75 réponses à ce sujet

[Al Foley]

OK, I have something that I want to see added in a future patch that could make a subtle but huge difference to the game.  Namely allowing the Inquisitor, or the player, to choose the Inquisition perks before the game...well a few of them.  A la in a lot of bygone RPGs (including Origins) you could chose attributes, skills, and talents.  I believe Inquisition needs such a system in the future.  

 

And for one reason early...not the gameplay implications...but the Roleplaying ones.  Now I may be weird but I have established head canons in my head for what these people were doing before they became Inquistor.  And it bugs me that they would not know or be able to do some of the things they should be able to do before the game.  IE my mage Benjamin really should have had access to historical and arcane knowledge given he was a book worm and...well a mage.  It made no sense for him not to have this ability unlocked.  And what will it say about a 'noble' Human who has no nobility knowledge?  

 

I am again not saying go overboard with it chosing anywhere between 1-5 should be more then enough.  But, it would be a welcome change for future playthroughs.  

[Rawgrim]

This game just barely qualifies as an Rpg, really. Its on the bare minimums now.

[Al Foley]

The only RPG element its lost, really, is the ability to assign attributes to your characters.  

[Rawgrim]

The only RPG element its lost, really, is the ability to assign attributes to your characters.  

 

Nope. Personality options are down to 1. Reluctant man of the people. 2. Holy hero of the people. That's it. Class choices are down to only 5 variations given the weapon style limitations etc. You are not allowed to use all your spells\abilities anymore. And you can't make choices that has negative effects for you or the inquisition. In some cases the game actually takes control of your character and makes choices for you.

 

Edit: Tactics is also gone. Its all button mashing and poor default AI. No need to think during combat anymore.

[Al Foley]

Nope. Personality options are down to 1. Reluctant man of the people. 2. Holy hero of the people. That's it. Class choices are down to only 5 variations given the weapon style limitations etc. You are not allowed to use all your spells\abilities anymore. And you can't make choices that has negative effects for you or the inquisition. In some cases the game actually takes control of your character and makes choices for you.

 

Edit: Tactics is also gone. Its all button mashing and poor default AI. No need to think during combat anymore.

Or angry hero of the people, sad hero of the people, or confused hero of the people.  

 

And tactics aren't gone, not really, they have just been moved.  Now if you do not like these changes or how the elements are presented in the game, that is fine, but they are still there.  Even your five class variation statement is something that you do not get in many other genres of video games.  So...it seems it is very much of an RPG.  If you do not like the 'slimming down' of the options and wish there were ten, that is up to your personal preference, but the choices are still there.  

[Fade-Touched-in-the-head]

Nope. Personality options are down to 1. Reluctant man of the people. 2. Holy hero of the people. That's it. And you can't make choices that has negative effects for you or the inquisition. In some cases the game actually takes control of your character and makes choices for you.

I once complained about the protagonist's lack of freedom when it came to moral flexibility. The standard defense seemed to be, "Well, you're the Inquisitor. You're expected to behave in a certain way."

Fair enough point, but that just means it's an utterly crap role for an RPG.

I'd much rather have been a lower-rung character with the freedom to do right by the Inquisition out of a fierce sense of duty or completely undermine it for my own selfish reasons, or anywhere in between.

[coldflame]

This game just barely qualifies as an Rpg, really. Its on the bare minimums now.

 

but, but ea still thinks it is too hard for us.

[Rawgrim]

Or angry hero of the people, sad hero of the people, or confused hero of the people.  

 

And tactics aren't gone, not really, they have just been moved.  Now if you do not like these changes or how the elements are presented in the game, that is fine, but they are still there.  Even your five class variation statement is something that you do not get in many other genres of video games.  So...it seems it is very much of an RPG.  If you do not like the 'slimming down' of the options and wish there were ten, that is up to your personal preference, but the choices are still there.  

 

Nope. They created a hero for the layer and told the players that this is the guy you are playing. The inquisitor is an NPC.

 

Uhm...we get way more than 5 weapon styes in rpgs, man. Tons more. What you get in other genres doesn't really matter. Even Diablo 3 lets your sorcerer wield whatever weapon he wants. In DA:I you can't even unequip weapons. If you do that the game just magically gives you one. Must be hell going to the bathroom in Thedas now.

[Rawgrim]

I once complained about the protagonist's lack of freedom when it came to moral flexibility. The standard defense seemed to be, "Well, you're the Inquisitor. You're expected to behave in a certain way."

Fair enough point, but that just means it's an utterly crap role for an RPG.

I'd much rather have been a lower-rung character with the freedom to do right by the Inquisition out of a fierce sense of duty or completely undermine it for my own selfish reasons, or anywhere in between.

 

My inquisitor promoted a templar, for whatever reason. Meaning: he just did it. I had no say in it at all. The game is riddled with stuff like this, and that removes the control of the character too far away from the player.

