820 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Eh, I think the HoF was fine, but I'll agree to the Inquisitor being a step in the entirely wrong direction.

[Dr. rotinaj]

I don't think DA4 needs a more fixed protagonist. Even though Hawke is my favourite hero, I still think that having multiple races and backgrounds grants more rp possibilities. In the end the quality of characters with variable backgrounds depends highly on how the game reacts to them.

 

I really liked the different origins in DAO because they interacted with the story and settings in realistic ways. The main story of the Blight didn't really lean to one or two specific races, so it was natural to have a lot of small "Hey you're an elf" references to add some minor flavour to conversations. Bigger references and origin-specific content came in the Origins and visiting areas where your background is relevant like Orzammar, Brecillian Forest, the Circle, etc. This is why I feel that Origins succeeded in implementing different backgrounds. I rarely felt like saying "I'm an elf, I should be able to say this" or "this person should react to me being an elf" because all the references to my background fit the narrative. DAI didn't do that so well.

 

DAI was originally supposed to be human only and it shows. The story focuses on verrrry human centric things. The Chantry, the Circles, the Templars, etc. The game leans heavily to the human perspective. This is problematic because unless Bioware adds a lot of race specific dialogue for non-human inquisitors, they will be indistinguishable from humans. And this is exactly what happened in DAI. Apart from "I don't believe in the Maker", there was very little to say about being non-human in a human mess. Even worse is the fact that because the narrative is so human-centric, even the simplest of dialogues would not only benefit from origin-specific lines but require them. Take for example a personal favourite example. When asking Dorian about the differences between the Tevinter Chantry and the Orlesian one. The line is something like "What makes the Tevinter Chantry different from ours?" This is my favourite example because it shows the problem in one short word "ours". This implies some sort of connection to the humans of the south and the southern Chantry. Such a line would never be spoken by a qunari or a dalish. There are more example but this is the one that jumps out the most to me. This is where DAI's multiple backgrounds failed, the human focus demands greater than possible amounts of specific dialogue to make the origins seem like different experiences.

 

I loved playing as Hawke but I wouldn't say I'm not down for another HoF/Inquisitor type protagonist. Just make sure the game has a more universal story or a lot of specific dialogue.

[Beomer]

He's more engaging than the Warden, who never speaks and lacks an identity. He's also more engaging than the Inquisitor, who is nothing more than a title with no connection or personal relationship to anyone or anything. I'll take Hawke over two planks of wood (HoF and Inquisitor) any day of the week. At least Hawke had strong ties to family and friends that built and shaped his/her character throughout those ten years.

 

 

In all seriousness though, I both agree and disagree with you. On the personality front, the Warden was indeed a blank slate. You could fill in his personality. And that's what made him /her great.

But I was actually talking about their stories. I found DA2's story very dull, and Hawke's part in it stupid and tragic.

[Dai Grepher]

For one, silent protagonists are a dead archetype. Thankfully, it seems BioWare has finally come to this conclusion and discarded any chance of ever having a dumbfounded main character awkwardly staring at everybody else while they talk for 50 hours.

 

Secondly, multi-race selection with multiple backgrounds is bad for game development and storytelling. When there are so many variables and possibilities to consider, it dilutes and cheapens the overall story. The reason Shepard's story and even Hawke's story were so engaging is because they were more defined. However, in that definition, we also had more flexibility to shape their personality.

 

You can't do that with a silent protagonist or a main character who can be four different races with a dozen different backgrounds. There's just too many variables and not enough defined points. Giving players more choice and freedom negatively impacts the overall game and the story BioWare can create.

 

Thus, I believe the next protagonist in DA4 needs to be more akin to Shepard/Hawke and less so to the Inquisitor/HoF.

 

But that defeats the whole purpose of roleplaying and on-going storylines. The HoF/Inquiz continuation is an interesting idea specifically because there are many options and paths available.

 

BioWare simply needs to get on the ball and implement a system that allows the Hero and Inquisitor (and Hawke) to return to the playable game and have all their possible choices and origins recognized and expounded. This includes voicing the Hero with all the same voices from Origins where the voice actors are available.

[Morroian]

Oh look, people is throwing VGChartz's bullshit around... again.

 

Yet their figures show very good sales so whats the issue. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm far less concerned about race selection that I am about personality. Shepard and Hawke failed not because they were human, but because they had rigid backgrounds and pre-defined personalities. But worse, because those games expected the player to get to know the protagonist throughout the game; to learn about Hawke's or Shepard's personality as an ongoing part of the game.

