43 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

The player is never in the driver seat. It's always a negotiation between you and the game. The game can't react to everything. It gives you a premise and you have to buy into it. The design is poor when it doesn't tell you what the premise is going to be or when it is inconsistent in the baseline you're meant to respect.

DAI doesn't outright tell you you're an LG-CG paragon of virtue. DAO doesn't tell you you're a well adjusted caring person who can suffer from bouts of insanity. DA2 doesn't tell you that you don't get to care about the political issues of Kirkwall enough to act on them.

 

Video games does add limitations to it, certainly. But completely having the control of the character's personality and dialogue taken away from you, is something else. Why even have dialogue option at all if this is what they are going to do anyway. ME3 got plenty of stick for the exact same thing. The dev went to far with it. Same thing here. Its only you who actually defend it.

[Koneko Koji]

I do feel we were let down by the lack of impact in the choice department - I chose to screw up Viv's personal quest and tell her I hated her; once the cut scene was over she was back to being all "Yes Dear" and acted as if I'd done NOTHING - it was supremely disappointing!

 

In Origins, I went into the game knowing nothing (purchased the game on a whim) - didn't even know you could romance or alienate your companions - and was genuinely emotionally moved by some of the choices and when my Elf got ditched by Alistair and there was literally nothing I could do about it, not even reloading the scene - it really felt like an actual blow, something I'd not felt from a game since Final Fantasy VII.

 

Inquisition has had a FEW moments where I've felt connected to my characters in a similar respect, but nothing on the level of Origins.

[In Exile]

Video games does add limitations to it, certainly. But completely having the control of the character's personality and dialogue taken away from you, is something else. Why even have dialogue option at all if this is what they are going to do anyway. ME3 got plenty of stick for the exact same thing. The dev went to far with it. Same thing here. Its only you who actually defend it.

I'm not defending anything. I'm saying that it's unavoidable. Even a purely stoic protagonist has the same problem: now you're locked into being stoic. DAI introduced the reaction wheel which is a phenomenal forward step. Neutral dialogue as the default, then reaction.

The romance options don't follow the pattern. That's a shortcoming. Putting aside how you think a ruthless flirting would actually work the link there is a problem. It's just ridiculous to say that failing in one scene is tantamount to making roleplaying impossible. It would be like me saying silent protagonists make roleplaying impossible because of the concerned run to Wynne.

[In Exile]

I do feel we were let down by the lack of impact in the choice department - I chose to screw up Viv's personal quest and tell her I hated her; once the cut scene was over she was back to being all "Yes Dear" and acted as if I'd done NOTHING - it was supremely disappointing!

In Origins, I went into the game knowing nothing (purchased the game on a whim) - didn't even know you could romance or alienate your companions - and was genuinely emotionally moved by some of the choices and when my Elf got ditched by Alistair and there was literally nothing I could do about it, not even reloading the scene - it really felt like an actual blow, something I'd not felt from a game since Final Fantasy VII.

Inquisition has had a FEW moments where I've felt connected to my characters in a similar respect, but nothing on the level of Origins.

Cassandra dumps you if she's Divine in the same way as Alistair dumps you if he's King, except there's no Cousland happy ending.

But you're right about the general lack of consequence. Bioware did their usual thing: people criticised DA2 for having too much favour choice and their response was to remove all of it.

[Dread-Reaper]

Cassandra dumps you if she's Divine in the same way as Alistair dumps you if he's King, except there's no Cousland happy ending.

But you're right about the general lack of consequence. Bioware did their usual thing: people criticised DA2 for having too much favour choice and their response was to remove all of it.

That's one thing I have noticed in my brief time with Bioware games. When something is hugely criticized in their games, instead of finding a middle-ground, they just scrap the entire idea and try something else. People then start to miss the hugely flawed concept and most would rather see that concept be built upon instead of having it gone forever.Prime example is the Mako in ME1 to the Planet Scanner in ME2.

[Rawgrim]

DAO does the same thing. That some people are better at mental fantasy when there's no VO doesn't mean that Bioware ever wrote dialogue differently or scripted scenes differently. Just read your own mandatory biography in BG1.

 

The BG1 biography is a poor argument. It is tied to the entire plot, after all.

 

And there is a huge difference between "scripted differently" and giggling like a girly telletubby.

 

And seriously, what does BG1 and DA:O even have to do with DA:I screwing up people's character like this? The games were made by different people. The people who made BG and DA:O have all left EA, due to creative differences or "moving on to other projects". DA:I is hardly related to DA:O anymore at all.

[Kulyok]

It would be super cool to get some evil, ruthless and outright bastardly options, I agree. Heck, I'm a SWTOR fan, and playing those Imperial stories can be great fun both lightside and darkside. Sigh. Well, maybe in the next game?

[Vader20]

One of the things I loved about this game is how it always gives you the illusion of choices. When I chose to try out the templar route, I was VERY ANNOYED with that demon showing me the future with a ruthless Inquisitor as if I had   the choice to be evil. I mean you see the evil power hungry Inquisitor, but you know that you cannot be like that.

[C0uncil0rTev0s]

Yep, the brutality needs to come back...

 

I'm sorry but harsh punishment choices, tricking Viv with a normal wyvern heart and punching Solas just wasn't enough for me...

 

I want to sacrifice children in the fade. I want to kill a bunch of caged shemlen slaves for personal power. I want to p*ss on religious artifacts. I want to make love to a desire demon.

 

You hurt my feelings with your spelling.

[Dracon525]

I've noticed as well even the emotional responses were pretty rare. Majority of them were only in companion quests. Everything else was just "ask more" and "yes"

[In Exile]

The BG1 biography is a poor argument. It is tied to the entire plot, after all.

