820 réponses à ce sujet

[Tex]

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.

Aw but life's no fun without insanity.

[KainD]

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. 

 

Don't write narratives that require the player to be good in the first place damnit. 

Look at NWN2 Motb for example - you can be good, you can be evil, you can fight for freedom of souls, you can just care about your own butt and nothing else, narrative makes sense anyway. 

[duckley]

I really don't think you should be telling people what games they should play. What if I were to say to you that you shouldn't be playing Dragon Age Origins or Inquisition because of the race selection that is available to you in those games? You might be inclined to tell me that you are free to enjoy whatever games you wish, and what you choose to play should be none of my business. Please extend that courtesy to others. 

 Actually your comment doesnt seem to extend any coutesy to me. At any rate if I offended you apologies, as my intent was not to be discourteous at all.

 

Having said than there was a context to the comment I made which may have been missed. Nontheless let me clarify:

 

In response to those posters who are saying in no uncertain terms that they would not play Bioware games any more if they could not chose the race they wanted, I was simply attempting to  make the observation that  some games are have multiple races (i.e Skyrim) to play as and some do not (i.e. Dragons Dogma, Witcher) . If you like to play multiple races - I was suggesting players not play those that don't offer that choice - because they will y be disappointed.

This was not intended to tell people what to do but rather acknowledge those posters who would stop playing Bioware games - it makes sense they would stop playing a game that no longer had core elelemts that they value in a game.

 

Nuff said.

[Revan Reborn]

 Actually your comment doesnt seem to extend any coutesy to me. At any rate if I offended you apologies, as my intent was not to be discourteous at all.

 

Having said than there was a context to the comment I made which may have been missed. Nontheless let me clarify:

 

In response to those posters who are saying in no uncertain terms that they would not play Bioware games any more if they could not chose the race they wanted, I was simply attempting to  make the observation that  some games are have multiple races (i.e Skyrim) to play as and some do not (i.e. Dragons Dogma, Witcher) . If you like to play multiple races - I was suggesting players not play those that don't offer that choice - because they will y be disappointed.

This was not intended to tell people what to do but rather acknowledge those posters who would stop playing Bioware games - it makes sense they would stop playing a game that no longer had core elelemts that they value in a game.

 

Nuff said.

I think your words were taken out of context. My only issue with some of these posts is they seem to have this idea of what they believe a BioWare game is, rather than what it is in actuality. If one were to stop buying a BioWare game just because other races weren't offered as a choice, you aren't a BioWare fan for one, and it's quite ridiculous to boycott an entire game because of one minor feature.

 

As far as this whole argument about racism, misogyny, etc., I don't even know where to get started... It's certainly fine to bring realism into these experiences and I encourage it. This is something that The Witcher series, in particular, does quite well. However, developers have to be careful how they handle this. I saw a few using GTA as an example of allowing one to be "racist," "misogynistic," etc. However, it's worth noting that GTA is a parody of pop culture. In particular, as of late, Rockstar North loves to make fun of the American consumerist culture. In no way is it meant to be taken seriously or literally as it is pure entertainment.

 

I think the issue many are having is BioWare only follows one archetype in their games: The hero. The only game in recent memory that went against this principle that I recall was Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, where there was a Lightside ending and a Darkside ending. Otherwise, regardless of your moral disposition, you still defeated Darth Malak, destroyed the Star Forge, and saved the Republic and the galaxy from destruction. Thus, you can never truly "roleplay" because you will always save the world or the galaxy inevitably. This is unlikely to change for BioWare games going forward and I wouldn't expect it to.

 

Not to mention, I don't believe many actually realize how difficult it would be to actually incorporate that level of variety into the game. If BioWare actually created a game where you could be good (beat the bad guys) or evil (join them), it would be a financial and resource nightmare. Bringing this back full-circle to the OP, if BioWare ever wanted to have a "evil" character as the protagonist, I believe a more defined character is the only way to do it. By giving players more choice it makes it impractical and unreasonable for BioWare to have that kind of breadth in the game. If they actually made an experience where you are evil and the game is built around that, I believe many here who are tired of the hero archetype might be pleased.

 

Again, I see far more benefits to a more defined protagonist than limits. BioWare games have never been exceptional at roleplay nor is it fair to hold BioWare to such a high standard when their priority is storytelling.

[Catche Jagger]

I would be rather upset if we were locked into being a human AGAIN. So yeah, loosely defined protagonist for me because humans are not as fun as the other races. This is all in my opinion btw, because I'm sure someone's going to start saying how they can only relate to humans, which doesn't make a lot of sense because that would imply that they really couldn't play as mages either because that's not something you can relate to but I digress.

