72 réponses à ce sujet

[Thomas Andresen]

OR you can imagine that the game is going to be about something else, like examples I've given.

No.

I'm not a big fan of the brand of speculation that goes on in these forums where the participants are using the lack of information to reinforce their own headcanon, but thoughts along the line of "what must this game be for me not to enjoy it?" You may as well just jump straight to the point and assume the worst. No, just. No. Don't. Don't even go there.

[Navasha]

I don't think I would have a problem with it, I am of the role-playing variety that plays a character, not an avatar of my own personality. Now that doesn't mean I don't often play a character that often shares my own viewpoints since those are typically what I consider a "good" character.

I am going to assume that even if you are playing a game where the ultimate goal would be highly objectionable to me personally, that we would still be allowed the same range of kind/snarky/belligerent choices to make in the game.

I could still play the game, though I am not sure it would leave me feeling as good at the end as a game that is a more neutral stance.

[Knight of Dane]

Well, it's a RPG with limits, not a entirely open playground.

In Dragon Age: Origins you have to defeat the blight, in DA2 you have to survive and do... things... for other people. In DA:I you are supposed to fix the veil and build an army.

Knowing that you will only disappoint yourself if you expect branching like you want from your examples. Each PC has been able to have a mind as you see fit, about certain things, but you are expected to kind play the game and do what its premise is.

[Taleroth]

So, basically imagine that it's not an RPG at all, but an edgy action-adventure where you play an unlikeable jerk.

No, I don't think I would enjoy it.

Knight of Dane wrote...

Well, it's a RPG with limits, not a entirely open playground.

In Dragon Age: Origins you have to defeat the blight, in DA2 you have to survive and do... things... for other people. In DA:I you are supposed to fix the veil and build an army.

And that's why DAO has a broadly appealing and inoffensive plot. Few are going to object to saving the world outside of the objection that it's overdone. And DA2's jumping of plot rails leaving the main objective as uncertain is pretty much one of many complaints I can level against the game.

A game requiring restrictions does not mean what those restrictions are is irrelevant. Not all are equal. Save the world, get the girl, become king. Those are idea of broad appeal that lots of people can get behind. And you can expand that by giving agency in how you get to that end. Genocide the village, murder the mages... not so much on the appeal.

Modifié par Taleroth, 24 septembre 2013 - 02:01 .

[Herr Uhl]

This sounds like a stupid and extraordinarily expensive game to make for the purpose of thinly veiled irony.

[Cutlasskiwi]

I already kind of played that game with DAO. I will grind my teeth and get through it and then most likely be done with it unless other aspects (than story) appeal to me i.e.: gameplay, followers or what have you..

[crimzontearz]

I hate this kinds of hypothetical questions. My stepson asks then all the time and I will answer the same way I ask him

Not gonna happen so I do not care

[Phate Phoenix]

 If it was made clear beforehand that the game was going to be that rail-roady, then, yeah, I could get behind that. Not for over a hundred hours of it, and I probably wouldn't play it more than, say, once or twice, but I could play a game like that. I might even enjoy it.

[OdanUrr]

Bionuts wrote...

You would have to use example that make sense.

You're trying to feed off people's emotions concerning the mage/templar conflict by providing situations that won't occur.

Pretty much this. OP, your example is so broad that you're basically asking, "if the game were to be about the exact opposite you'd want it to be, would you enjoy it?" I think the answer would be self-evident.

[Neon Rising Winter]

You seem to be asking what if they took one of the 'hot binary topics' from earlier instalments and created a new game with a protagonist who exclusively championed one particular viewpoint.

I'd be very impressed someone had managed to sell that concept and get it on the shelves. I'd probably try it, just on the basis that if everyone who you'd expect to yell 'Dear gods, no!' had agreed, there might be something to it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

KainD wrote...

DA:I comes out, and it is an awesome game.

For it to be an awesome game, it must allow me to play the characters I want to play, not the characters they write for me.

[Kalas Magnus]

you mean like what they did with cerberus. where they took the option to side with them away.
i was very sad. tim i loved u. ;_;

i would stop playing the game for a while. but i would finish it eventually

[katerinafm]

It'd be an interesting viewpoint and it'll still be in the dragon age universe so I'd still like it.

[Potato Cat]

Well yeah, I do it all the time. Maybe I wouldn't enjoy my first playthrough where I tend to do what I would do in that position.

My canon Hawke is a (mostly) Chantry supporting, Qunari hating, pro-Circle mage, despite my personal views as an anti-Chantry, Qunari loving, non-mage. My canon Warden let the Architect live despite the fact I think it's a pretty moronic idea. I know I've hardly been forced to make these decisions, but they make sense for the characters I have.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Absolutely not.

