38 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Right. There are a few different ways to handle the start of an RPG.

The most traditional way is to not have the character's background matter at all. Either the character just shows up someplace and starts "adventuring," or some event sucks the character into the storyline. Most early CRPGs fit here, as well as NWN1. TES games may be an example of either subtype, depending on why the player wants his PC to be under arrest. I'm not a huge fan of the ambiguity there, since you have to be a bit into the game to figure out who might have trumped up charges against your PC if that's how you want to roll.

Then there are defined-background games where the player learns the PC's background through playing in it for a small introductory bit. BG, Fallout, NWN2 all fit this style. I'd classify DA:O here; the difference is that it's got six starts rather than just one.

There are also some defined-background games where the player knows the PC's background but hasn't played it. ME, for example. You pick one of the background options, but you don't play through it.

And then there are the defined backgrounds the player doesn't know about and has to learn during the game. Amnesia is the classic example of this; PS:T, TW1. KotOR 2 is an example of this without amnesia. This had the unfortunate effect of the player not knowing things that his character does know. I though this was pretty bad for RP.

[outlaw1109]

Not all of them were disconnected from the main storyline. 

 

Human Noble Origin - Bryce Cousland sends the majority of his military forces to tackle to the Darkspawn threat and subsequently, Arl Howe takes advantage of the situation to seize power and control of the Cousland castle by killing everyone inside. He then proves to be a formidable enemy for the rest of the game and ally of Loghain. In addition, this origin story gives you a personal incentive for you to see him brought to justice. 

 

Dwarf Noble Origin - Bhelen's ambition was what led ultimately led to death of the King of Orzammar. You then have to travel to the deep roads in order to receive the word of a Paragon to then decide who is King. That's pretty important too. 

 

Perhaps that's an improvement they could make in DA4, where all the origin stories are in some way connected to the main plot and have a major role. I'd completely agree with you on the Mage Origin since in comparison to the rest of the origins on offer in terms of general plot it was significantly weaker than the rest and barely had any relevance whatsoever.

 

All the things you mentioned, happen regardless of what your Origin was.  

I do think it helps give the player a personal stake in the game (ie:  mages could understand their relationship with the fade in Origins, City Elves could better understand how they are treated in human society etc) however, I'd rather they focus on building a great game than on some inconsequential beginnings.

As to DAI's treatment of "Character Identity".  I identified fine with my inquisitor.  At the beginning of the game, we were both put into a situation we didn't quite understand and fought our way through.  

 

[In Exile]

Not all of them were disconnected from the main storyline.

Human Noble Origin - Bryce Cousland sends the majority of his military forces to tackle to the Darkspawn threat and subsequently, Arl Howe takes advantage of the situation to seize power and control of the Cousland castle by killing everyone inside. He then proves to be a formidable enemy for the rest of the game and ally of Loghain. In addition, this origin story gives you a personal incentive for you to see him brought to justice.

Dwarf Noble Origin - Bhelen's ambition was what led ultimately led to death of the King of Orzammar. You then have to travel to the deep roads in order to receive the word of a Paragon to then decide who is King. That's pretty important too.

Perhaps that's an improvement they could make in DA4, where all the origin stories are in some way connected to the main plot and have a major role. I'd completely agree with you on the Mage Origin since in comparison to the rest of the origins on offer in terms of general plot it was significantly weaker than the rest and barely had any relevance whatsoever.

Those are both disconnected. Let me try and explain. The motivation you get in either origin has *nothing* to do with the Blight. In the HN you want to stuff a sword up Howe's ass, and Duncan basically kidnaps you to fight his war. You're then forced to I GWs. With the DN, it's Bhelen you want to gut.

Contrast this with BG2 - the first thing that happens is Irecunus experimenting on you. Wanting to hunt him down is pretty natural.

