305 réponses à ce sujet

[Lukas Trevelyan]

 

I guess some of us just don't find this to work well for us. No problem. We just don't buy anymore BW. Everyone wins.

If you'd like. Bioware can't please everyone so.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Origins: Like knowing exactly what the character would say, but the lack of voice acting or tone icons made me read every line as sarcastic even when intended to be sincere.

 

DAII: Like having Hawke's many personality options, but the transition from one to the other could be jarring at times.  The paraphrasing wasn't always helpful either.

 

Inquisition: Like having the many belief options and the improved paraphrasing.  I miss the personality options at times, but then I imagine the developers taking each choice or belief and having each response multiplied by three to do so.  Yikes.  It also cuts down on the jarring moments.

 

OP: As far as background stories...maybe it depends on which race and class you choose.  My Dalish mage felt much more like her own particular character than any of my Wardens.

[Cmpunker13]

WAIT so DA:I depends on headcanon but DA:O doesn't????????????? 

 

I'll explain it better, one last time.

DAO allows me to kill RANDOM guys, including the vast majority of my companions. DAI doesn't.

DAO allows me to make decisions through sidequests. Example? Dagna. There are a lot of those sidequests. Almost all non-board quests are like Dagna's. DAI doesn't have that kind of sidequests. It doesn't. Not. Even. One. DAI has judgments where you can't kill major storyline villains.

DAO allows me to (indirectly) destroying cities and deal with various demons. DAI doesn't.

 

Through those decision in DAO I create my warden's personality. Yes, maybe the game doesn't say that my warden is a damn racist when he kills the scout in the forest just cause he's and elf, but at least I can kill him. Is that headcanon? Well, yes, But I still killed an innocent guy. And then it all gains coherence when I find a deal with the tevinter slavers. And somewhere there are a couple of dialogues that allow me to say that elfs deserve what they get. So, as you can see, everything in the end is organic, and my choices are scattered through the game, with headcanon being a small part of it. Playing a "templar", or a "necromance who doesn't give a crap" has no sense if the game doesn't allow me to show this personality through quests and dialogues located ALL OVER the game. Playing an andrastian zealot is possibile and it's quite rewarding, exactly because all the game has to do with the Chantry and you have - guess what? - a lot of dialogue that can be used to roleplay, and a lot of main quest decisions have to deal with chantry-related arguments.

In DAI, you make limited decisions only during the main storyline. Side quests don't allow any form of choice (apart for judgments). Eventually, headcanon is the vast majority of the game.

 

Again, I'll rewrite a thing I've written in a previous post.

In DAO I can have Redcliffe destroyed, Ysolde dead, Connor sold to the demon. All for the greater good (and it worked, since the Blight was defeated in less than a year! And I'm still the "Hero", here). Is or is not a fact that DAI doesn't allow that kind of behavior? Can I enter the Winter Palace killing everyone and force via weapons a deal with Celene/Gaspard/Briala? Can I fake to be the Herald for personal benefit? Can I go around making pacts with demons? Can I become queen/king or even Divine? Can I kill my companions cause they're stupid and I want them dead? No, I can't.

[Mr.House]

You CAN be a fake herald in fact. You have the option to outright say you don';t believe but are using that position for your own means, Blackwaill will outright bring that up later. So....

[Hazegurl]

Again, I'll rewrite a thing I've written in a previous post.

In DAO I can have Redcliffe destroyed, Ysolde dead, Connor sold to the demon. All for the greater good (and it worked, since the Blight was defeated in less than a year! And I'm still the "Hero", here). Is or is not a fact that DAI doesn't allow that kind of behavior? Can I enter the Winter Palace killing everyone and force via weapons a deal with Celene/Gaspard/Briala? Can I fake to be the Herald for personal benefit? Can I go around making pacts with demons? Can I become queen/king or even Divine? Can I kill my companions cause they're stupid and I want them dead? No, I can't.

I do remember making a deal with one demon, Ismahel but that was to simply avoid one more, battle and you end up caring nothing for the dude he kills anyway. DAO makes you at least care about Connor's plight. Even if you decide killing him is the best call.  I also tried to fake the Herald thing but it felt hollow because everyone just believes anyway. Even if you tell companions in private that you aren't. What's weird is that they still asked me how I felt after finding out that I wasn't the Herald after I had already told them I wasn't multiple times. lol!