No more race-limiting, please.

[Junebug]

I agree with you that DA2 is better than people give credit but I have to disagree about the plot being watered down just because people wanna play diverse races. In both DA:O and DA:I, the NPC's dialogue with the Inquisitor/HoF is race-specific. Despite being voiceless, the Hero of Ferelden was fleshed out pretty nicely and they revisited their origin arc again later in the story as well.

[Texhnolyze101]

How about no?

[Il Divo]

Don't write narratives that require the player to be good in the first place damnit. 

Look at NWN2 Motb for example - you can be good, you can be evil, you can fight for freedom of souls, you can just care about your own butt and nothing else, narrative makes sense anyway. 

 

Honestly, I don't buy into that premise, even for a role-playing game.

 

I can't speak to NWN2, but I'm potentially willing to forego greater role-playing freedom if the concept/idea is interesting enough in execution. 

[leaguer of one]

 Actually your comment doesnt seem to extend any coutesy to me. At any rate if I offended you apologies, as my intent was not to be discourteous at all.

 

Having said than there was a context to the comment I made which may have been missed. Nontheless let me clarify:

 

In response to those posters who are saying in no uncertain terms that they would not play Bioware games any more if they could not chose the race they wanted, I was simply attempting to  make the observation that  some games are have multiple races (i.e Skyrim) to play as and some do not (i.e. Dragons Dogma, Witcher) . If you like to play multiple races - I was suggesting players not play those that don't offer that choice - because they will y be disappointed.

This was not intended to tell people what to do but rather acknowledge those posters who would stop playing Bioware games - it makes sense they would stop playing a game that no longer had core elelemts that they value in a game.

 

Nuff said.

Someone missed the point here. Your just giving a fancy way saying leave and don't let the door hit you. Even more so on something you can't confirm and a personal preference.

Note DA is a series that high lights personal character development and growth for player controlled characters and it started out with multiple races. DA2 only had one race because of time, not preference. Muliti races is a big part of da as a series. Of course people should expect it.Just like people expect to be able to play a mage.

[Revan Reborn]

Someone missed the point here. Your just giving a fancy way saying leave and don't let the door hit you. Even more so on something you can't confirm and a personal preference.

Note DA is a series that high lights personal character development and growth for player controlled characters and it started out with multiple races. DA2 only had one race because of time, not preference. Muliti races is a big part of da as a series. Of course people should expect it.Just like people expect to be able to play a mage.

This isn't even remotely accurate. DAO was an experiment that had mixed results. BioWare concluded that the origin stories were not practical, thus we haven't seen them since. As far as "DA2 only had one race because of time, not preference," that's a straight up lie. DA2 was always meant to be a more personal story focused around a defined character. In fact, DA2 was largely in response to the immense popularity surrounding ME and ME2. This is why DA2 incorporated a voiced protagonist, personality, dialogue wheel, etc. As many have stated in this thread, multi-race wasn't even originally going to be in DAI apparently. BioWare delayed the game an entire year, which is true, to incorporate the other races beside human among other things.

 

So lets not make up facts and make multi-race more than it is. A select group of fans enjoy it, but it's hardly a staple or a standard in Dragon Age. It has had mixed results and the jury is still out whether it will be in DA4 or not. The point is every DA game has its pros and cons. None of them are prefect by any means. One area that two of the games have clearly suffered in is an undefined character adversely affecting the quality of storytelling. This is a fact, whether the intent for roleplay reasons is justified or not. The question is should BioWare sacrifice storytelling for roleplay at all? Personally, as their games are always first and foremost about story, roleplay should take a back seat in my eyes, in terms of multi-race.

[Patient.Zero]

 @ dulcky and Revan Reborn

 

I'm just getting a bit tired of people who seem to be declaring what is the "right way" to play a game. Like for instance, I for one like the inclusion of a voiced protagonist. Yet I’m not going to tell people who think otherwise that they should pick up something from the Legend of Zelda series because the protagonist there is silent. People obviously bought and played Dragon Age Inquisition because it was something that they enjoyed. Just because the way that someone else enjoys a game is different to the way that you enjoy it, doesn’t mean that that they would be better suited playing something else, it just means that they are a separate individual with a their own way of playing.

 

Secondly, as someone who seems to be favor of a game with no race selection/a fixed character if every time you tried to have a conversation about race selection in Dragon age the person you were talking to responded with “Hmm… Seems like you don’t understand how this game and the company who made it was intending for it to played (as I clearly do), so why don’t you just help your self to some The Order 1886 instead” you might get a little annoyed.