[In Exile]

If you do role-play these games, however, the origins play an extremely important role. It doesn't define the character - you do that yourself. But it sets the mind of your character. The memories, feelings and agendas through which the character filter everything that happens later in the game. They make an immense difference. Truly immense. (I also wouldn't agree on that DA:O never followed up on them).

But then again, I don't care **** about combat mechanics, as long as they're doable (I care a lot more about combat animations, since they impact the tone of the game).

To each, his/her own. But even as I see role-playing as having made a measured come-back in DA:I - through better dialogue wheel and greater roleplaying freedom a lá Skyrim - I think the role-playing agenda is what, still, needs most attention for Bioware's new recipe. (except for the PC-UI, of course)

I'm also not so sure that it needs to be a serious waste of resources. Particularly not in a more open, simulated - instead of script driven - game world. You'll use environments and mechanics you'd create and develop anyway. Limited mini-origins should be doable economically.
It would add burden on the writers. But "lots of reactive content to your race and background in-game" does that anyway.

(One of my base beliefs, have long been that we won't get the level of detail and diversity, that gamers clearly crave, unless the developers learn to more and more employ procedural methods. That's why I'm happy that Bioware have pushed into the direction where I think the future is, with their semi-open DA:I. And that is also a possible way to let the game world react to the PC.)

It's not about the story defining the character. It's that the experiences that you have - in a lot of origins - are fundamentally at odds with what the game wants you to do. DAI makes it clear from the start you're the part of the Inquisition. You have lots of freedom - the reaction wheel is phenomenal, pure genius - but what you get right at the start of the game is the basic outline: you're pro-Inquisition, because you'll be the Inquisitor.

DAO doesn't to that. Instead it gives you lots of reasons to hate the Wardens and Duncan. But you're not allowed to hate then. In fact, you're forced to identify as the Warden.

DAO fails because its set up contradicts the end goal and it railroads your character after outright giving you the freedom to rail against it.

In contrast in DAI your views on being Herald are canvassed like ... every time it comes up. It's brilliant.

[AlanC9]

In the HN you want to stuff a sword up Howe's ass, and Duncan basically kidnaps you to fight his war.

It's fairly common to see confused players saying that HN is the best-motivated origin because of Howe. I guess they think their Wardens get to watch the cutscene with Howe and Loghain, or something.

[bEVEsthda]

DAO doesn't to that. Instead it gives you lots of reasons to hate the Wardens and Duncan. But you're not allowed to hate then. In fact, you're forced to identify as the Warden.

DAO fails because its set up contradicts the end goal and it railroads your character after outright giving you the freedom to rail against it.

In contrast in DAI your views on being Herald are canvassed like ... every time it comes up. It's brilliant.

 

And here we go again, back to disagreeing  . This is just constructs you make up. DA:O doesn't fail. Didn't fail. Very obviously.

The mere fact that I'm disagreeing with you is proof.

 

The actual choices that the DA:O origins have, are limited in manners which can be accepted and rationalized by role play reason. It's not exactly true that DA:O gives you "lots of reasons to hate the Wardens and Duncan".  But if your character wants to, it can.

 

It can't kill Duncan though. But why would that suddenly be a sensible game-story requirement? You can't kill Cassandra either. The situation is fairly symmetric. The Wardens and Inquisition in both cases provide a sort of refuge for the PC. But the situation in both cases is more complicated...

 

One of my playthroughs (DA:O), was as a dalish mage. I do remember that I thought this origin wasn't terribly convincing in forcing me to join the Grey Wardens. I tried very hard not to. Eventually I was tricked and cast out, and it was the only way I could avoid being tranquiled by the Templars, if I remember correctly.  I thought that was a bit weak, but otherwise I have no problem with DA:O.

 

In contrast, I think DA:I is weaker, by being simpler in motivation. But sure, role play reasons bid us not only to join the Inquisition, but also to step up and grab a leading role, to level our fame to make the Inquisition more powerful. It all falls very natural. I have no problem with that either. But there have been plenty voices who have, and don't understand why they're suddenly leaders of the Inquisition. I do though.  There was no one in charge. I took command to protect myself as much as the world. Grabbed it before I knew it was up for offer. Seemed the sensible thing to do.

