229 réponses à ce sujet

[Hobbes]

I personally like what we had in Origins.  We had a character that was real, that had a solid history that existed within the the real world, allowing you to encounter/interact with that past to some degrees.  At the same time though, they left who your character was as a person, up to interpretation.

 

It seems to me that this sort of criticism tends to be cyclical. Both the Warden and Shepard have been described as having personalities akin to a plank.........

I think the Warden criticism stems more from them not being voiced than the character themselves, at least that's how I always interpreted it.  The Warden was open for a lot of personality, it's just hard to absorb for some without a voice to connect to with.

[Moirnelithe]

I didn't like the Hawke dialogue wheel in DA2 at all. I really didn't....none of the responses fit what I had in mind. But DA:I went way too far in the opposite direction. Instead of giving a neutral neutral and neutral option in the dialogue wheel as well as having the VA deliver those lines in a monotonous tone, there should have been room for several emotional AND a neutral option (in case the emotional ones don't fit your char) and at the very least a more emotional delivery of the lines. The robotic voice acting really bothered me in this game.

 

 

ps. DA:I needs origins or at least some way to let you flesh out your inquisitor more.

[sch1986]

Agreed! Why in the hell did they take out the diplomat, sarcastic, aggressive personality options? I don't see how that would interfere with someone's head cannon?

Being able to answer like a smart ass with Hawke made Hawke feel so much more like an actual person to me. In this game it does not matter what you say- you get almost the exact same response (with the exception of a few scenes).

Mass effect has always had paragon/renegade options and it made the game highly replayable, as did personality options for Hawke.

Here I feel like it doesn't matter who I try to role play, I'm still going to be the same mostly diplomatic inquisitor.

[Nemesis788450]

the main protagonist you play is boring in most games...because they need to set up your own character in a way that is non offensive to anyone so that everyone can identify with it and that makes it boring

 

honestly, i would even prefer to play only with companions...companions always have more character because the devs can give them fleshed out personalities which they cannot do to the main character - well they can, but then you have to go the witcher route and play a sepcific character instead of creating one...

 

what i would wish for the next installment is that they make the conversation options and reactions more extrem - like mass effect when you punched that reporter...if i choose the badass dialogue option, i want a badass dialogue, not just 10% more of that or this...

[Medhia_Nox]

I couldn't disagree more (and no, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong). 

 

If I wanted Pre-defined characters I'd play Gears of War, Uncharted, or Tomb Raider.

 

As for Origins... loved the origin stories, then hated that they hardly mattered at all.

[bEVEsthda]

Frankly, to be brutal about it, I don't think Bioware should cater to people wanting a traditional jrpg - westernized culture and aesthetics, or not - at all.

[Sasie]

Personally I blame voice acting and the dialogue wheel. When the player character only have text responses they can offer several different ways of asking mostly similar things without having to record every one separately. It's also easier for the player to find their own voice for the character 

I think in total if you check the number of dialogue choices between Baldur's gate 2 and Inquisition you probably end up with 3-4 choices (most of the time) in each but with BG2/Kotor/Dragon Age Origins it feels like I have more choices to roleplay simply because I see the entire line and can imagine what my character would say when I read over the different options. It makes it easier to make a consistent character then having a voice actor read most lines in a mostly neutral voice.

The only option to do that with a voiced character is to have a character like Hawke and Geralt and then they just have to hope the player like the character the devs imagined for them. The last option would be to make it more like an action movie like Mass effect where Shepard interupt/shoot people in dialogue and action blend together. Shepard wasn't the most consistent character but I prefer her in all three games to the Inquisitor.

[Dream]

I really missed the personality icon wheel. It helped give Hawke a personality without fleshing out his character a certain way. I felt like the Inquisitor could have used that more, instead we get a bunch of dialogue related to praising or denouncing the Maker. 

[Aulis Vaara]

Am I the only one who thinks that RPG's should be all about choosing who your character is and having that character face whatever problems they face. Not about your 'skills' as a player or "all the feels" as defined by one of the writers?

This is WHY we used to have stats and such, because it was the player character who mattered, not the player, and why we had choice, because it was all about how a character would go about solving a problem.

It was never about choice for choice's sake, nor about having boring complicated combat, as some seem to think.

[bEVEsthda]

Am I the only one who thinks that RPG's should be all about choosing who your character is and having that character face whatever problems they face. Not about your 'skills' as a player or "all the feels" as defined by one of the writers?

This is WHY we used to have stats and such, because it was the player character who mattered, not the player, and why we had choice, because it was all about how a character would go about solving a problem.

