934 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

But that is the beauty of the silent protagonist.

The player can project their thoughts and interpretations, the very voice, of their character without any extra work on the part of the developer.

Bioware may very well have meant every line to have been said in a set manner, yet the choice to have a silent Warden meant that it could be taken in a myriad of different ways.

 

No, it's not. It's a ridiculous mental fantasy supportable only by the fact that you can rationalize away all contrary evidence. The player can't do it - there's no rational reason for it, and any kind of explanation is undercut without dissolving into, basically, a rejection of any sensible form of epistemology. 

 

Let's put it this way: the same arguments used to support the idea that you can "project" anything onto an unvoiced character is equally and equivalently persuasive for a story where Duncan never dies at Ostagar and is, instead, with the party the entire game. 

 

A choice to have a silent Warden changes absolutely nothing about the game, because to make it work you have to ignore not only how speech works, and not only how social interaction works, but the actual content you see on screen. 

[OMTING52601]

A choice to have a silent Warden changes absolutely nothing about the game, because to make it work you have to ignore not only how speech works, and not only how social interaction works, but the actual content you see on screen. 

 

I kind of agree with what you're saying here -- and I have read through your entire debate. That said, what I think the unvoiced protagonist made developers do was clearly state what the dialogue would be, and in order to convey the tone, they had to use tonally connotative words. I'm a linguist, like legit, four years to show for it, so I know what I'm talking about. This need to use words that evoke a particular feel is what then allowed players to "infer" a certain tonality or mindset for each line given. So in essence, the player can 'hear' those lines any way they interpret the words on the screen, but the clever use of certain words over others means that very rarely did a player choose a line and have the responding character react in an unintended way. 

 

When BW went voiced, they started to paraphrase, and sometimes those paraphrases don't equate to their verbal delivery. Still, voiced or not doesn't change anything about the game, in general, you are correct.

[straykat]

I said this elsewhere, but even with the silent protag, I felt like the origins followed me through the game. I wasn't a blank slate. Especially years later when I know them all so well. They're kind of like a pallete that I shape my character's psychology. A lot of them give you reason to roleplay guilt, resentment, anger, bias, etc.. They can shape later choices if you keep it in mind.

 

I think the game is intended that way too. That's what the Gauntlet was trying to do.

[OMTING52601]

I agree with you, straykat.

 

I think the use of those origin stories were a fantabulous way to immerse the player in the world, let them build some character with a fairly flushed out foundation, allow for some pretty deep RP. IMO, of course.

 

I get that 'origins' might not have been story appropriate for 2 or I, but then again, a twenty minute or so 'get to know Hawke and family in Lothering' before running for the hills from the 'spawn might have made the whole sibling loss, like, meaningful. It would also have made Leandra more relevant, so you know when she gets offed, I might have actually been, you know, upset, instead of like 'wow, bummer' disconnected. 

 

As well, having a well done, but short, introduction where DAI IQ's are established for the player before waking up in handcuffs could do more for the RP element of the game. Those origins gave players time to suss out their characters, get an idea of dialogue sure, but get history and so forth on the characters they were going to 'inhabit' for the rest of the game. That's pretty important in RP, imo, fwiw.

[straykat]

I agree with you, straykat.

 

I think the use of those origin stories were a fantabulous way to immerse the player in the world, let them build some character with a fairly flushed out foundation, allow for some pretty deep RP. IMO, of course.

 

I get that 'origins' might not have been story appropriate for 2 or I, but then again, a twenty minute or so 'get to know Hawke and family in Lothering' before running for the hills from the 'spawn might have made the whole sibling loss, like, meaningful. It would also have made Leandra more relevant, so you know when she gets offed, I might have actually been, you know, upset, instead of like 'wow, bummer' disconnected. 

 

As well, having a well done, but short, introduction where DAI IQ's are established for the player before waking up in handcuffs could do more for the RP element of the game. Those origins gave players time to suss out their characters, get an idea of dialogue sure, but get history and so forth on the characters they were going to 'inhabit' for the rest of the game. That's pretty important in RP, imo, fwiw.

 

Even without Lothering though, the whole game was an origin story to me. That of a human commoner (and possibly apostate). It's an immigrant origin story. But you're right about the sibling loss. I don't like the lines there at all. In fact, Wesley's death is more touching.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I agree with straykat as well. DA:O's customizable races and origin stories definitely helped immerse me, but the one thing I love the most about Origins, which we'll never truly have again: DA:O is the only game I've ever played where the writing for the player character was so good that there was almost always a dialog choice that said exactly what I was thinking at any given time. It was incredible. I suppose that helped me form my attachment to my Wardens.

[straykat]

That reminds me. In Mass Effect 3, I went in expecting the game to begin at Shepard's trial. Nope! Already happened! In Dragon Age Inquisition, I went in expecting to see some personaly backstory, see you being ordered to go to the conclave, and having it show some things going on. Nope! Thrust straight into an explosion, not knowing what the f*** is going on!