So, yeah, it works.

[In Exile]

And here we go again, back to disagreeing . This is just constructs you make up. DA:O doesn't fail. Didn't fail. Very obviously.
The mere fact that I'm disagreeing with you is proof.

The actual choices that the DA:O origins have, are limited in manners which can be accepted and rationalized by role play reason. It's not exactly true that DA:O gives you "lots of reasons to hate the Wardens and Duncan". But if your character wants to, it can.

It can't kill Duncan though. But why would that suddenly be a sensible game-story requirement? You can't kill Cassandra either. The situation is fairly symmetric. The Wardens and Inquisition in both cases provide a sort of refuge for the PC. But the situation in both cases is more complicated...

One of my playthroughs (DA:O), was as a dalish mage. I do remember that I thought this origin wasn't terribly convincing in forcing me to join the Grey Wardens. I tried very hard not to. Eventually I was tricked and cast out, and it was the only way I could avoid being tranquiled by the Templars, if I remember correctly. I thought that was a bit weak, but otherwise I have no problem with DA:O.

In contrast, I think DA:I is weaker, by being simpler in motivation. But sure, role play reasons bid us not only to join the Inquisition, but also to step up and grab a leading role, to level our fame to make the Inquisition more powerful. It all falls very natural. I have no problem with that either. But there have been plenty voices who have, and don't understand why they're suddenly leaders of the Inquisition. I do though. There was no one in charge. I took command to protect myself as much as the world. Grabbed it before I knew it was up for offer. Seemed the sensible thing to do.
So, yeah, it works.

DAO forces you to be the leader as well. There's a whole conversation about it at Lothering. Alistair all but kneels to you and calls you "Your Worship". To say that DAO thrusts you any less into a leadership role is wrong. The problem is that DAO then sucks at actually showing that you're a leader - so you just end up spending the entire game working for others. This is where DAI exceeds it by a country mile.

As to the motivation, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There's only one motivation that fits with DAO: wanting to be a Grey Warden. Absolutely every other motivation is ignored or contradicted, with some very minor post lands meet exceptions that are overridden by DA:A.

Let's use an example. Let say us say that after Ostagar you want a character who (1) hated the GWs but (2) wants to save Ferelden anyway. Tough ****. You have to love the GWs, identify with their mission, and verbally identify yourself as part of the order.

That's the problem. You can have lots of attitudes when it comes to the wardens during the origin - I said that - but post Ostagar that all goes away. You're a CE that went with Duncan to avoid the noose? Tough ****, now you love the wardens and you're model GW.

[Elhanan]

For myself, there is no hard and fast rule about backgrounds. Loved DAO for the detailed stories; also loved Skyrim where I created my own. It depends on the game and character that is presented.

In this case, while only little is given about the background of the characters. there is something, and the Player is left to choose how to play the character given. My first campaign was a Dwarven Archer, and could have easily been played as a hard, cruel n=man from the Carta, or as I chose, a man willing to grab a chance at redemption and try and reform the name of Clan Cadash. There may be other personalities and head canon in there, too.

[herkles]

If tevinter is the location for da4 then I honestly think that having origins might be necessary to just ease people into Tevinter Society IMO. You have to let people know about what arachon, magister, altus, Laetern, Soporati, Libertari mean. What the imperial chantry is like. and so on. Sure some of that can be spread out throughot the game and should be, but people need to ease in, especailly new and casual players IMO

[Dakota Strider]

Someone mentioned earlier, that NWN1 did not have an origin.  I have to disagree, it certainly had more of a background story than DLI, while obviously not as complete as DAO.  In NWN1, you started as a wannabe adventurer, who has indentured him/herself to the City of Neverwinter for training, trading a few years of service in the bargain.  Why you chose to be an adventurer is not mentioned, nor is it important.  However, within the training you do receive some background of what is going on...and when the $#!+ hits the fan, you already have some investment in friends and comrades who you shared training with.  It also serves nicely to introduce you in the basics of the new game system.  Much better done than the intro to DLI.  