 

I like Dragon Age Inquisition. I like the Dragon age universe. And I don’t think that just because I enjoy the option of choosing my race, that I am somehow less of a fan, not playing the series “correctly”, or misinterpreting something.

[Revan Reborn]

 @ dulcky and Revan Reborn

 

I'm just getting a bit tired of people who seem to be declaring what is the "right way" to play a game. Like for instance, I for one like the inclusion of a voiced protagonist. Yet I’m not going to tell people who think otherwise that they should pick up something from the Legend of Zelda series because the protagonist there is silent. People obviously bought and played Dragon Age Inquisition because it was something that they enjoyed. Just because the way that someone else enjoys a game is different to the way that you enjoy it, doesn’t mean that that they would be better suited playing something else, it just means that they are a separate individual with a their own way of playing.

 

Secondly, as someone who seems to be favor of a game with a no race selection/a fixed character if every time you tried to have a conversation about race selection in Dragon age the person you were talking to responded with “Hmm… Seems like you don’t understand how this game and the company who made it was intending for it to played (as I clearly do), so why don’t you just help your self to some The Order 1886 instead” you might get a little annoyed.

 

I like Dragon Age Inquisition. I like the Dragon age universe. And I don’t think that just because I enjoy the option of choosing my race, that I am somehow less of a fan, not playing the series “correctly”, or misinterpreting something the intention of the creators.  

No one is declaring the "right way" to play a game. What we are suggesting is that BioWare games are story first and foremost. Don't take my word for it. Just ask BioWare yourself, or look at any video documentary they've made in the last seven years... People can buy whatever they'd like. I'm perfectly fine with that and its their right. What I find ridiculous is people threatening to "quit" because multi-race isn't offered. Again, multi-race is not a staple nor a standard of BioWare games. It's something BioWare has experimented with twice in Dragon Age, but it's far from a set-in-stone feature and certainly isn't as important as story, companions, etc.

 

Here's the problem. You aren't understanding the argument. We have "roleplayers" who are suggesting BioWare games aren't about story and in some instances there shouldn't be a story at all. That doesn't even remotely make sense. Again, BioWare games are storytelling games first and roleplaying games second. People who want to headcanon and infuse their character with his/her own personality is fine, but you have to understand what you are buying. It's like buying a Playstation 4 and expecting to play Halo 5: Guardians when it releases. You have to understand the product you are buying and what it offers. That is all that is being discussed.

 

Again, people can buy what they want. What they should be cognizant of is that if they are disappointed, they need to heavily consider if that was ever something BioWare promised from the start.

[phaonica]

No one is declaring the "right way" to play a game. What we are suggesting is that BioWare games are story first and foremost. Don't take my word for it. Just ask BioWare yourself, or look at any video documentary they've made in the last seven years... People can buy whatever they'd like. I'm perfectly fine with that and its their right. What I find ridiculous is people threatening to "quit" because multi-race isn't offered. Again, multi-race is not a staple nor a standard of BioWare games. It's something BioWare has experimented with twice in Dragon Age, but it's far from a set-in-stone feature and certainly isn't as important as story, companions, etc.

 

Here's the problem. You aren't understanding the argument. We have "roleplayers" who are suggesting BioWare games aren't about story and in some instances there shouldn't be a story at all. That doesn't even remotely make sense. Again, BioWare games are storytelling games first and roleplaying games second. People who want to headcanon and infuse their character with his/her own personality is fine, but you have to understand what you are buying. It's like buying a Playstation 4 and expecting to play Halo 5: Guardians when it releases. You have to understand the product you are buying and what it offers. That is all that is being discussed.

 

Again, people can buy what they want. What they should be cognizant of is that if they are disappointed, they need to heavily consider if that was ever something BioWare promised from the start.

 

I don't know where anyone suggested that Bioware games aren't about story or that there shouldn't be any story. We even had a discussion where several of us agreed that, in our opinion, games with no story were not as good for roleplaying as those that had some structure (ie a story). We were suggesting that we prefer to have some balance and that Dragon Age has the potential to achieve that balance.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

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.

