426 réponses à ce sujet

[IceHawk-181]

Graywolfe wrote...

I would have to say yes but there is always the possibility that when tool kits are relasesed that modders will be able to add the feature back in.

..................Yeah, that is not going to happen, likely ever again.

Bioware has embraced a system that seemingly assumes User-Created Mods will negatively impact DLC sales...guess they never asked the Bethesda guys about that one...

Also, we will never see a set-non Human PC and likely will not be allowed to choose a race because that would require a writing staff willing to accept the concept that the Main Characters are not their characters but ours.

In short, Human for evermore....get used to it.

[Ziggeh]

IceHawk-181 wrote...

Also, we will never see a set-non Human PC and likely will not be allowed to choose a race because that would require a writing staff willing to accept the concept that the Main Characters are not their characters but ours.

They are, necessarily, a collaborative effort.

[ANGRYWOLF1]

Developers say a lot of things. Not just Bioware all of them. They don't always deliver.
They said quite some time back no toolkit for pc players. Too expensive.

[SamFlagg]

My 2 cents, and this applies both to Mass Effect and Dragon Age.

Both series sort of ended up as somewhat....accidental trilogies.

One of the reasons any sort of canon is a mess is player choice, but another reason it is a mess is I don't think in either case they really knew where any of it was going from the outset.  (This is not a criticism mind you, I think it's just a very real suggestion that both things turned out rather bigger than they were expected too, there was enough meat there to have more stories, but there was no main direction for the narrative to be directed, and so in both series the middle installment really became something that exists in large part to set up the third game which ends up tying back better to the first game.)

I think if Dragon Age had been envisoned as a grand trilogy from the outset, different design choices would've been made and 1 & 2 would've flowed more nicely together.

The rush to make a sequel forced them into more or less selecting a straight narrative which thereby limited how the story would unfold, I think there is something to be said that in the inquisition this is actually the first time where having a straight up Human protagonist ends up being the only thing that makes sense since this is really a truly human affair.  (At least in the beginning)

My guess would be when we sort of close off this period of DA history Bioware will be able to work from a somewhat blank slate should they continune to make games in this world.

[addiction21]

Ziggeh wrote...

Unfortunately I suspect so.

This might be cynical but I suspect it has less to do with the nature of storytelling and more to do with marketability - with a face and a name already established you don't need to explain the nature of the game to the unfamiliar.

What is the face and name established for DAI? I am just wondering since its been know for 8 months or so this next game will only be human race selection.

I am also not sure what "the nature of the game to the unfamiliar" means.

[IceHawk-181]

Ziggeh wrote...

IceHawk-181 wrote...

Also, we will never see a set-non Human PC and likely will not be allowed to choose a race because that would require a writing staff willing to accept the concept that the Main Characters are not their characters but ours.

They are, necessarily, a collaborative effort.

Theoretically, they should be.
 
A quality PC should enjoy considerable freedom within the defined limits of the story, but the freedom within those restrictions should be meaningful.  I personally argue that in the end both Hawke and Shepard were given merely the illusion of freedom and that all of the SWTOR PCs are pre-determined characters.
 
Which does not bode well for my enjoyment for future entries in either series.

[Ziggeh]

addiction21 wrote...
I am also not sure what "the nature of the game to the unfamiliar" means.

It's like 4am here and I sort of gave up mid sentence.

Basically I'm saying it makes it simpler to sell to people who've not played the previous games. Because a defined protagonist is standard practice for narrative driven games, you avoid the conversation where you explain how the character is chosen from a subset and integrates into the whole, and can go straight into your basic: "Look at this guy, isn't this guy cool? Wouldn't you like to be this guy?" staple of selling computer games.

addiction21 wrote...
What is the face and name established for
DAI? I am just wondering since its been know for 8 months or so this
next game will only be human race selection.

If the above is true it's only really relevant to the mainstream advertising, which they haven't really done any of yet, so it's a bit early to say if my theory is balls. Happy to concede it may be, but won't be surprised if the trailer that starts hitting TV screens has a dude in it looking all cool.

[Ziggeh]

IceHawk-181 wrote...
Theoretically, they should be.

I sort of mean they can't not be, but ignore me, I'm being pedantic and overly literal because I'm tired. It's my base state, apparently.
 

IceHawk-181 wrote...
I personally argue that in the end both Hawke and Shepard were given merely the illusion of freedom

They're sort of an interesting case. They are quite heavily defined, because they both include systems that reward consistently selecting similar traits you are essentially making one choice from the set of available personas, and maybe deviating from it here and there to taste. But because of that choice and deviation, that "illusion", if you will, you;re more invested in that defined character than you would be if it where simply imposed.

This is the trick I feel their missing with Origins. To an extent, it's all illusion, but the more you feel the definition was your responsibility, the more invested you are in that. In other words, I think an origins like character selection would make the illusion stronger, even if they wanted to increase the character definition for the purposes of telling the story.

[Silfren]

IceHawk-181 wrote...

Graywolfe wrote...

I would have to say yes but there is always the possibility that when tool kits are relasesed that modders will be able to add the feature back in.

..................Yeah, that is not going to happen, likely ever again.

Bioware has embraced a system that seemingly assumes User-Created Mods will negatively impact DLC sales...guess they never asked the Bethesda guys about that one...

Also, we will never see a set-non Human PC and likely will not be allowed to choose a race because that would require a writing staff willing to accept the concept that the Main Characters are not their characters but ours.