 

But yeah, the part I bolded seems like that is what it all boils down to. The devs/writers at BW has decided a certain code of conduct for the Inquisitor so all role play is restricted to that conduct. You only get a break with Sera and judgements. And even then, it's understandable cause you're judging people who did horrible things.

 

Another example of BW's conduct code for me is that I wanted to play a ruthless Quizzy who is straight forward, and is a strong leader. Now, the way I am forced to deal with certain companions is hardly the qualities listed. You either choose a piece of dialogue in agreement and headcanon that you are lying, if a companion decides to test their power against you, you are left derping and stammering, but you can get the last laugh through an end game choice, and if you want certain companions gone, you must wait for the perfect opportunity to get rid of them (ie Blackwall). This is more like a sneaky weak willed person than a straight forward and strong leader.

[Zjarcal]

Can I enter the Winter Palace killing everyone and force via weapons a deal with Celene/Gaspard/Briala?

No, but you can choose to play the game or not, support one of three choices, blackmail them all so you can be the power behind the throne, reconcile two former lovers, allow for the execution of the defeated parties or not, stop an assassination attempt or let it happen (which you can easily headcanon as the inquisitor being a dick and not caring for someone's life), spare or execute Florian in front of everyone if you have gained enough approval (a consequence of choosing to play the game). You can even leave a poor naked dude to just contemplate the consequences of being such a horndog for the lulz.

Complain all you want about not being able to stupidly assault the palace, but don't make it seem as if that quest doesn't give you plenty of choice, all of it tailored to customize your personality.

[Mr.House]

I do remember making a deal with one demon, Ismahel but that was to simply avoid one more, battle and you end up caring nothing for the dude he kills anyway. DAO makes you at least care about Connor's plight. Even if you decide killing him is the best call.  I also tried to fake the Herald thing but it felt hollow because everyone just believes anyway. Even if you tell companions in private that you aren't. What's weird is that they still asked me how I felt after finding out that I wasn't the Herald after I had already told them I wasn't multiple times. lol!

 

But yeah, the part I bolded seems like that is what it all boils down to. The devs/writers at BW has decided a certain code of conduct for the Inquisitor so all role play is restricted to that conduct. You only get a break with Sera and judgements. And even then, it's understandable cause you're judging people who did horrible things.

 

Another example of BW's conduct code for me is that I wanted to play a ruthless Quizzy who is straight forward, and is a strong leader. Now, the way I am forced to deal with certain companions is hardly the qualities listed. You either choose a piece of dialogue in agreement and headcanon that you are lying, if a companion decides to test their power against you, you are left derping and stammering, but you can get the last laugh through an end game choice, and if you want certain companions gone, you must wait for the perfect opportunity to get rid of them (ie Blackwall). This is more like a sneaky weak willed person than a straight forward and strong leader.

My Inquisitor is ruthless and pragmatic on the job, I never ran into any issues with her, I guess it will just come to preferences and experiences.

[London]

I actually think Hawke is the best protagonist so far. I really like the more personal story and the companions felt more like friends than coworkers.

[Lyrandori]

Let's not forget that Origins had... well... had Origins.

 

They connected the protagonist to a story that belonged to him/her, and therefor to you in return.

 

In DA2 Hawke has his/her own "Origin", it's the game's intro before getting to Kirkwall and just a bit within it until you move to "Act 1" (1 year after arrival). Also Hawke has siblings, it creates a natural / quantifiable sense of connection and familiarity. That in return also helps build a connection with him/her and you as a [role] player.

 

Now comes Inquisition. The Inquisitor's entire "past" (doesn't have to mean from actual birth to the moment the game starts, could have been just a month prior, whatever) consists of about three lines under a card in the class selection screen and BOOM... the game starts. All you know about "you" (your Inquisitor) is that you're there at the Temple for 'x' reason(s)... and... that's... about it. Now of course you can sort of "build" a form of personality (or rather I should say a demeanor) by choosing specific types of dialog respnses ('harsh', 'emotional', 'diplomatic', etc) similarly to how you could do in DA2 (harsh/mean, diplomatic/calm, sarcastic/humorous).

 

The problem is - in my views at least - that such a "personalities via dialog choices" system is almost meaningless if you don't actually know who you are beforehand (therefor, who you can be if you want to either stay the same or "change" throughout the events of the game). We could do that to much higher extents in Origins and even in DA2. Not really in Inquisition, it's that simple to me anyway.

[Pewps]

Issue: People don't like every LI being bisexual

solution: gender AND race gate!