 

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

 

While I'm often said that I find silent protagonists for no explained reason in a universe where everyone else talks to be weird at best and for me personally  immersion breaking at worst, (and please spare me the old "just use your imagination" chestnut I have an over-active imagination and so that is not the problem). All of my Wardens does have a voice but it's a battlefield voice and 4th wall breaking meta joke of the Warden telling me to get off her back, anytime I want her to go in a direction she wasn't already going in. It also becomes very annoying and stupid very fast,

 

I would love to play a character like one of the Silent Sisters of Orzammar, a female warrior that cut out her own tongue to prove how devoted she is to a certain paragon. How a more extreme character like Martin in DA2 who had his throat slit by the villain and this is one of the reasons why you're after the villain (I know Martin still retained his voice) is to get revenge. Or if all else fails use The Little Mermaid idea where your character makes a bargain with villain at the beginning and loses their voice or just have the villain "steals" your voice for their grand final plan to take over the world or whatever. Finally maybe just put in a First Person mode that lets me switch between the First and the Third person modes like in The Elder Scrolls and Fallout games that way it doesn't feel like a game and I feel like that I'm in those worlds but only when it comes to voice or silent protagonists. Keep combat in the THIRD person ONLY. I can't stand FPS games.    

 

So what I'm saying that there are ways to have a silent protagonists in a voiced game and not have it be as immersion breaking for gamers like me. Your character can "talk" via other support characters (like the Silent Sisters have helpers who talk to others for them), pen and paper, chalk and a small chalkboard around the neck, sign language telepathy, or whatever works for the story, animators, and game mechanics. 

 

What I don't like is characters staring off into space with no emotions or little to no expressions on their face (which is something BioWare has never been that great at except in few great and classic moments in ME2 and ME3 involving EDI, Joker, and Shepard), while the person talking to her/him is admitting their feelings for them, giving crucial info, explaining the plot, etc. That is just stupid looking and poor storytelling IMHO.    

[Revan Reborn]

I don't know where anyone suggested that Bioware games aren't about story or that there shouldn't be any story. We even had a discussion where several of us agreed that, in our opinion, games with no story were not as good for roleplaying as those that had some structure (ie a story). We were suggesting that we prefer to have some balance and that Dragon Age has the potential to achieve that balance.

I'm not one to name call but one of the self-proclaimed "roleplayers" suggested he/she did not want a story at all because it detracts from his/her ability to roleplay. What he/suggested is the less storytelling BioWare does, the better the roleplay can be. Regardless, it's fine if you are a roleplayer, but you really need to understand what you are buying.

 

That's fine. Not all the roleplayers are suggesting that, however. Everybody has their own views. For me, I buy BioWare games for the story and less for roleplay purposes. There are other games I seek for that particular kind of experience personally. Certainly, there is always a potential for anything, but DA has not proven that it works nor that it should be pursued.

 

Ultimately the call is for BioWare to make. It's a discussion I believe they should heavily consider themselves about what is more important and what they want to strive for. They can't do everything so inevitably something will have to be the dominating experience over the other.

[leaguer of one]

This isn't even remotely accurate. DAO was an experiment that had mixed results. BioWare concluded that the origin stories were not practical, thus we haven't seen them since. As far as "DA2 only had one race because of time, not preference," that's a straight up lie. DA2 was always meant to be a more personal story focused around a defined character. In fact, DA2 was largely in response to the immense popularity surrounding ME and ME2. This is why DA2 incorporated a voiced protagonist, personality, dialogue wheel, etc. As many have stated in this thread, multi-race wasn't even originally going to be in DAI apparently. BioWare delayed the game an entire year, which is true, to incorporate the other races beside human among other things.

 

So lets not make up facts and make multi-race more than it is. A select group of fans enjoy it, but it's hardly a staple or a standard in Dragon Age. It has had mixed results and the jury is still out whether it will be in DA4 or not. The point is every DA game has its pros and cons. None of them are prefect by any means. One area that two of the games have clearly suffered in is an undefined character adversely affecting the quality of storytelling. This is a fact, whether the intent for roleplay reasons is justified or not. The question is should BioWare sacrifice storytelling for roleplay at all? Personally, as their games are always first and foremost about story, roleplay should take a back seat in my eyes, in terms of multi-race.

DAO was a re imagining of older bw games. The experiment was only about translation that to the modern state of gaming. Nothing has been shown that the origins were not practical of bw thinks it is. The issue is time not practicality. DA2 was an attempt for even more of that evolution but with less but only because the da team had less. Everything was being push over to swtor at the time. DA2 was about triming was dao had and the trimmed too much, but it was not because the wanted to. That does not mean origins and multiraces need to be cut. It means more time is need to develop them which da2 did not have.

 

And the delay proves that. DA2 was a lesson on thing not to do and that was cut time. Sorry, but multi races is key to da and with how it sold reflects that.

[CroGamer002]

You lost me at point of no multi-races option.

 

Shepard's is nowhere near as engaging as my Grey Warden and Inquisitor OC's.

[phaonica]

I'm not one to name call but one of the self-proclaimed "roleplayers" suggested he/she did not want a story at all because it detracts from his/her ability to roleplay. What he/suggested is the less storytelling BioWare does, the better the roleplay can be. Regardless, it's fine if you are a roleplayer, but you really need to understand what you are buying.