And that breaks roleplaying. Voiced protagonists don't have to do this (as DAI demonstrates), and it's not a problem unique to voiced protagonists (as KotOR2 demonstrates). The issue is more with how much room is left for the player to define the protagonist's personality, and then play in accordance with that definition.

With a pre-defined character, it's not possible for the player to know enough about the character in order to play as him (or her). BioWare would need to convey a massive amount of detailed information about the PC's background and personality during character creation in order to inform the player's choices, and I can't imagine them doing that.

DAI offers the only voiced protagonist so far that we can actually roleplay. That may well be a consequence of there being race selection, because they can't define the protagonist as narrowly if they don't know what race it will be. BUt regardless of whether there is race selection, it's important that they not define the protagonist as narrowly as they did with Shepard and Hawke.

Letting is roleplay is more important than tightening up the authored narrative. The strength of BioWare's story-driven games is the emerging narrative, and writing a tighter authored narrative gets in the way of that.

[KainD]

DAI offers the only voiced protagonist so far that we can actually roleplay.

Agree with pretty much everything you've said except for this. Inquisitor feels very defined to me, not much is left for role play.

[Toasted Llama]

Yet their figures show very good sales so whats the issue. 

I could also fart out amazing or horrible numbers and call them Bio's sales numbers.

That doesn't make them valid/real though.

[Tex]

Shout out to my boys
Cloud from ff7
Chrono from Chrono Trigger
Fei from Xenogears
and of course Geralt
 few of the best pre custom characters from the some of the greatest true dynamic RPGs of all time

One tiny detail most if not all of them are male so for people like me who don't play male characters this literally means nothing sorry.

[Revan Reborn]

Just a few points to touch on here as this discussion is becoming quite interesting:

 

I don't actually believe emergent gameplay is appropriate for a BioWare game. That's not to say I don't like emergent gameplay, as that's one of the main reasons I love TES and it is my favorite game series. However, such a system where anything could happen, theoretically, makes more sense in a sandbox experience where it's left up to the player to determine what he/she does next.

 

Whereas with a BioWare game, regardless of how open they try to make it, the story will always confine and focus what the actual player does. I'd only see emergent gameplay detracting from the main story or quests and merely being an impediment to what many players likely want to do. It's something I'd like to see BGS continue to perfect, but I'd rather BioWare approach it from a different angle: reactivity.

 

BioWare games are not only about story, but they are about the choices you make in that story. One of the greatest examples of a game with amazing reactivity is Fable 1. Every choice you make impacts how the people of Albion perceive you and what their disposition is towards you. People are extremely judgmental in real life based on your looks, how you act, and what you do. I'd like to see that translate more into a BioWare game in which have historically lacked reactivity.

 

As I stated earlier, one possible way of helping to resolve the multi-race issue is NPCs reacting to your race and perhaps even deciding whether they will associate with you at all. I believe it would make the entire experience more dynamic if you couldn't talk to this NPC because he hates elves and you had to find another solution to finish that quest or story plot, for example. That is to say reactivity, alone, won't fix the multi-race issue.

 

Again, by allowing players the capacity to roleplay in their mind, BioWare loses control and subsequently lessens the connection of the protagonist to the world he/she is in. Making concessions one way or another impacts the story and all that can be done are applying systems that would mitigate that damage. Obviously, I'd be in favor of a more defined character due to the story-driven nature of a BioWare game. If the story wasn't so important, I wouldn't mind multi-race nearly as much.

[KainD]

One tiny detail most if not all of them are male so for people like me who don't play male characters this literally means nothing sorry.

Tiny detail indeed.

[KainD]

Some more to the OP.

The most important thing to me personally about roleplaying is meaningful expression of opinion, and it is more important to me than alternative story paths.

As an example - Pillars of eternity has a set main story, that the player does not deviate from. But the capacity of roleplaying expression is huge. The player can express their opinion on the quest in many ways, making diverse stances, even though the story remains the same. Pillars of eternity never made my character say what I didn't want them to say, where's in Inquisition it happened constantly.

[Lebanese Dude]

Agree with pretty much everything you've said except for this. Inquisitor feels very defined to me, not much is left for role play.