[PhroXenGold]

Nope. They created a hero for the layer and told the players that this is the guy you are playing. The inquisitor is an NPC.

 

That doesn't make it any less of an RPG, it just just makes it a different style of RPG. It's still roleplaying, you're just roleplaying a character that someone else created. If you can't do that, that simply displays a flaw with your ability as a roleplayer, not that  the game isn't an RPG.

[Rawgrim]

That doesn't make it any less of an RPG, it just just makes it a different style of RPG. It's still roleplaying, you're just roleplaying a character that someone else created. If you can't do that, that simply displays a flaw with your ability as a roleplayer, not that  the game isn't an RPG.

 

I think you are misunderstanding the concept. Roleplaying isn't the same as a roleplaying game. In a roleplaying game you create your own character. Physical stats, motivations, goals, mannerisms, behavior, what the character says, persnal development. Things like that. Just playing a role someone else gives you isn't the same thing By that logic Super Mario is a roleplaying game. It isn't, even though you play the role of a plumber in it.

 

Controlling a character the game controls for you requires no ability at roleplaying, it requires the ability to watch. Simple as that.

[Al Foley]

They needed to do far more for the Inquisitor's background, I agree.

 

 

I don't know if adding perks will do much.I guess it's kind of a nice gesture for personalization, but  I think it's all too late and requires more work than that. They simply failed at making an interesting protagonist (of course, we can always write our own stories, but that's weak as hell. Especially in the modern age of cinematic games. I pay to be entertained by other people's writing. Not just my own. It sucks that I end up liking almost EVERY other character more than the Inquisitor.. simply because the writing is better and more personal. That the companions had a lot of attention paid to them). I mostly blame the inclusion of mutliple races though. Not perks and skills. That just pushed the game in the direction of painting the story in broad strokes. If they were given an extra year to implement race options or better story, I'd pick the latter every time. Maybe I'm in the minority though.

I agree that the Inquisitor could have used more background, though some of that was fleshed out through Dilaog Choices and war table missions, but...I thought the Inquisitor was plenty interesting.  Benjamin Trevelyan, my first and only Inquisitor, is my third favorite protagonist that I have personally created and I related to him like all hell.  I think that BioWare gives players the opprotunities to kind of meet them half way.  Their characters, Shep, Hawke, and the Inquisitor, are their characters but you can also create stories around them which inform on how they act in any given situation.  

 

But...as far as it goes...I think I have liked most characters in most BioWare games more then the Player character whoever that may be...granted not all the time.  And the same goes for non BioWare games and even other mediums like tv, and movies, sometimes the protagonists are not supposed to be that interesting.  Not to mention it all comes down to personal preference in these situatiosn etc...etc...ad naseum.  

[PhroXenGold]

I think you are misunderstanding the concept. Roleplaying isn't the same as a roleplaying game. In a roleplaying game you create your own character. Physical stats, motivations, goals, mannerisms, behavior, what the character says, persnal development. Things like that. Just playing a role someone else gives you isn't the same thing By that logic Super Mario is a roleplaying game. It isn't, even though you play the role of a plumber in it.

 

Controlling a character the game controls for you requires no ability at roleplaying, it requires the ability to watch. Simple as that.

 

No, roleplaying games are not neccesarily about creating your own character. Yes, you should certainly be able shape the character you are playing. You should be able to make decisions for them, you should be able to control their personality, you should be able to devleop them. But there is nothing that requires the character to be a blank slate of your own creation for it to be an RPG. And if the character isn't a blank slate, you should only be able to shape them within the logical restrictions of the preexisting character's personality. Mario never lets you shape the character at all, so can't be put into that class of game. But games like...well, many of Bioware's recent ones, do. DA2 for example, has you roleplaying the character of Hawke. You don't have complete control over him, he's not a blank slate but a character with a certain amount of preexisting personality beliefs, attitidudes, but you can shape him, within reason given those restrictions (Indeed, allowing the player to do thaings that are outside of what Hawke would do would be an extremely bad piece of design). And that makes it (in concept, if not neccesarily always in implementation) every bit as much as a roleplaying game as Origins.

 

I'm not neccesarily saying that DA:I is as much of an RPG as it's predeccessor(s). But if it isn't, that's not down to not allowing you to completely shape your character however you want. It's not due to the concept that you're playing a character with at least some preexisting traits beyond your control. It's down to the implemetation of that concept.

 

Oh, and caring about attributes/stats is rollplaying, not roleplaying.

