

A human-only protagonist is worse because it limits the types of PCs that can be created.

On the flipside, text-based responses can be subjected to the wrong interpretation as well. This especially is a problem when you have poorly written RPGs using a text-based dialogue system. Kingdoms of Amalur comes to mind as an example. 

Non-human protagonists may have little flavor as well. I HATED how Skyrim treated all their races equel in the game. I know why they did it, but considering the Nords were among the most xenophobic groups of people in the world, there should have been more challenges and trials for the beasts and elves, if you ask me.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Loosing customization early on certainly makes it easier to tell a story leading a more consistent narrative when you don't have to worry about as many different variables. I'd hesitate to call it a better experience over all, I prefer more variance though, gives me more reason to replay.

[Ravensword]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

He wasn't asking you, you privileged killer whale.

I'm just saying it's possible to have been playing games for a long time, but not RPGs with dialog choices, and it all be very foreign.

That may be, but dialog choices are rather straightforward.

[Heidenreich]

LinksOcarina wrote...

 Baldurs Gate was a set story, the only change was how you got to the ending.

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. 

In truth, customization meant little until you had 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. 

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. 

This.

I will never understand the fuss people put up about character customization and their socalled removal. I have played both games repeated amount of times, and the voice of my character in DA2 has little baring on who she is in my headcanon space. She is just as much "Mine" and "Unique" as my Elf is in DA:O/A.

The only difference between my Hawk and My Tabris -- is that one HAS a voice, and the other does not.

Both are unique characters. In fact I have more UNIQUE Hawke's then I do Wardens because the voice, tone and inflection, allows me greater room to build upon who they are as a  person WITHIN the confines of the story.

Dragon Age Origin had no more "Unique" Characters then DA2 has, with the exception that the initial backround stories are a little more flexable (aka, you can choose 6, 5 if you remember that the Elf Mage and Human Mage stories are effectively EXACTLY THE SAME BACKROUND STORY plus or minus long ears.)

Sure in DA2 you're name is Hawke. You have a brother and a sister and a mother. Your fater is dead. These are set things.

Play a City Elf? Your mother is dead and you're getting married and Humans come and **** it up.

Human Noble? You're the second sibling of a rich family and Humans come and **** it up.

Dalish Elf? Parent's are dead and you get your best friend/boyfriend killed because curiosity.

Etc etc. Within the confines of that characters backround you need to RP your character. Just as you would Hawke. Is Your Hawke the defender of that static family or does he/she hate being the one who has to keep everyone safe? Do they loath mages based upon the fact that he or she couldn't do **** with out putting Dad and Sister in danger? Are they power hungry or just sort of stumbling around blindly trying to survive?

There are is as much wiggle room in DA2 for roleplaying as there ever was in DA:O. As I'm sure there will be in DA3. Stop spending your time complaining and ENJOY THEM, or don't and move on.

[Naitaka]

At this point I'd embrace a more Bioware defined protagonist with open arms. It's not as if Bioware would ever go back to the type of design philosophy they had back in the 90s and early 2000s so it's probably better to just let them do what they do best with the team they have now anyway. Sure we can look fondly back to DA:O but I don't think we can reasonably expect Bioware to design a game with the same mindset in the near future.

[Beerfish]

The original poster is correct. It's a balancing act and the more customization and freedom you allow the looser the story becomes. The writers and developers have to spend more time ensuring that all bases are covered for all of this customization. The skillful part of SA Origins that worked pretty well is they dedicated the 1st part of the game to the origin choice it self and then just added in sprinkles along the way for each character origin.

I really have no big issue with playing a static character if they give good class, companion and behavior choices during the game. BioWare has been mostly successful in this in the past.

[Ravensword]

EntropicAngel wrote...

That's so.

Indeed, sir.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't suport your premise that the introduction of voice acting has reduced the role-playing element that already existed in Bioware's games. The restrictions always existed, they're just more readily apparent.

Any roleplaying restriction the player doesn't see is a roleplaying restriction that doesn't exist.

To be a roleplaying restriction, a feature has to affect player behaviour.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I've been playing games for over ten years and the first real dialog system I encountered was Alpha Protocol then Mass Effect 2.

Have you never done tabletop roleplaying?