[bEVEsthda]

DAO forces you to be the leader as well. There's a whole conversation about it at Lothering. Alistair all but kneels to you and calls you "Your Worship". To say that DAO thrusts you any less into a leadership role is wrong. The problem is that DAO then sucks at actually showing that you're a leader - so you just end up spending the entire game working for others. This is where DAI exceeds it by a country mile.

As to the motivation, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There's only one motivation that fits with DAO: wanting to be a Grey Warden. Absolutely every other motivation is ignored or contradicted, with some very minor post lands meet exceptions that are overridden by DA:A.

Let's use an example. Let say us say that after Ostagar you want a character who (1) hated the GWs but (2) wants to save Ferelden anyway. Tough ****. You have to love the GWs, identify with their mission, and verbally identify yourself as part of the order.

That's the problem. You can have lots of attitudes when it comes to the wardens during the origin - I said that - but post Ostagar that all goes away. You're a CE that went with Duncan to avoid the noose? Tough ****, now you love the wardens and you're model GW.

 

Oh, but of course.

 

But, there are reasons for going along. Reasons which can naturally fit with role-played characters motives. I never said any of the games offers freedom. Bioware games don't. That's why it's called 'Story Driven'. And that is fine, or it would all be Bethesda games, and you can't survive on solely an apple pie diet.

[outlaw1109]

If tevinter is the location for da4 then I honestly think that having origins might be necessary to just ease people into Tevinter Society IMO. You have to let people know about what arachon, magister, altus, Laetern, Soporati, Libertari mean. What the imperial chantry is like. and so on. Sure some of that can be spread out throughot the game and should be, but people need to ease in, especailly new and casual players IMO

IDK...epilogue slides gave me a feeling of Anderfells...

 

Someone mentioned earlier, that NWN1 did not have an origin.  I have to disagree, it certainly had more of a background story than DLI, while obviously not as complete as DAO.  In NWN1, you started as a wannabe adventurer, who has indentured him/herself to the City of Neverwinter for training, trading a few years of service in the bargain.  Why you chose to be an adventurer is not mentioned, nor is it important.  However, within the training you do receive some background of what is going on...and when the $#!+ hits the fan, you already have some investment in friends and comrades who you shared training with.  It also serves nicely to introduce you in the basics of the new game system.  Much better done than the intro to DLI.  

It's odd that you say this, because DAI actually made me think of NWN with how it began.  You're thrown into the middle of a crisis from the beginning.  The only real difference between the two is in the explanation for why you're at the conclave.  NWN doesn't provide a reason WHY you're there.  DAI force-feeds you a reason.

That "training" part of NWN, thankfully, was skipable and pointless for further play-throughs.  (because, if you notice, the xp/coin gathered is negligible.)

Now, NWN2, (IK, the non-bioware one) had a better starting place than all three (NWN, DAO, DAI) because you could literally be any race/class and have that ONE origin they set up.  (I also liked that you could basically setup how you treated those villagers, too).

[Average Designer]

Later in the game, Tamlen ambushes your camp as a being twisted by dark-spawn corruption.

 

Agree with the suggestions above.

 

Peace.

 

Never had Tamlen ambush the camp when playing a Dalish Elf in Origins. Could be a bug on the console version of the game. But thanks for sharing!

[outlaw1109]

Never had Tamlen ambush the camp when playing a Dalish Elf in Origins. Could be a bug on the console version of the game. But thanks for sharing!

It is a bug.  Not sure if I used a mod to fix it or not (it's been awhile).  But my first Dalish didn't have it, either.  It wasn't until later that I was pleasantly surprised by this.