It was never about choice for choice's sake, nor about having boring complicated combat, as some seem to think.

 

Of course you're not the only one. What do you think I or S. t. Mad are always talking about? Or why the silent protagonist is so desired, by many.

 

DA2 was dreadful. It was strictly for the movie-goers or jrpg-players. I think DA:I has taken a step forward again. It's not ideal. But the improved dialogue wheel and semi-open world offers more role-playing freedom. Together with the scope and visuals, it makes me like DA:I. I'm happy enough.

[Draining Dragon]

My Warden had more of a personality than the Inquisitor.

It just goes to show that voicing the protagonist does not necessarily make them more interesting.

[berrieh]

Personally, I like the style of a Hawke or Shepard character better. Someone who begins quite defined, has a few variations, etc, and I like the dialogue wheel, but people complained about it a lot in DA2, and I knew it wouldn't be back. I still found lots of snark for my snarky Inquisitor and I was pleased that characters even remarked on my sense of humor! I don't remember that as snarky Hawke but maybe they did then too (my last playthrough of DA2 was recent but it wasn't snarky). 

 

I do prefer the DA2 or ME style to the blank slate style of DAO or DAI, but I see no negative difference in DAI to DAO. I guess some people thought the origin story made it easier to roleplay (I did not find this easier - but I also read the Codex about my original story - something NOT provided to me as background immediately in DAO - as soon as I could access it, less than 5 minutes into the game, and that allowed me a framework for my background that I then formed a character from; in the origin stories, I often felt confused by my character, except the excellent city elf one and the very straightforward but dull human noble one). For me, in many of the stories, it often made it harder, and the lack of voice acting and sometimes baffling responses of the companions made it harder as well. 

 

I felt like, in this game, my companions were more responsive to my personality than in DAO and equally than in DA2 (despite the difference in race and range). Which is a primary care for me.

 

So, I'm fine with something more like Hawke, but I don't expect it because people complained. But I don't get how the Inquisitor has less personality than the Warden. I felt the opposite. I love some of my Wardens but their personalities exist solely in my mind, whereas I felt like the voice acting, the background Codex, and the events of DAI allowed me to interact with character-making and make it a combination of my mind and the game. 

 

I remember just one line that gave me any insight into my Inquisitor's personality. I was on my second playthrough, trying out an aggressive Mquisitor, and had the option (during In Your Heart Shall Burn) of choosing an angry-fist line that was supposed to carry the meaning, "i'm not afraid of you!" My (British) Mquisitor opened his mouth and stammered out, "I'm not.. I'm not afraid of you..." and I thought, wow, he's freaking terrified. 

 

See, maybe the male voice acting is weak - I haven't seen it yet. The female British one doesn't do that. Neither does the female American, which is stronger than the female British on lines like that, it seems. 

 

I don't know if I consider allowing her to be assasinated as being an evil action. Having her assasinated and making sure that no other contender would be able to take control, either by having them killed or framed, would have been far more evil (Resulting in a complete collapse of the system). I see it as being more of a "I don't have time for politics, we have a war to win" situation. 

 

I wouldn't confuse chaos/order with evil/good. Many evil actions are done for the sake of stability. The ends justifies the means is definitely evil.

 

That said, you definitely can't be as much of a chaotic, raging bastard (you can still be rude, evil, cruel, selfish, etc, at various points) in Inquisition as you could in Origins, but that kind of character barely makes sense in Origins where you're a Warden, both an outlaw and above laws, and a Blight is raging the land; it definitely wouldn't make sense as head of an Inquisition, so I get the limits. But I also get why it bums people out - those 5% who play those options at all or the slightly larger % who just likes to know they're there. 

[Ieldra]

I couldn't disagree more (and no, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong). 

 

If I wanted Pre-defined characters I'd play Gears of War, Uncharted, or Tomb Raider.

 

As for Origins... loved the origin stories, then hated that they hardly mattered at all.

This.

 

I find myself having quite a bit of agency over who my character is. My decisions make me who I am, major and minor ones alike, or as Helios in Deux Ex 1 put it: "We are our choices", and that personality expression isn't as explicit as it was in DA2 is an advantage, since you can now speak the lines with different intentions and actually have them come out differently depending on the context you give them. Also, the choice of race (and class, for being a mage or not) is much more important within the main story this time. I very much prefer how DAI does these things to the way DA2 did it. DAO can't really be compared since the Warden was silent, which has advantages and disadvantages both.

[Fishy]

I recall Shepard being accused of this very same thing.

 

Yuo. People complained that Shepard was an empty shell devoid of any emotion. He was just always so ''stoic'' and unmovable. Than ME3 happened and Shepard showed a lot more personality.

