538 réponses à ce sujet

[Lebanese Dude]

Actually the real issue at heart is that the human background is always boring human nob. If Bioware were to offer me Tevinter slave, Avvar, etc. I would be more interested. However, DA's average human nob is absolutely something I can relate to in real life. For the most part, if you have the money to buy a console/PC to play Dragon Age, then you're likely to live a comfortable life. You're likely to have most of the things nobs from Orlais or Ferelden have if not more. I play role-playing games, because I want to role play something beyond what I can already relate to. It's the one reason why I definitely don't bother much with female humans.

 

The reason humans tend to be nobles is that they are the only race that can be one in the setting with interesting connections to certain plot points.

 

The "commoners" that you play in DAI are the elves, poor surface dwarves, and qunari mercenaries... so the non-humans.

[Lotto]

It was worth it, but they definitely could have done a better job.

[Obsidian Gryphon]

Actually the real issue at heart is that the human background is always boring human nob. If Bioware were to offer me Tevinter slave, Avvar, etc. I would be more interested. However, DA's average human nob is absolutely something I can relate to in real life. For the most part, if you have the money to buy a console/PC to play Dragon Age, then you're likely to live a comfortable life. You're likely to have most of the things nobs from Orlais or Ferelden have if not more. I play role-playing games, because I want to role play something beyond what I can already relate to. It's the one reason why I definitely don't bother much with female humans.

 

Then Bioware would have to start a new tapestry that would fit the Tewinter slave  context, etc instead of the framework started in DAO - DAI; Southern Thedas, human dominated holdings, Andrastian, Blight and its secondary effects, southern politics.  With the way they framed it, only a couple of candidates fit into the tapestry and they have to have some standing in the political network. I wouldn't say they did a good job, they just slap on a general coat of paint and sold it.

[Catche Jagger]

I don't play as humans. I've never really seen the appeal since there's nothing too special about the experience. I've heard that only the Circle Mage backstory due to some chats about Circles.

So, my question to human players: Was it really worth it? Was it really worth the time and effort the devs put in to make humans a playable race?

I just don't understand the appeal.

/SarcasmDisengaged
(Except I actually don't play as humans)

[faeofthefellwood]

From my perspective, the extra races were absolutely worth it. One of the reasons I didn't play DA2 until after DAI was because it was so restricted (I only bought it because I liked DAI so much, too). That isn't to say that I never play humans (I was initially torn between playing a mage human, elf, or qunari), but the more options I have, the more I can customize my own character imagination-wise. And to be honest, I don't get as into the human PC's in Dragon Age, which seem to invariably be nobility who fit into the human dominated setting easily, because I find it more interesting to play as the underdog. Playing as a super heretical elf mage was fun.

[Anaeme]

I think elves get a lot more out of the storyline than other races

[Lebanese Dude]

So, my question to human players: Was it really worth it? Was it really worth the time and effort the devs put in to make humans a playable race?

I just don't understand the appeal.
 

 

If I'm going to look at someone's face and ass for a whole game, it might as well be someone I find attractive.

Most humans would agree that humans can be attractive.

[In Exile]

I think elves get a lot more out of the storyline than other races

Plot importance is apparently inversely proportional to shoulder width.

[Nefla]

You've done a very good job at talking about things I didn't address, attributing opinions to me that I don't hold, and all in all creating a bizarre Frankenstein's monster of an argument to oppose that suits you.

There's no real reason for you to have an extensive knowledge of my posting history, but I've historically been a pretty sharp critic of a lot of BioWare's story writing, especially as regards plausibility by historical analogy. That I don't think Inquisition's narrative has a problem with the specific issues of "race options" and "victory and defeat" does not mean that I don't think it has any other issues whatsoever. I think it has many issues in a variety of areas, and I've discussed them at length in other threads. Furthermore, that I am aware that your opinions are not universally held does not mean that I oppose them tooth and nail.

So painting me as some sort of Biodrone or whatever it is that you're trying to do is laughable.

Anyway, on the specific issue of defeat, hard decisions, loss, death, and all that...leaving your absurd hyperbole aside (the defeats that the Inquisition sustains supposedly aren't REAL defeats, they're only quasi-legit-ish ones? maybe?) you make the point that loss is often something that the player chooses to allow rather than imposed upon her. Isn't that, at least partially, a good thing? Like I said before, defeat imposed upon a player might make for a narrative that some people like, but it often makes for a gameplaying experience that is loathsome to others. Allowing players to opt for death, loss, unhappiness, and so on, rather than ham-handedly imposing them, seems like something that is, at least in broad outline, a better way to structure the game. At least in theory, both sides could be placated. More Cauthrien than Ishal, going back to prior example.

Your issue is less that the game doesn't have hard decisions or defeats or loss or whatever, but that you don't like the ones that it does have, or you don't personally consider them to be meaningful. That's a very different thing, no? There are loads of people who agonize over things like whether to order the Chargers to stand and die, or who were stunned and dismayed by the revelations of ancient elven lore, or who felt anguish over the way the world of the Dark Future had turned out. There are people who thought that the defeat at Haven really was quite meaningful. All such things are like that. There are plenty of people who think that the Virmire choice is essentially meaningless, or who didn't consider Hawke to have suffered all that much throughout the course of DA2 because the only people who died were obnoxious anyway. YMMV.