 

Yeah, this trend sucks. And they should've already known that with ME3. I don't know anyone who liked that. Except maybe a noob.

 

But I see it as them just trying to distance themselves from previous matters as much as possible (especially DA2). A way to create a new plot and new premise and a new hero who would just steamroll over everything with his chosen one magic hand status instead of actually resolve problems and interact on a political level more.

 

It's why they cheapened the mage/temp war and basically resolved it within the first section of the game. When that was ALL I cared about and people here debated over for a good 3 years. The Chantry explosion is just a symptom of this.

[AlanC9]

I kind of agree with what you're saying here -- and I have read through your entire debate. That said, what I think the unvoiced protagonist made developers do was clearly state what the dialogue would be, and in order to convey the tone, they had to use tonally connotative words.

Well, they should have done that, yes. I can think of a few cases where the PC line failed to communicate the intended tone to the player. But of course there will be glitches with any system.

[AlanC9]

That reminds me. In Mass Effect 3, I went in expecting the game to begin at Shepard's trial. Nope! Already happened!

I was so not looking forward to ME3 starting with a rehash of the earlier games.

[pdusen]

Darrah is not talking about the MP component that is additional to the SP game - that was not designed or dev'd by the team (Darrah's group) that did the main game, so he wouldn't be commenting on it.

Of course he is. You know how you can tell? Because the interviewer talks about it in the paragraph immediately before Darrah's comment. It's pretty obvious that he was asked a direct question about the multiplayer that we were to receive, and Darrah is putting people at ease that the multiplayer component wasn't shoehorned in.

Not to move from this specific point, but you realize my references to the MMO style go beyond Darrah's commentary and actual involve a lot of the game's mechanics, right? Like the need to farm for certain materials (want those superb runes, best get to farming those later rifts), the RNG of necessary quest items, the way req quests recycle and are never finished, the need for power to progress the game... I could go on, but I won't.

None of which really has anything to do with whether the game started as an MMO. No one is arguing with you about it having a number of MMO-like gameplay features, but MMOs don't have a monopoly on fetch quests.

Only mentioned Darrah as support of what I figured was apparent. I honestly did not realize it was, like, a *thing*. I thought it was generally understood. Heck, I don't know that I've even seen an article written about the game that doesn't specifically point this out too. Sorry if I stepped on a bruise.

You do understand that acting like the people who point out to you when you are mistaken are butthurt doesn't actually lend you any more credibility, right?

[OMTING52601]

The interviewer is talking about the game proper...

 

"Some fans were surprised earlier this year when BioWare announced that Dragon Age: Inquisition would include a franchise-first multiplayer mode. The decision to add multiplayer to the mix wasn't a last-minute choice, however, BioWare says in a new interview, revealing that the game actually began its life as a multiplayer-only experience."

 

I'm going to assume this is the paragraph you refer to? The one where the article author states that the game will have the first MP for the series and how that shouldn't be surprising since the game was developed as multiplayer only? We gotta be reading two different things. You read Darrah talking about the MP add on, I read the author noting the MP and how it wasn't added on, but the origin of the game itself. Darrah is talking about the game being dev'd as multiplayer only, not about the multiplayer portion. His team had nothing to do with MP dev for the final game. That info is readily available on the DAI FAQ page.

 

You know, dead horse, lol. I can't debate a topic when you go off the point. I never said MMO's have a monopoly on fetch quests. I said the game has a Multiplayer Online (and Only) Role Playing Game basis, that is its core, MORPG (that I'm sure the company intended to be massive). I show you where the SP game head says the same and you suggest I am somehow reading the text incorrectly.

 

I understand apparently even the guy who designed the game must be wrong, since certain commentators don't want the game to have started out as an mmo. I don't understand why that is a problem.

[pdusen]

I understand apparently even the guy who designed the game must be wrong, since certain commentators don't want the game to have started out as an mmo. I don't understand why that is a problem.

Okay, I can see that there's no point in continuing to debate this with you. You've formed a narrative in your head and are now projecting that narrative onto things you read that don't actually conform to your narrative at all.

That's all fine. I don't really care what you think. I just wish you'd stop spreading misinformation.

[AlanC9]

I'm going to assume this is the paragraph you refer to? The one where the article author states that the game will have the first MP for the series and how that shouldn't be surprising since the game was developed as multiplayer only? We gotta be reading two different things. You read Darrah talking about the MP add on, I read the author noting the MP and how it wasn't added on, but the origin of the game itself. Darrah is talking about the game being dev'd as multiplayer only, not about the multiplayer portion. His team had nothing to do with MP dev for the final game. That info is readily available on the DAI FAQ page.

You did actually read Darrah's statement, right? The phase of development he's talking about is way before quest or area design would even have been under consideration. He's explicit about the distinction.