 

Very incorrect. Between the different backgrounds, their potential viewpoints, their personality conveyed via dialogue, their beliefs reflected by their actions, and their emotional reaction to situations, there is a signfiicant amount of roleplaying capacity.

 

The only thing that's defined about your character is that they are committed to the Inquisition's cause once they join it.

 

It's even made logical via the need to survive in the intro, followed by the need to be protected later on. Ultimately, any constraints are necessary for there to be a consistent story to tell in the continuous story of Thedas during the Dragon Age.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd rather define a character myself rather than have it all predefined for me, so I'll take the DAO/DAI approach.

Though if a happy medium can be found, I'd like that too.

DAO and DAI are the happy medium. Having pre-written backgrounds or a voice is already a massive compromise.

[KainD]

Very incorrect. Between the different backgrounds, their potential viewpoints, their personality conveyed via dialogue, their beliefs reflected by their actions, and their emotional reaction to situations, there is a signfiicant amount of roleplaying capacity.

The only thing that's defined about your character is that they are committed to the Inquisition's cause once they join it.

It's even made logical via the need to survive in the intro, followed by the need to be protected later on. Ultimately, any constraints are necessary for there to be a consistent story to tell in the continuous story of Thedas during the Dragon Age.

True in a way but the responses are very similar, not diverse for my taste. Its like many shades of basically the same stances, I like more edgy.

Very simple random example - why cant I tell Dorian for example that I'm cool with slavery?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Shout out to my boys
Cloud from ff7
Chrono from Chrono Trigger
Fei from Xenogears
and of course Geralt
few of the best pre custom characters from the some of the greatest true dynamic RPGs of all time

I've never seen a JRPG that let me roleplay.

FF7 certainly didn't.

[LPPrince]

DAO and DAI are the happy medium. Having pre-written backgrounds or a voice is already a massive compromise.

 

Actually Sylv I want to ask- did you enjoy Inquisition? Curious.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Actually Sylv I want to ask- did you enjoy Inquisition? Curious.

Immensely. I think it's terrific.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Very simple random example - why cant I tell Dorian for example that I'm cool with slavery?

This is a persistent problem in BioWare's games. In DA2 I couldn't even be civil when talking to slavers (even though they'd treated me fairly).

While we're playing in a setting with different physical rules, apparently we're not allowed to consider the possibility of different moral rules.

[KainD]

This is a persistent problem in BioWare's games. In DA2 I couldn't even be civil when talking to slavers (even though they'd treated me fairly).

While we're playing in a setting with different physical rules, apparently we're not allowed to consider the possibility of different moral rules.

Basically.

That's the beef I have with bioware games.
A big part of roleplaying to me is establishing varying sets of morals for the characters. But bioware allows roleplaying only within a pre-set moral set that is established by them for the character.

[Steelcan]

I prefer the Warden and Inquisitor to Hawke certainly, ME is a different can of worms since its decidedly a story centered on humans

[Shechinah]

I think the choice of dialogue could be improved upon in the next installment because it adds something when you are roleplaying a character undergoing development, creating a "grey" character or conveying different cultural norms and morals. I do not think Inquisition was entirely devoid of non-black and white options and it didn't impede the character development I was trying to have my Inquisitor undergo but I do definitely think it could be improved upon especially if we are going north in the next installment where norms and cultural differences are likely to be more apparent.

[Steelcan]

Basically.

That's the beef I have with bioware games.
A big part of roleplaying to me is establishing varying sets of morals for the characters. But bioware allows roleplaying only within a pre-set moral set that is established by them for the character.

because BioWare is probably terrified of alienating minorities

 

Its all well and good to support slavery in game, and I certainly do support the option to take different moral stances, but I doubt they want to be stuck with the label of "Games where your protagonist would fit in with the Confederacy"

[Shechinah]

(to Steelcan) I don't think that was necessarily why options like that were left out. It might just have been low prioritizing or them thinking they would need to add additional dialogue options to follow up on it.  

[KainD]

because BioWare is probably terrified of alienating minorities

Its all well and good to support slavery in game, and I certainly do support the option to take different moral stances, but I doubt they want to be stuck with the label of "Games where your protagonist would fit in with the Confederacy"

This is where political correctness ruins games.

Ideally anything should go around.

You should be able to role play a gay character and a homophobic one, a slaver and a freedom fighter, a religious zelot and an atheist, a racist, misogynist, feminazi and an equalist.

But hey, apparently games with a Mature rating still have to teach kids how to behave in real life.