Gameplay is not enough if I'm playing RPG. I need control over the better part of the hero's character to enjoy it.

In that, I'm not a fan of playing as protagonists whose viewpoints I don't agree with (naiive, idealist, conservative).

[BouncyFrag]

Those options sound better than the regular fare. I check morality at the door when play a fictitious video game.

[Wulfram]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You can't play a Hawke who lets the Arishok take over--but since Hawke isn't forced by the plot to preemptively take him out, you aren't forced to have THAT character definition (a Hawke who preemptively attacks, or is anti-Qunari, etc.).

You're kind of forced to be a Hawke who doesn't pre-emptively attack, and isn't very anti-Qunari, though.  Unless you've got the aggressive personality, anyway.

[Shadow Fox]

No

#Stenmybff

[KainD]

There are quite a few answers that baically say this: 

Wulfram wrote...

I don't think it's unreasonable to require that the PC think that a horde of demons eating everybody was a bad thing.

And you would be surprised that how many people wouldn't be joking and would really enjoy the game when the would say something like: 

Lord Raijin wrote...

I think Thedas would be a lot better if the darkspawn and demons took over. Humans, dwarves, elves, Qunari and everyone else is a pain in the ass.

I might be in a minority but playing DA2 for exampe as a mage Hawke I would really love to side with all the blood mages in canon playthrough and help them make abominations out of templars, not complete a single quest for Meredith, and in the end invite Tevinter to take over and become a high status figure with a lot of riches that way. The only thing I agreed in with DA2 plot was defeating the Qunari, I absolutely hated the fact that I had to stay neutral, and hated the fact I had to fight blood mages and didn't have the dialogue options to say ''yes I agree with you'' when I spoke to them in cutscenes. 

But I still kinda enjoyed the game. 

This is why I hypothetically put people in the same position as I was in, and ask if they would enjoy the game as well.

[Shadow Fox]

So basically you want to be at best an amoral psychopath?

[OdanUrr]

KainD wrote...

I might be in a minority but playing DA2 for exampe as a mage Hawke I would really love to side with all the blood mages in canon playthrough and help them make abominations out of templars, not complete a single quest for Meredith, and in the end invite Tevinter to take over and become a high status figure with a lot of riches that way. The only thing I agreed in with DA2 plot was defeating the Qunari, I absolutely hated the fact that I had to stay neutral, and hated the fact I had to fight blood mages and didn't have the dialogue options to say ''yes I agree with you'' when I spoke to them in cutscenes. 

But I still kinda enjoyed the game. 

This is why I hypothetically put people in the same position as I was in, and ask if they would enjoy the game as well.

That's a different question altogether. If you're given the choice to do one or the other, fine by me. If you're forced to follow a certain path, then how is that an improvement?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

You can't play a Hawke who lets the Arishok take over--but since Hawke isn't forced by the plot to preemptively take him out, you aren't forced to have THAT character definition (a Hawke who preemptively attacks, or is anti-Qunari, etc.).

You're kind of forced to be a Hawke who doesn't pre-emptively attack, and isn't very anti-Qunari, though.  Unless you've got the aggressive personality, anyway.

The inability to pre-emptively attack Meredith (the confusion at the end of Act II was a perfect opportunity to do just that) was very annoying.

In my head canon (which I justify through Varric being an unreliable narrator), Hawke did kill Meredith at the end of Act II.  And then he blew up the chantry.  Anders wasn't even in Kirkwall - Varric totally made that part up.

[Fetunche]

No, I would find it difficult being forced to support the Templars as I prefer playing a good guy not a douche.

[Shadow Fox]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

You can't play a Hawke who lets the Arishok take over--but since Hawke isn't forced by the plot to preemptively take him out, you aren't forced to have THAT character definition (a Hawke who preemptively attacks, or is anti-Qunari, etc.).

You're kind of forced to be a Hawke who doesn't pre-emptively attack, and isn't very anti-Qunari, though.  Unless you've got the aggressive personality, anyway.

The inability to pre-emptively attack Meredith (the confusion at the end of Act II was a perfect opportunity to do just that) was very annoying.

In my head canon (which I justify through Varric being an unreliable narrator), Hawke did kill Meredith at the end of Act II.  And then he blew up the chantry.  Anders wasn't even in Kirkwall - Varric totally made that part up.

And when DAI obilterates your headcanon?

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 24 septembre 2013 - 06:39 .