In short, Human for evermore....get used to it.

For cripe's sake.  Bioware has said that the reason we didn't get a toolset for DA2 was because they didn't have the legal rights to offer it.  It's not because they're afraid user-created mods will lose the company money.

[Nole]

Filament wrote...

And the whole "origins were not set protagonist" thing even though they were practically the same as Hawke in that regard. One was an Aeducan noble, one was Brosca, etc. etc. Just you had six set backstories to choose from instead of one.

And wasn't that beautiful?

[Steppenwolf]

Silfren wrote...

For cripe's sake.  Bioware has said that the reason we didn't get a toolset for DA2 was because they didn't have the legal rights to offer it.  It's not because they're afraid user-created mods will lose the company money.

What? It was the same engine, same developer and same publisher as Origins. I think you're confusing unconfirmed statements from 1 dev on the forums about a toolkit for Inquisition with this.

[Silfren]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Silfren wrote...

For cripe's sake.  Bioware has said that the reason we didn't get a toolset for DA2 was because they didn't have the legal rights to offer it.  It's not because they're afraid user-created mods will lose the company money.

And since I can only count the number of good Dragon Age mods on one hand, this is probably a good thing

I found quite a lot of excellent mods for Dragon Age, actually.  I WILL miss the variety that having access to a toolset allowed.  That does not mean, however, that I feel the need to believe Bioware's reason for not releasing a toolset for DA2 is other than the one they publically stated.  Given that the poster pointed out themselves with Bethesda's example that having access to mods doesn't equate to a loss of revenue, well, that really should prove that money was NOT the reason that Bioware didn't release a toolset.  It's laughable how often people think that Bioware is collectively stupid or somehow cut off from the same information that the rest of us have.

[Vit246]

Humans rule.

Literally, they rule. They are the dominant race with the most variety options to offer us. We practically have to play them.

Modifié par Vit246, 23 juin 2013 - 04:28 .

[Mike 9987]

Bring gnomes into DA and let me play as them!

[Plaintiff]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Silfren wrote...

For cripe's sake.  Bioware has said that the reason we didn't get a toolset for DA2 was because they didn't have the legal rights to offer it.  It's not because they're afraid user-created mods will lose the company money.

What? It was the same engine, same developer and same publisher as Origins. I think you're confusing unconfirmed statements from 1 dev on the forums about a toolkit for Inquisition with this.

They used third-party assets to create DA2 and they don't possess the license to make those assets available to the public.

That is why no toolkit.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 23 juin 2013 - 04:24 .

[Silfren]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Silfren wrote...

For cripe's sake.  Bioware has said that the reason we didn't get a toolset for DA2 was because they didn't have the legal rights to offer it.  It's not because they're afraid user-created mods will lose the company money.

What? It was the same engine, same developer and same publisher as Origins. I think you're confusing unconfirmed statements from 1 dev on the forums about a toolkit for Inquisition with this.

Unconfirmed? Uh, no.  A Bioware employee, David Gaider I believe, spelled it out in reference to DA2.  There's nothing unconfirmed about it.  No, I don't have the direct quote, but I did indeed read a Dev's own words on the subject.  I'll see what I can dig up.

[Paul E Dangerously]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Silfren wrote...

For cripe's sake.  Bioware has said that the reason we didn't get a toolset for DA2 was because they didn't have the legal rights to offer it.  It's not because they're afraid user-created mods will lose the company money.

What? It was the same engine, same developer and same publisher as Origins. I think you're confusing unconfirmed statements from 1 dev on the forums about a toolkit for Inquisition with this.

DA2 was supposed to get a toolset at one point. Presumably it never happened due to extremely rushed development, and the cancellation of DA2-anything.

[Plaintiff]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

Silfren wrote...

For cripe's sake.  Bioware has said that the reason we didn't get a toolset for DA2 was because they didn't have the legal rights to offer it.  It's not because they're afraid user-created mods will lose the company money.

What? It was the same engine, same developer and same publisher as Origins. I think you're confusing unconfirmed statements from 1 dev on the forums about a toolkit for Inquisition with this.

DA2 was supposed to get a toolset at one point. Presumably it never happened due to extremely rushed development, and the cancellation of DA2-anything.

It never happened because the developer tools they used for DA2 were produced by a third party, and Bioware doesn't have the license to sell them.

[BlueMagitek]

Most likely. Or, rather, for now, at least. If they really want to tell a story of Dwarvern infighting and politics, I'm sure we'd have a dwarf pc.

[Silfren]

Filament wrote...

The reason for lack of DA2 toolset, that I recall, was basically that it wasn't worth the trouble repackaging it for public consumption, not that they didn't have the proper licensing, or that it would negatively impact DLC sales. They've maintained that they believe an active modding community would be a good thing for DLC sales.

For DA3 is where they have licensing issues on account of using third party tools integrally in their development of the game.

These are all things they've said (to my knowledge), of course it's anyone's prerogative that they're big bags of lies but whatever. DA2 still had quite a few good mods like the companion armor mod; the toolset is less necessary for modding than some seem to think.

I do remember a Dev explicitly stating that licensing issues was the reason why we didn't get a toolset for DA2.  I'm trying to find it with Google now, but that is precisely what was said.  I'd be willing to concede it was the latest justification for the lack of one, but I never saw any statements referring to any other reason beyond the third party issue.