[Rawgrim]

No, roleplaying games are not neccesarily about creating your own character. Yes, you should certainly be able shape the character you are playing. You should be able to make decisions for them, you should be able to control their personality, you should be able to devleop them. But there is nothing that requires the character to be a blank slate of your own creation for it to be an RPG. And if the character isn't a blank slate, you should only be able to shape them within the logical restrictions of the preexisting character's personality. Mario never lets you shape the character at all, so can't be put into that class of game. But games like...well, many of Bioware's recent ones, do. DA2 for example, has you roleplaying the character of Hawke. You don't have complete control over him, he's not a blank slate but a character with a certain amount of preexisting personality beliefs, attitidudes, but you can shape him, within reason given those restrictions (Indeed, allowing the player to do thaings that are outside of what Hawke would do would be an extremely bad piece of design). And that makes it (in concept, if not neccesarily always in implementation) every bit as much as a roleplaying game as Origins.

 

I'm not neccesarily saying that DA:I is as much of an RPG as it's predeccessor(s). But if it isn't, that's not down to not allowing you to completely shape your character however you want. It's not due to the concept that you're playing a character with at least some preexisting traits beyond your control. It's down to the implemetation of that concept.

 

Oh, and caring about attributes/stats is rollplaying, not roleplaying.

 

I should have said "ideally" in my previous post. There will be things lost here and there, and stuff that are hard toimplement in video games. Absolutely.

 

In DA:I, though, you have very very few ways to shape your character at all. And given that the game actually takes control over the character many many times, it is bordering on the player having to play an NPC.

 

Attributes and stats are part of the whole roleplaying picture. You can allocate your stats based on how you want your particular character to be like. If you want him to be a dumb but strong fellow, you can put few point sinto Intelligence, and lots into strength etc. It is about the game giving you options to get your character's physical and mental statistics down on paper.

[Al Foley]

I liked Hawke as much as his/her friends. And since that was the last DA game, I figured they would build off of this model. Instead I think the Inquisitor is a step back even from the Warden.. who was a silent protagonist. lol. At least the Warden had a more personal stake and life story.

 

I think the last two games better met us "halfway". Inquisition reminds me more of the Elder Scrolls with it's protagonist. It's just meeting me halfassed. Not halfway. We're just a random prisoner who becomes the Chosen One. I mean, that's every TES protagonist. It's almost an inside joke or something at this point. Their lore is good, but their stories are lame and lack any heart and soul. And now bioware is taking it as their inspiration.

 

That said, I'm able to create backstories. I just don't get the same thrill or surprises out of it. I like being in the audience' seat too. There's joy in that.. to let other people entertain me. And I resent it when they throw the ball towards my way instead. 

Interesting perspective.  I don't feel the Inquisitor was that much of a step back.  Actually I am surprised how well the Inquisitor worked for me because I was expecting a huge step back given how negatively DA 2 was recieved and the promotional material the one area where I was setting myself up for dissapointment was with the Inquisitor.  But I was surprised how well they worked as a character and just how much you could role play with them.  Not as well as Hawke who is the best role playing protagonist of all time, but...well enough.  

[Jeffry]

Well the game is still an RPG (more like ARPG), because it still has all its characteristics. Besides RPG is such a broad term that you could even say GTA:SA is an RPG. The point is, that DAI is a pisspoor RPG, simplified and dumbed-down for the masses because of EA.

[Al Foley]

I should have said "ideally" in my previous post. There will be things lost here and there, and stuff that are hard toimplement in video games. Absolutely.

 

In DA:I, though, you have very very few ways to shape your character at all. And given that the game actually takes control over the character many many times, it is bordering on the player having to play an NPC.

 

Attributes and stats are part of the whole roleplaying picture. You can allocate your stats based on how you want your particular character to be like. If you want him to be a dumb but strong fellow, you can put few point sinto Intelligence, and lots into strength etc. It is about the game giving you options to get your character's physical and mental statistics down on paper.

Just curious:  Is the original Mass Effect a good example of a role playing game? 

[Rawgrim]

Agreed. Not to sound artsy fartsy, but I used to be more interested in theater.. and I think roleplaying games are fun when they work within the same confines. Where you're given a role, a script, a character.. but you get to improvise within that space, to interpret and emphasize certain things, to explore motivations, but not totally create it from scratch. That would be the writer's doing.

 

There's the other side of acting which I don't care for. Total improv. It can be magical, but just as often a mess. I don't really care for the experience in a game.

 

The roleplaying genre is more about you being the writer, than acting. In a roleplaying game the player is in the driver's seat. Never in the passenger's seat.

[Al Foley]

It can work.. I just don't feel it's meeting halfway as I said. 

 

I probably find my mage the easiest to work with, personally. Just because the motivations are clear as day.. They're already involved in the mage/templar war, so I get to borrow a lot of that. And I like his relationship to Cassandra as a mage. My other Trevelyan is harder to work with. He's just a Chantry brother who juggled knives for fun. Basically. lol. I really have no clue why he turned out to be a badass rogue, other than doing it on his own time for kicks.

Sounds a lot like Kara.  She just practiced archery in her off time.