 

I actually don't mind this one, people have preferences

[Hazegurl]

My Inquisitor is ruthless and pragmatic on the job, I never ran into any issues with her, I guess it will just come to preferences and experiences.

Yeah, you can be ruthless while judging criminals which is being on the clock. My issues come when you then must kowtow to your companions (not Sera), and be super helpful to random x villager. Unless you simply not do the side quests and head canon a ruthless reason for it. But you're right, it's all about preferences and I just want BW to find a good balance between the two ideas.

 

IMO, based on reading this thread it seems like the side quests are the root of the problem.

[Mr.House]

Yeah, you can be ruthless while judging criminals which is being on the clock. My issues come when you then must kowtow to your companions (not Sera), and be super helpful to random x villager. Unless you simply not do the side quests and head canon a ruthless reason for it. But you're right, it's all about preferences and I just want BW to find a good balance between the two ideas.

 

IMO, based on reading this thread it seems like the side quests are the root of the problem.

My Inquisitor didn't kowtow to her companions, if she disagreeded she made it known, she also didn't let Blackwall go, she turned him into a mindless weapon of the Inquistion, a tool. Now if you mean you can't kick them out once they join, I'll give you that is silly but they CAN leave if they disagree too much. As for side quest that I will agree you do have to headcanon reasons for why your Inquisitor is helping people, I personally didn't have issues here but I see some do and maybe in the next game, Bioware can do a better job with this. For example, why give the Red Crossing reports to the Dalish? You can not state in game why you are doing this, you have to create a reason. I can do it but I can see why others can't or don't want to since this SHOULD have been in the game.

 

I guess I've just played so many crpgs that headcanoning is like breathing when it comes to crpgs now to the point I don't even realize it anymore.

[Mr.House]

Sigh, just finished another play through an tbh i really miss hawke, i genuinely believed they was going the best way when they made him/her, there was obviously stuff to work out like well anything that wasnt humorous hawke but the more i play this the more i just plain realize how good a pc humorous hawke really is

 

Ohhh to sit and enjoy and laugh with an at a game again, you know i think i turn DA:I of an put DA2 on for some fun times in some dark days

Yeah because seeing my Hawke unable to do choices that would make sense for her because THE DRAMA DEMENADS IT was sooo much fun.

[KaiserShep]

Yeah, you can be ruthless while judging criminals which is being on the clock. My issues come when you then must kowtow to your companions (not Sera), and be super helpful to random x villager. Unless you simply not do the side quests and head canon a ruthless reason for it. But you're right, it's all about preferences and I just want BW to find a good balance between the two ideas.

 

IMO, based on reading this thread it seems like the side quests are the root of the problem.

 

I don't see how this is really a problem with the approval system. After all, if these characters are to be convincing as characters, it would be nice if they had their own set of moral compasses that may or may not align with your own and that they will react accordingly. You don't have to submit to anything they want, and if you're truly a ruthless Inquisitor, whether or not they like you at the end of the day don't mean squat.

[Mr.House]

I don't see how this is really a problem with the approval system. After all, if these characters are to be convincing as characters, it would be nice if they had their own set of moral compasses that may or may not align with your own and that they will react accordingly. You don't have to submit to anything they want, and if you're truly a ruthless Inquisitor, whether or not they like you at the end of the day don't mean squat.

Oh I approve of them leaving(I love the approval system in DAI, it's waaaay better then the system in DAO or DA2 for me) But you should be able to kick everyone but a few characters(It's DA, some characters have to stay afterall till the end) like you can for Sera.

 

I had no one leave and everyone was friends even when I disagreed  with them(only Blackwall is no lnoger a friend and that is because he's a tool), so you don't have to kowtow or lie to them. I never did and I ran into no issues. If you ****** companions off, oyu get burned and that's how it should be. None of this gift spamming or broken rivelery crap.

[SomberXIII]

It's because there are voiced. Voiced means more budget and less dialogue lines. A lot of people dislike voiceless protagonists.

[SomberXIII]

@Mr. House. You play Persona series, right? How do you feel about mute protagonists?

[Hazegurl]

I don't see how this is really a problem with the approval system. After all, if these characters are to be convincing as characters, it would be nice if they had their own set of moral compasses that may or may not align with your own and that they will react accordingly. You don't have to submit to anything they want, and if you're truly a ruthless Inquisitor, whether or not they like you at the end of the day don't mean squat.