 

The only time it work that a protagonost show no emotion it in Half-life series. Because you ARE Gordon Freeman. So everything you feel behind your screen it what Freeman feel in the game. But sadly no game has ever approached Half-life 2 in term of that.

[Sasie]

Yuo. People complained that Shepard was an empty shell devoid of any emotion. He was just always so ''stoic'' and unmovable. Than ME3 happened. 

To be honest that was mostly an accusation toward Mark Meer's version of Shepard. Jennifer Hale was accused quite a few times on the forums for putting too much emotion into Shepard's voice and was much better for it in my opinion. Still the main problem with Shepard was that she was inconsistent in paragon/renegade choices between games or even within the same game.

The Inquisitor on the other hand seems to been written to be so neutral overall that the few times some emotion comes up they often feels like they come completely out of the blue. There is a few moments that are quite good but the main plot in general is so thin there is not enough to make the Inquisitor feel like a leader. The scene in the war room when we give orders to our advisers was painfully awkward. I'm not surprised Morrigan laughed at the Inquisitors performance.

[berrieh]

Yuo. People complained that Shepard was an empty shell devoid of any emotion. He was just always so ''stoic'' and unmovable. Than ME3 happened and Shepard showed a lot more personality.

 

I thought people were only complaining about the male VA for this. Femshep shows loads of emotion in ME2 in particular. 

[Han Shot First]

I generally agree with you, although I can't put my finger on it. The Inquisitor certainly feels empty, and not in a good way. Most of their dialogue options are questions instead of statements that might indicate, or let us dictate, what kind of personality they have, and even when they do have proper statements they are so generic and disconnected from any sort of individuality that it leaves the Inquisitor being more like a passive vessel for the player to experience the story than being an actual character in the story.

 

I think this post hit the nail on the end.

 

I wonder if that is an unfortunate consequence of having multiple playable races. If that was the issue, I hope the Mass Effect series doesn't follow suit. 

[Xx Serissia xX]

I think an intro to the characters like in Origins would of went a long way to helping establish a personality for the Inquisitor.  I have a fairly decent imagination but there's just so little to work with.  I hope that in DA4 there's more on an intro before the main storyline starts.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

I'm just sayin'. In order to really have your warden with a solid personality you had to headcanon; lack of voice, facial expressions and impact of your Origins (on a personality level) did that. 

[Xx Serissia xX]

I'm just sayin'. In order to really have your warden with a solid personality you had to headcanon; lack of voice, facial expressions and impact of your Origins (on a personality level) did that. 

 

I played as a HNF and there was a lot of backstory to the character in the Origin.  The HNF in DAI you know that she is from the circle at Ostwick prior to the rebellion and that's about it.

[berrieh]

I played as a HNF and there was a lot of backstory to the character in the Origin.  The HNF in DAI you know that she is from the circle at Ostwick prior to the rebellion and that's about it.

 

Except that's not all you know. One of the very first Codex entries that unlocks is a good deal of backstory (more information than I got instantly in the HNF opening of DAO and about as much information as I have about my family by the end of it). You know this (slightly different if Mage):

 

The Trevelyans are nobility from Ostwick, a city-state on the southern coast of the Free Marches. It is an old and distinguished family, in good standing among its peers, and with strong ties to the Chantry. Its youngest sons and daughters - those third- or fourth-born children with little chance of becoming heirs - often join the Chantry to become templarsor clerics. As the youngest child, [Lord/Lady] [Player name] Trevelyan was expected to follow suit... until the disaster at the Conclave.

[Player name] was present at the Temple of Sacred Ashes as a representative of his/her family's interests, along with other distant relatives in the Chantry. [He/She] was the only survivor at the temple after the explosion. Rumors that the mysterious mark on his/her hand is a sign of the Maker's favor were spread by those who claim they saw the divine prophet, Andrasteherself, lead [Lord/Lady] [Player name] out of the Fade.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

I played as a HNF and there was a lot of backstory to the character in the Origin.  The HNF in DAI you know that she is from the circle at Ostwick prior to the rebellion and that's about it.

Perhaps you mistake personality for backstory. In DA:I my Trevelyan was from the circle at Ostwick, he was introverted and studeous, he approved of the circle and templars, and is andrastian. One of the mentors at the Ostwick circle was like a mother to him; but he was still intouch with his family, loved them and didn't wish danger on them. He also believes that wherever he is can be considered his home, part of his adaptive nature. As such he also learned how to utilize his mark's power and use it for powerful rift magic gaining more knowledge about the fade that he showed off on a couple of occasions. He leads the Inquisition to serve as a role model for mages and takes that responsibility seriously. He believed at first that andraste did save him, his belief was shaken after the assualt on Haven but mother Giselle helped him restore his faith, he uses his influence and his belief for the greater good- something people might consider heresy. 