You're painting a picture of radical lurches from idea A to diametrically opposed idea B over the course of BioWare franchises that I think is a pretty big exaggeration for rhetorical effect - but an exaggeration that you seem to believe in wholeheartedly and think is objectively true. I disagree. I don't think that there's much point in my discussing your increasingly shrill attacks on everything but the substance of my posts, so I'll bow out. My point's been made.

I wasn't trying to paint you as a "Biodrone" I said your reactions are extreme, which they definitely come across as in your posts. I said the "all or nothing" attitude you seem to have (as you yourself demonstrated by saying you would rather have no inventory at all than have them work on what was wrong with the inventory) matches BioWare's extreme reactions. Their pendulum swings very far in the opposite direction from things they were criticized about and you seem to be cool with it and staunchly defend their decisions. How is that not a good match? I don't know why you seem to be so angry and aggressive and taking everything so personally, my thoughts on the game and what I consider its' downfalls have nothing to do with you or others who like the game. You're right that I don't know your posting history and I'm sorry but I don't care to. The only "points" you've made are that you like the game, you think that balance is a myth, and that you are extreme and aggressive. Have fun with that, you're going on my ignore list. 

[DragonKingReborn]

Were the additional races worth the effort?  Hell, yes - first playthrough was a female Qunari who was, and remains the first and only female Qunari we've ever seen in one of the games.  Second playthrough is a male dwarf that looks nothing like every, single dwarf in DA2 (Varric aside).

 

Perhaps those two races don't have as much specific content as elves and in particular, humans, I wouldn't know but believe people who say it is so.  It doesn't matter, at least, in my view.  The ability to play as one of the two 'ugly ducklings' of DA race selection is enough to make it worthwhile.

 

I certainly don't think anyone was being lazy at Bioware, eithe.  Think about it.  There are no Qunari male or female (Iron Bull aside) in the game if not the Inquisitor.  And Iron Bull is a special case, much bigger than the average Qunari.  That means they created and animated two different character rigs and made sure all the armour/weapons/mounts scaled appropriately.  That must have been a nightmare.

 

So, while implementation could have been improved, I will take the four options over three, two or one any day of the week, and be grateful for it.

[Hiemoth]

In the context of DAI, yeah I think the races were worth, as despite the common claim here, we didn't really lose anything when they were included. They were going to have the separate background anyway, so there really wouldn't have been a storyline connectivity to the PC anywhere near DA2 levels in DAI to begin with. Somewhat amusingly, this spreading of the backgrounds to the different races caused humans to be settled with the noble background, as literally only humans can be nobles on surface Thedas. So every single player who is complaining about why they keep using the boring human noble background, it is a very direct consequence of that racial choice.

 

However, if we are discussing racial choice overall in games, I am not necessarily a huge fan of it because it will always come at a cost of personal story arcs and PC's connectivity to the story itself, which are things I value more in the games more. In addition, I think it is important to distinguish between having a choice of race, but a set background (for example BG1 or NWN2) or having a choice of race which comes with an unique background (for example DAO or NWN). If we go with the former, then there are possibilities to have a constrained background that can be used in the story, although it would still limit things as for example Hawke's connection to Kirkwall depended on him/her begin human. However, if we go with the former, which I get the feeling many in this thread want, then the war table mission and some discussion references with NPCs are pretty much the only things we can hope for. Yeah, I don't find very fulfilling either, but that is the trade-off with unconstrained backgrounds which is usually associated with racial choice.

 

If the next Dragon Age does go Tevinter/Par Vollen region, then the escaped slave story could give a way to tell a connected story with a character of a race of choice, with the people you meet during the game connected to his/her time in slavery, but then it that case it would require the game to be set with that background. I guess it is the best I can hope for at the moment.

[ThreeF]

The reason humans tend to be nobles is that they are the only race that can be one in the setting with interesting connections to certain plot points.

 

The "commoners" that you play in DAI are the elves, poor surface dwarves, and qunari mercenaries... so the non-humans.

I will never understand the problem the word "noble" creates. In many rpg games you start as a villager or an ex slave, or even prisoner, it's not like the "underdog" is a novelty.

 

And as far as noble in DAI goes. IQ's nobility is the butt of a joke in Orlais, last in the whole totem scheme of things.

[DreamSever]

the story would've been more complete imo with hawke, but I cant complain about the races, the dalish elf for example has a better story then the human imo

[faeofthefellwood]

I will never understand the problem the word "noble" creates. In many rpg games you start as a villager or an ex slave, or even prisoner, it's not like the "underdog" is a novelty.
 
And as far as noble in DAI goes. IQ's nobility is the butt of a joke in Orlais, last in the whole totem scheme of things.