It's not the disagreements that are the issue or the approval system. It's the fact that Sera is the only one I have freedom to deal with in a straight forward manner. Cass, you're allowed to be straight with as well, and I even understand her not just leaving.  Viv isn't a problem as I always get along with her but hearing that if you don't you're resorted to just stammering and looking foolish around her is just silly. And Blackwall. Why wouldn't a ruthless Quizzy just boot him when he's tired of his self righteousness? Instead you have to wait until his quest comes up and take the opportunity. Which is sneaky. Mind you, I don't mind being sneaky. But for Blackwall?? Really? lol!! I'm not saying you should be allowed to just butcher your companions...but it wouldn't hurt to talk trash back, fight, and kick out the companions I decide not to like during a play through.  The confrontations I had with my companions in Origins was just golden and so far I've only had a good one with Sera. I've seen Dorian's and his is well done as well.

 

I'm not a Sera fan by any means, but the writers did good by her character and the rpg you're allowed to do with her.

[Father_Jerusalem]

I do remember making a deal with one demon, Ismahel but that was to simply avoid one more, battle and you end up caring nothing for the dude he kills anyway. DAO makes you at least care about Connor's plight. Even if you decide killing him is the best call.  I also tried to fake the Herald thing but it felt hollow because everyone just believes anyway. Even if you tell companions in private that you aren't. What's weird is that they still asked me how I felt after finding out that I wasn't the Herald after I had already told them I wasn't multiple times. lol!

 

But yeah, the part I bolded seems like that is what it all boils down to. The devs/writers at BW has decided a certain code of conduct for the Inquisitor so all role play is restricted to that conduct. You only get a break with Sera and judgements. And even then, it's understandable cause you're judging people who did horrible things.

 

Another example of BW's conduct code for me is that I wanted to play a ruthless Quizzy who is straight forward, and is a strong leader. Now, the way I am forced to deal with certain companions is hardly the qualities listed. You either choose a piece of dialogue in agreement and headcanon that you are lying, if a companion decides to test their power against you, you are left derping and stammering, but you can get the last laugh through an end game choice, and if you want certain companions gone, you must wait for the perfect opportunity to get rid of them (ie Blackwall). This is more like a sneaky weak willed person than a straight forward and strong leader.

 

Lol.

[Hazegurl]

Lol.

lol! Well I'm not saying you'll be crying buckets. But I felt bad for his mother who was begging me not to kill him and he was only a  child. The convo you have with him just before the fight when he asks if dying will hurt is pretty sad. But I still kill him.

[snackrat]

It does seem like personality is something you need to provide a bit with your choices.

For example, if you want to play someone impatient, then as conversations drag on you could start moving down to the blunt choices until you're just battering your way through conversations.

Even in DAII I did that - aggressive characters would still typically take snark options during threats of peril to show they didn't really give a damn.

[KaiserShep]

lol! Well I'm not saying you'll be crying buckets. But I felt bad for his mother who was begging me not to kill him and he was only a  child. The convo you have with him just before the fight when he asks if dying will hurt is pretty sad. But I still kill him.

 

Honestly it was hard not to keep hearing Isolde echoing in my head "Who ees thees womaaan Teeagan?!"

[sumojellybean]

Warden>Inquisitor>Hawke IMO. Hawke had really jarring lines which makes the Inquisitor looks like he has a higher IQ.

 

Biggest thing that makes the characters feel less personalized though is that they're voiced. I don’t think Bioware will ever go back to voiceless protagonists, but it’d be a better move IMO. No more complaints on if voices are terrible and resources could be spent into somewhere else.

 

Or if they can’t do that, please at least add a hovering summary of what your character is going to exactly say like in Deus Ex:HR or Witcher 1. Too many times I had to reload the game and lost a lot of fun of playing because I wasn't sure I chose the right dialogue option for my character. .-. 

[Nightdragon8]

For one its the prolbem with voiced protage, second, its just you can't really play the person you want to play. at all. there is no video game in the world that will let you, and origins was no execption.

 

its not that don't have a 'personality' its more you don't like the personality.

 

the latest ubisoft games are pretty much this. With maybe FC4 jumping the shark abit, as you never really see his side of things.

 

FC3 had that but, meh... there I think the author tried to hard to make a point, in a game where you go around murdering 1000s of people. Sure your being basicly Rambo in the game but meh, as I said trying to hard to put a point across, (doesn't help the author himself getting on the internet and calling people out on not caring about the story)