All of what I've mentioned are the basis of my character I've established through the dialogues I've encountered in game- and decisions, and there are plenty other dialogues that support building my character who he is- side quests included.

 

EDIT: Don't get me wrong; I love Origins, but your options for backstory were pretty limited to "I hate the circle", "I loved the circle"- "Jowan is my best friend I'll look after him", "I'm too loyal to the circle I'll inform the First Enchanter of Jowan's plot" , and probably "I'm honest I'll return the staff I took & not destroy my phylactery" or vice versa.

[KaiserShep]

I played as a HNF and there was a lot of backstory to the character in the Origin.  The HNF in DAI you know that she is from the circle at Ostwick prior to the rebellion and that's about it.

 

My Warden is the HNF as well, and I think that what really added the most interest in this particular character's Origin is the fact that the family are actual characters present in the game, and that it is the only background that ties directly to a key antagonist as a revenge plot.

[Xx Serissia xX]

Perhaps you mistake personality for backstory. In DA:I my Trevelyan was from the circle at Ostwick, he was introverted and studeous, he approved of the circle and templars, and is andrastian. One of the mentors at the Ostwick circle was like a mother to him; but he was still intouch with his family, loved them and didn't wish danger on them. He also believes that wherever he is can be considered his home, part of his adaptive nature. As such he also learned how to utilize his mark's power and use it for powerful rift magic gaining more knowledge about the fade that he showed off on a couple of occasions. He leads the Inquisition to serve as a role model for mages and takes that responsibility seriously. He believed at first that andraste did save him, his belief was shaken after the assualt on Haven but mother Giselle helped him restore his faith, he uses his influence and his belief for the greater good- something people might consider heresy. 

All of what I've mentioned are the basis of my character I've established through the dialogues I've encountered in game- and decisions, and there are plenty other dialogues that support building my character who he is- side quests included.

 

EDIT: Don't get me wrong; I love Origins, but your options for backstory were pretty limited to "I hate the circle", "I loved the circle"- "Jowan is my best friend I'll look after him", "I'm too loyal to the circle I'll inform the First Enchanter of Jowan's plot" , and probably "I'm honest I'll return the staff I took & not destroy my phylactery" or vice versa.

 

The thing is though since you don't actually play through any part at the circle or meet the people whom they mention in dialog, you're just picking something random.  Vivienne mentions some woman whom you've never met in game who you can say was your mentor.  That does nothing for me having never met the person.  It's not like the relationship the Warden had with Duncan.  

[berrieh]

The thing is though since you don't actually play through any part at the circle or meet the people whom they mention in dialog, you're just picking something random.  Vivienne mentions some woman whom you've never met in game who you can say was your mentor.  That does nothing for me having never met the person.  It's not like the relationship the Warden had with Duncan.  

 

What relationship? He saved me, brought me somewhere, and basically instantly died. I'm totally fine with that, but how was Duncan any PC's mentor? I barely got to ask him a few questions. I always honor Alistair's relationship with Duncan, but in none of my playthroughs did I imagine he had any with me, besides saving me right when I needed it (for his own ends). 

 

Although, in this case, the Duncan part (if there is one) is Cassandra, except she doesn't die and stays the whole game. Duncan isn't part of the origin - he is the part that brings you out of it and gets you started on the actual quest. 

 

Now, as to whether the origins made it easier to imagine the background, I suppose it did for some, but whatever happened pre-origin still has the same problem. I knew not to trust Jowan because the mage playthrough was not my first, but otherwise, I really should've had an opinion of him but had no information to go off of when I had to make the decision. Etc. Now, there are a few, where the decisions are simply very clear (survive or don't) and that's fine, but I feel like every game where you aren't a complete tabula rasa has this issue. I guess the origins hid it well for some people. 

 

I liked the origins because they were small stories I could play. I disliked them because they barely mattered later in game and their quality was very variable. I think it was cool DA:O did it, but I think it would be annoying if every DA game does it. Then again, I like the way ME handles things. You pick one of a few backgrounds, it gives you some key flavour, and you just begin as an officer, already. 

 

But I definitely had to quibble with the idea of a relationship with Duncan. He was a really cool character, but the PC barely gets to talk to him and most of the cool stuff he does is either told to you by someone else or shown in cut scenes where you're not present.