Note that at the time Bio was looking into making another non-MMO multiplayer game; this was back when everyone thought MOBAs were going to be the next big thing. It's also a bit hard to imagine either Bio or EA thinking that it would be a good idea for Bio to compete with itself by trying to run two MMOs.

I understand apparently even the guy who designed the game must be wrong, since certain commentators don't want the game to have started out as an mmo. I don't understand why that is a problem.

The problem is that you're reading stuff into the dev statements that isn't there,

[Seraphim24]

The reason Dragon Age 1's Origin stories were a lot more fun was often because they were like small scale introductions to the world and their institutions, people that inhabit them, etc. Although I've made clear my dislike for certain elements of them, they overall avoided large scale kind of confrontations and epicness. It didn't matter that they were "Origins" per se.

 

Once you got out of Loathering the tone shifted dramatically in order to incorporate the "Save the World" experience and in many ways it became less fun after that point, mostly because the game gets all spread out you are kind of not really directed beyond the Recliffe/Circle segment, which should probably have come after the Urn quest. It also becomes quite grindy just out in the fields of Fereldan fighting insane amounts of enemies.

 

That theme returned only for the Landsmeet which was sort of like a "Denerim" Origin segment.

 

I actually found myself replaying Dragon Age 1 only to stop just after Loathering in recent times, just had no interest after that point.

 

Dragon Age 3 had "Origins" but thematically the spirit behind Dragon Age 2's entire game which didn't have Origin stories was closer to Dragon Age 1's experience, because in practice all of Dragon Age 3 was being thrust into a huge epic conflict.

 

In fact pretty much everything since the end of Dragon Age 2 has been non-stop epicness.

 

If you look closer actually, Bioware games tend to either be more epic and save the worldly or small and more romance oriented. Ironically, the thing that people seem to get upset about (excessive emphasis on romance) is precisely the barrier to more epic save the world stuff...

 

which, all things considered, I'm not even saying epic save the world stuff is inherently bad or something but just in terms of all the details and everything it seems to coincide with not having as much fun. Character interactions, quests, well, the game itself actually, like many aspects of Dragon Age 1 were just a mess to quest around in and not much fun, that were ultimately eliminated in Dragon Age 2.

[Seraphim24]

More nostalgia from me

 

Spoiler

[vbibbi]

I was so not looking forward to ME3 starting with a rehash of the earlier games.

I would have preferred a trial to having Shepard willingly sit in prison for six months while knowing that the Reapers are due to arrive any day. Especially since the game starts with the Reaper invasion of Earth with the entire world government totally unprepared for the attack.

[AlanC9]

How does Shepard going on trial at the end of his imprisonment get around that?

[Il Divo]

More nostalgia from me

 

Spoiler

 

Probably one of the best Bioware stages/themes. Manaan is one of my favorite sequences of all time. 

[vbibbi]

How does Shepard going on trial at the end of his imprisonment get around that?

 

It depends on how Bioware would implement things, but we could have the trial either exonerate Shepard his their actions or condemn them, but then Hackett/the Council would intervene and claim that as a SPECTRE (possible retroactively reinstated) Shepard is exempt from standard galactic laws and they will take him/her into custody for a specific purpose (to prepare for the Reapers).

 

I really don't like how ME2 was supposedly about preparing for the Reapers and then we passively sit around waiting for them to arrive. If we had done everything we could to prepare, and THEN the Reapers still curbstomp through our defensives, that would underscore their power and the futility of a conventional war against them.

[Seraphim24]

Probably one of the best Bioware stages/themes. Manaan is one of my favorite sequences of all time. 

 

Hey what do you know! This place isn't always negative..

[wright1978]

I would have preferred a trial to having Shepard willingly sit in prison for six months while knowing that the Reapers are due to arrive any day. Especially since the game starts with the Reaper invasion of Earth with the entire world government totally unprepared for the attack.

Yep that angered me intensely. Part of their rewriting of sheep into an alliance loving auto characterised character at expense of the one the player had been playing previously.

[Derrame]

i'm not dissapointed at al, it's a great game, i still play it, there are some things could be better, but it's a very good experience overall,

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

People say they've spent hundreds of hours on the game, but I bet the war table missions took up half of that.  I had one take 24 hours!  Thankfully the time keeps ticking down even if you turn the game off, but still.  It's extremely frustrating.  Main plot and companion quality time should take up at least 85-90% of game time.  If it doesn't, write more story or add an origin story.  They should not need padding (combat, sidequests, war table time sinks)!  Granted, a few meaningful sidequests are a good thing to have.  But not fetch quests that you don't even get to turn in.

[thats1evildude]

When it come to the long war table operations, I would start them one night and they'd be done the next day. Simple.

It still took me a couple hundred hours to do a completionist run.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Not simple.  I've got 5 missions that need Leliana.  Hard to do multiple playthroughs like this.