And there is a huge difference between "scripted differently" and giggling like a girly telletubby.

And seriously, what does BG1 and DA:O even have to do with DA:I screwing up people's character like this? The games were made by different people. The people who made BG and DA:O have all left EA, due to creative differences or "moving on to other projects". DA:I is hardly related to DA:O anymore at all.

The games were written by the same people. In fact all of the people who made DAO in any part that's relevant here are still with Bioware. Almost the whole writing staff. Much of the writing staff is here from BG1. Like DG or Lukas.

The dialogue is written by exactly the same people and they've been breaking characters the *same* way. The fact that it bothers you this time is just pure coincidence.

As to the BG1 example it's because you get a mandatory biography and moral compass. Have fun playing LE.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

This lack of choice (for a company that is supposed to be all about choices) is even more pathetic when you think about it.

 

In DAO you could play as an evil douchebag and get away with it.

 

In DA2 you could still play as an evil douchebag though the ending is sort of the same as the good guy one...You even get a personality change from your main character

 

In Skyrim, the game that Bioware "looked at aggressively" you can be a total dick in it. You can be part of a thieving mafia-esque religious organization, part of a death cult, murder people who trust you in a ritual, become a creature of darkness, etc...

 

In DAI, you are just someone who becomes the hero that restores order the nice way and that's it. No douchebag pathway...

[Rawgrim]

The games were written by the same people. In fact all of the people who made DAO in any part that's relevant here are still with Bioware. Almost the whole writing staff. Much of the writing staff is here from BG1. Like DG or Lukas.

The dialogue is written by exactly the same people and they've been breaking characters the *same* way. The fact that it bothers you this time is just pure coincidence.

As to the BG1 example it's because you get a mandatory biography and moral compass. Have fun playing LE.

 

Why do you assume EA gives designers and writers any kind of creative freedom when writing a game? History shows this is not the case at all.

 

And no they haven't broken the characters in "the same way" at all, before. Some minor things here and there, yes. But given that the games didn't have a viced protagonist, the games let us read exactly what each line the character said would be like. The voiced protagonist, mixed with the forced auto-dialogue, is a whole different business entirely. The game takes control of your character's actions and spoken lines all the time, and sometimes for a long period.

 

Having my ruthless dwarf suddenly giggle like a telletubby is way out there. You have to be deluded not to see how bad it is.

 

Another auto-dialogue had my Inquisitor promote a Templar to the main templar position. I, as a player, had no say in it at all. Someone suggested the fellow get promoted, and my Inquisitor went "Yes, I agree!" What the hell? The game just made a huge decision for me right there. Bioware keeps spilling out how much choice and consequences the player will be in charge of, and the game won't even let the player have any sort of say in a big thing like that?

 

Side question: Why do you criticize BG1 and DA:O for having a "poor design choice", when in the next breath you defend DA:I for doing the same thing, and worse.

 

Sounds like you are on a payroll.

[Endurium]

The problem with evil being, well, sociopathic/murderous is why I play my characters that way when I do a dark run through a game.

 

Darth Shepard went through the ME series murdering/hurting everyone he could. Dark Warden went through DAO going for body count and avoiding quests that only helped people (only had Anora and door guard to talk to at the end). Things got a bit muddier in DA2 as there are fewer such options, and it seems DA:I makes it even less possible to have fun in that respect. Oh well, I was the shining hero when I first got into RPG and can continue to do so if necessary.

[Il Divo]

Why do you assume EA gives designers and writers any kind of creative freedom when writing a game? History shows this is not the case at all.

 

And no they haven't broken the characters in "the same way" at all, before. Some minor things here and there, yes. But given that the games didn't have a viced protagonist, the games let us read exactly what each line the character said would be like. The voiced protagonist, mixed with the forced auto-dialogue, is a whole different business entirely. The game takes control of your character's actions and spoken lines all the time, and sometimes for a long period.

 

Having my ruthless dwarf suddenly giggle like a telletubby is way out there. You have to be deluded not to see how bad it is.

 

 

Well, I think the problem here is more that people immediately attribute to EA what could very well be a normal Bioware decision. It's the same way that KotOR removed Vancian Casting, Jade Empire had pure action combat, and Mass Effect introduced tps mechanics, large scale cinematics and a voiced protagonist (where sometimes the dialogue wheel would lead to a single line regardless of what the player chose). 

 

I don't take issue with people disliking features in Bioware games. It's more the notion that everything wrong with every Bioware game ever can be attributed to them. Lines like "Well, what do you expect from EA?"

 

Much as people want to harp on Inquisition, we do have both Mass Effect and Baldur's Gate 1 as testaments that Bioware doesn't always mind going the exploration route, regardless of whether they do it well. It's just that in the latter two cases, we don't have a megacorporation to throw blame at for the features we dislike; we only have the developers themselves. Although I wouldn't be surprised if many fans pointed to Mass Effect 1 to claim that Bioware sold out as well. 

[blackdeath]

You can't kill your followers you can't wear Bulky chunky Demon or Bulky chunky Dragon Armor you can't be Evil you can't put points Towards Attribute skills. You know strength Dexterity so on and so on. You can't be a Blood Mage.you can't sit down. In the Tavern Heck you just can't sit period well unless your judging some one. You can't Be a Dual wielding warrior! Well at least you collect Herbs and Rocks G That's just Great Game of The year folks.

[blackdeath]

O and you can't Drink only once with The iron Bull..... Yet you could in mass Effect why social justice say it with me Now.......