Even if you are called out for your beliefs - and even if it is by other characters in equivalent positions - there's a sense in which the PC is just untouchable. I think it's that aspect of the game that makes handling racism - as opposed to respectful atheism ("I don't believe ") - very challenging.
You don't have to punish PC for particular choices, they merely have to have different outcomes.
You don't have to punish PC for particular choices, they merely have to have different outcomes.
but you can find those things in other games. why people want to ruiin RPG games... if you don't like RPing don't play RPG games... simpe as that.
Refer to post number 271 please.
Oh no. You not wanting more options does.
I don't care if the game caters to every little detail about my character. I love to roleplay. I'm all for respecting the writer's story and ideas, and working within the scope of the universe they present to us. However, I do agree that it sometimes feels like they're stuck in this awkward middle-ground where you're not completely sure or not if your character is even yours to control anymore. I'm not expecting huge game-changing events based on my race, but I was always fueled by subtle things provided in-game to help develop my character.
DA:O did a lot better job of adding at least more race-specific dialogue. It wasn't overpowering in the story, but it was there and supported a unique background for your character. Plus, going back to where your Warden originated no doubt had some extra dialogue, which was great and made me excited to reach that part in the story. Even ME1 had the background quests specific to Ruthless/Colonist/War Hero. I'd love more of that stuff.
Never said such a thing. I said I don't want one of those to be racism, or rather racism that doesn't have negative consequences. There are plenty of dialogue options that would be interesting for any given situation yet nevertheless don't make it in due to budget. I don't see why being racist should make the cut.
I hope that clarifies my position.
I don't prioritize racism either, that was just one example to communicate a message. Obviously we all have our own priorities that we would like to be present in the game first and foremost, with a limited content.
The term "need" was used as a mechanism for people to enter the thread and discuss their opinions. As far as DAI being "their best selling game," that would be incorrect. DAI certainly did well and I'm not against it winning GotY, but ME3 certainly has sold many more copies. We can just look at the raw data of sale of copies alone:
Mass Effect 3 - 5.49 million copies sold globally on all platforms:
http://www.vgchartz....e=mass effect 3
Dragon Age: Inquisition - 3.32 million copies sold globally on all platforms:
http://www.vgchartz....s=0&results=200
Mass Effect is by far BioWare's most profitable and successful franchise to date. Dragon Age is just not on the same level in terms of success.
Not to mention DAI is on 5 platforms where ME3 has only 3
While I agree with the spirit of allowing people to be disgusting, vile, immoral wretches... I think the problem comes in when those same people who want to play those characters ALSO want the game to applaud their choices.
I love it when people want to think murder, slavery, cruelty, hedonism, etc. is okay but whine about the game judging them for it (and thereby putting judgement at the height of the "evils" list above other acts).
Even the Warden shouldn't escape this (a character the narrative makes "factual" is the only person who can solve the problem) - as most NPCs should have the option to choose Alistair over the player because the player is a villain.
I like games like Fallout that punish you for choosing to be a slaver in one way while rewarding you in another... but tight storylines cannot diverge like emergent storylines can.
Not to mention DAI is on 5 platforms where ME3 has only 3
While I agree with the spirit of allowing people to be disgusting, vile, immoral wretches... I think the problem comes in when those same people who want to play those characters ALSO want the game to applaud their choices.
I love it when people want to think murder, slavery, cruelty, hedonism, etc. is okay but whine about the game judging them for it (and thereby putting judgement at the height of the "evils" list above other acts).
Even the Warden shouldn't escape this (a character the narrative makes "factual" is the only person who can solve the problem) - as most NPCs should have the option to choose Alistair over the player because the player is a villain.
I like games like Fallout that punish you for choosing to be a slaver in one way while rewarding you in another... but tight storylines cannot diverge like emergent storylines can.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Neither did I.I really never though I'd see Sylvius say that about a Bioware game with a voiced protagonist.
And yet, the Dalish exist. They're pretty racist.Racism, on the other hand, is indefensible in any context.
This sort of niche market is best served by mods, I think. It allows the fringes of the fanbase to do what they'd like without exposing the developers to the backlash.Resources are limited. It's one thing to say that we should invest them into a mature RP approach to race, including the chance to RP a racist PC. That involves more than just allowing you to engage in racist tirades with no consequences.
Wasting them to create your homophic racist torturer fantasy isn't a good use of them.
It felt like 10 minutes, as far as that horrible game was concerned.Hawke's story was engaging?
All he does is dick about in Kirkwall for 10 years. The only interesting thing is how Anders manipulates Hawke to start his own war.
And yet, the Dalish exist. They're pretty racist.
NPC racism is, I think, different from PC racism. Solas is pretty racist too (for different reasons than the Dalish), for example.
While I agree with the spirit of allowing people to be disgusting, vile, immoral wretches... I think the problem comes in when those same people who want to play those characters ALSO want the game to applaud their choices.
I love it when people want to think murder, slavery, cruelty, hedonism, etc. is okay but whine about the game judging them for it (and thereby putting judgement at the height of the "evils" list above other acts).
Even the Warden shouldn't escape this (a character the narrative makes "factual" is the only person who can solve the problem) - as most NPCs should have the option to choose Alistair over the player because the player is a villain.
I like games like Fallout that punish you for choosing to be a slaver in one way while rewarding you in another... but tight storylines cannot diverge like emergent storylines can.
I don't want the game to applaud any choices, whether they are good or evil, benefits and backfires should follow on any choice. Players should just be encouraged to be smart to get the best outcomes. Smart evil choices should succeed, and stupid good choices should backfire, and vice verse.
Smart "evil" choices are mostly indistinguishable from good. Actual evil - killing, torture, etc. - rarely succeeds. Even in medieval periods.
Which is why these games should be careful not to assign motives or intent to the actions that are available to the PC.Smart "evil" choices are mostly indistinguishable from good.
I don’t see why. Also, I think it would be easier to defend the lack of PC racism if there weren't obvious NPC racism.NPC racism is, I think, different from PC racism. Solas is pretty racist too (for different reasons than the Dalish), for example.
While I agree with the spirit of allowing people to be disgusting, vile, immoral wretches... I think the problem comes in when those same people who want to play those characters ALSO want the game to applaud their choices.
That seriously depends on what you mean by "applaud". I don't expect npcs to throw rose petals at my feet when I walk, if I play a despotic tyrant-wanabe who utilises slavery and blood magic. I expect them to cower in fear, maybe a few assassination attempts on my life as side quests too, would be nice.
But I still expect my pc to be able to succeed at his/her goals and have him/her feel satisfied doing so.
Also, obviously companions should be able to leave or attack you, given your choices, but that should happen for ANY choices. There should be a morally diverse cast of companions.
Yet their figures show very good sales so whats the issue.
But look, more figures:
ME3: 23247234 million!
DAI: 2 million... so bad.
These are totally true, because reasons that I'm not allowed to share with you.
NPC racism is, I think, different from PC racism. Solas is pretty racist too (for different reasons than the Dalish), for example.
Or is roleplaying fine as long as you are tolerant and open minded?
According to bioware yes. + You also have to be altruistic and emotional.
Why can't we play bigoted characters? Isn't that the point of roleplaying? To be something you aren't. Or is roleplaying fine as long as you are tolerant and open minded?
Well, evil can be fun. Provided that the context is not so mind bendingly insane that the entire narrative ceases to make sense. We saw this sort of thing when KotOR released.
Retour en haut