Oh, I definitely think playing as a human noble is a valid choice - I've watched my sister play a human in DAO and DAI and both stories were interesting and fulfilling. But I like it when it is a choice and not a requirement. Liking to play as the underdog in DA specifically is just a personal preference of mine - I empathize more with the people that the status quo doesn't want to include. In a different setting playing as nobility might be more appealing to me, just not here because a lot of the human/Chantry power structure relies on perceived superiority over the other races, and that rubs me the wrong way.

[Cespar]

The same people that are complaining about the extra resource and time going into something else, other than the races, must also be the people who didn't want Solas(the only reason people say that the female (mage, has to match Solas' class, right?) elf has the best story) or Cullen. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those two characters were added to the romance status with the extra time. So maybe if we had that human only without the extra year, I'm sure there would had been bigger complains going on around here, since people love Solas/Cullen.  

[Hoge]

Considering of the 6 characters I've made, only one of them being human who I don't really have plans on completing.. I'd say it was worth it. I'm not sure I even get around to making a human character I play through the game with! I just generally enjoy being able to RP as another race, especially a Qunariquisitor whom towers above everyone else, it's great!

[Nykara]

I do have to wonder if the extra voice acting and time in creating the extra races is worth it in the long run. How much of the game / production time / possible extra actual story does it take up to do this? I personally think it would be worth NOT having if it meant room for a deeper, richer story overall and room for more voice acting for the companions, quizzy and side characters. I would rather see more conversation choices placed under the inquisitors dialogue, more companion responses and deeper companion stories not to mention more main story.

[Lebanese Dude]

I will never understand the problem the word "noble" creates. In many rpg games you start as a villager or an ex slave, or even prisoner, it's not like the "underdog" is a novelty.

 

And as far as noble in DAI goes. IQ's nobility is the butt of a joke in Orlais, last in the whole totem scheme of things.

 

Yep

[TheJediSaint]

If I wanted to play a peasant, I'd buy an Xbox.

[Warden Commander Aeducan]

I never wanted to play as a human in fantasy games anyway, it was totally worth it.

[Hazegurl]

I do have to wonder if the extra voice acting and time in creating the extra races is worth it in the long run. How much of the game / production time / possible extra actual story does it take up to do this? I personally think it would be worth NOT having if it meant room for a deeper, richer story overall and room for more voice acting for the companions, quizzy and side characters. I would rather see more conversation choices placed under the inquisitors dialogue, more companion responses and deeper companion stories not to mention more main story.

I agree, I just came from a thread discussing the pre Alpha footage...or more like everyone complaining about the people complaining about it. A part of me wonders how much of those pre Alpha ideas could have been focused on and implemented if they scrapped the other races and multiple IQ VAs

[Mocksie]

I would say yes, if the backgrounds of each race were as fleshed out and meshed into the story as well as they were in Origins.

 

Sadly, they are not. The Chantry-centric story makes anything other than a human seem somewhat out of place. It makes no sense for anything other than a human to be at the Conclave in the first place. It would also be much more difficult for anything other than a human to actually gain influence, let alone respected as a leader, amongst a mass of religious human nobles, but this is not mentioned much in the game (only once or twice).  

 

I would say elves should also have a place in the story, but the story doesn't become "elfy" until later in the game. And even then, your elf PC will still do things like "ask Morrigan who Mythal is." The only possible exception to this is a female elf that romances Solas, because his romance integrates more into the plot than any other. Even then, a human's presence in the story is still stronger.

 

Qunari and dwarves, while awesome races, just seem incredibly out of place in the story. They have literally no reason to be at the Conclave in the first place, and there is no way that a bunch of religious Orlesians would accept a Qunari Inquisitor as readily as they do. 

 

I started out playing the game as a female Qunari, because I was so excited they were added to the game. I ended up restarting as a human mage just because the Qunari felt so out of place in the game.

 

Ultimately, I would have preferred Hawke returning as the PC, even if I'm in the minority in that feeling.

 

As someone else has said already, I would have preferred they put more production time into a richer plot/NPC characters instead of spending so much time on VAing/animating/creating different dialogue reactions for each different race.

[Nefla]

If I'm going to look at someone's face and ass for a whole game, it might as well be someone I find attractive.

Most humans would agree that humans can be attractive.

Jokes on you, I am attracted to antique pottery.

[Aaleel]

Most definitely.  My elf playthrough was the best one so far.  However, my current total believer Joan of Arc playthrough may pass it.  But an elf gets more out of the story than a non believing human.

 

If the game would have had only a human protagonist again I wouldn't have purchased it.  Multiple races adds greatly to the replay value.  

[AxeloftheKey]

Yes, extremely. The reactivity and variety it provides has made DA:I extremely fun to replay. My first (and canon) character was a Male Elf, and I love how it came up and was important throughout the story when relevant. I feel like being a non-human Inquisitor makes the story so much cooler. You're rising from nothing. I haven't played my human character yet, and I think I'm only going to do the one. It seriously doesn't interest me at all.