 

That's fine. Not all the roleplayers are suggesting that, however. Everybody has their own views. For me, I buy BioWare games for the story and less for roleplay purposes. There are other games I seek for that particular kind of experience personally. Certainly, there is always a potential for anything, but DA has not proven that it works nor that it should be pursued.

 

Ultimately the call is for BioWare to make. It's a discussion I believe they should heavily consider themselves about what is more important and what they want to strive for. They can't do everything so inevitably something will have to be the dominating experience over the other.

 

 

Then why bring it up at all? It's the extreme side of that argument that isn't reflective of what many of us suggesting and is therefore irrelevant.

I started playing this series with DAO and there was definitely ample potential to roleplay there. I had hoped that the games would continue in that vein. Just because they haven't made that kind of game in the past doesn't mean that they couldn't be trying something new.

Bioware hasn't specifically said that they're interested in facilitating a roleplaying experience, that I know of, that's true. They have said that they are interested in having the players feel more agency. If they weren't at all interested in the roleplaying experience, why would they have switched back and allowed multiple races for DAI? (I've heard that DAI was originally designed to be human-only, but I can't find a source for it.)

[Heimdall]

Then why bring it up at all? It's the extreme side of that argument that isn't reflective of what many of us suggesting and is therefore irrelevant.

I started playing this series with DAO and there was definitely ample potential to roleplay there. I had hoped that the games would continue in that vein. Just because they haven't made that kind of game in the past doesn't mean that they couldn't be trying something new.

Bioware hasn't specifically said that they're interested in facilitating a roleplaying experience, that I know of, that's true. They have said that they are interested in having the players feel more agency. If they weren't at all interested in the roleplaying experience, why would they have switched back and allowed multiple races for DAI? (I've heard that DAI was originally designed to be human-only, but I can't find a source for it.)

Multiple race selection is part of the reason they pushed out the release date a full year.

[phaonica]

Multiple race selection is part of the reason they pushed out the release date a full year.

 

So I've heard. But I don't know what the source for that is.

[phaonica]

Okay, so I found it.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=ykw4f12Hgj4

 

The reason I wanted to find out if the multi races was built in as part of the extra year is because if the story was almost entirely fleshed out before the multiple races were even added, then the story may not have been changed significantly to support multiple races. Playing a race other than the original race might not have as much special content, but if the story was not written to support multiple races in the first place, then having multiple races did not dilute the story. Maybe playing the extra races doesn't make how the story plays out significantly different, but how much do you really think they changed the already-written, human-centric original story for the purpose of supporting extra races?

[AWTEW]

Bring Back Hawke.

 

Bring Back Sarcasm.

 

and The option to murder-knife people.

[9TailsFox]

Bring Back Hawke.

 

Bring Back Sarcasm.

 

and The option to murder-knife people.

My Warden Hawke Inquisitor

[Revan Reborn]

Then why bring it up at all? It's the extreme side of that argument that isn't reflective of what many of us suggesting and is therefore irrelevant.

I started playing this series with DAO and there was definitely ample potential to roleplay there. I had hoped that the games would continue in that vein. Just because they haven't made that kind of game in the past doesn't mean that they couldn't be trying something new.

Bioware hasn't specifically said that they're interested in facilitating a roleplaying experience, that I know of, that's true. They have said that they are interested in having the players feel more agency. If they weren't at all interested in the roleplaying experience, why would they have switched back and allowed multiple races for DAI? (I've heard that DAI was originally designed to be human-only, but I can't find a source for it.)

Regardless of how "extreme" it may be, everybody's opinion is of equal weight. I don't believe I ever claimed roleplay didn't have a place. In fact, I have stated multiple times that the story is first and roleplay is second. BioWare is trying to find a way to appease fans without crippling the story too much. As far as how the story ultimately shaped up, I wouldn't jump to conclusions and assume even with the addition of other races that the story didn't go through some revisions. An entire year is a long time to make corrections and alter VO, writing, etc. We can try and make excuses for why multi-race was not a problem, but that merely does the game and BioWare a disservice by not targeting what is making their products suffer. Better to find the cause and come to a conclusion on how to rectify it.

[Gileadan]

I think multiple races were added to calm down players and ease the pain of the one year delay. I admit I have no idea what the real reason for the delay was, but I would suspect that a delay of that scale only happens if the publisher has good reasons to believe that releasing the game in its current state will generate more problems than shareholders being informed of a one year delay.  Assuming that at that point, there was enough game to actually release something.