820 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr. Rush]

Why are we talking about silent protagonists being "dead" when Skyrim is the current sales record holder for all of modern RPG video games? And the only RPG likely to dethrone Skyrim is going to be Fallout 4, which will also very likely feature a silent protagonist.

 

Silent protags are great, and they are very much alive. They work in fundamentally different games though. Bioware makes highly cinematic story-driven action/adventure games that leave very little room for roleplaying. Bethesda makes emergent roleplaying games. You can't really compare them because they have fundamentally different creative visions and objectives, Bioware is more interested in cinematic storytelling than roleplaying. That has basically been the precedent set by Bioware since ME1 and they seem very committed to it to this day. 

[SolNebula]

I wholeheartedly agree with the OP. And bioware need to be brave when it comes to choosing the race of the PC. I don't think they will alienate fans if you force them to play as an elf or Tal-Vashoth.

 

Quoted for truth. If we want to see a game with another race point of view then why not make a game with an Elf/Qunari/Dwarf only protagonist. I would buy that game in a blink of an eye.

[Xetykins]

Sales are in no way indicative of whether multi-race is popular or not. A large portion of gamers never even finish the games they buy. I'd also like to remove this gloss of nostalgia around DAO because it was an incredibly controversial title. It sold well, but it was also heavily criticized for antiquated combat and a generic art style.

I haven't played baldur's gate but I've seen my bf play it. I think DAO was as close as it came to it. And it was advertised as it's spiritual successor. People who complained about the combat and art style, had no business criticizing it to start with. It was not meant to be a hack&slash game. It was a special game on it's own and did not need to be anything else.

And you're talking about a large portion of gamers never finish their games ( though I really wonder where you get this from). I wonder how many of those returned DA2.

And please, why do you always label our leaning towards DAO, nostalgia? Can't you have your favorite game without being nostalgic about it?? In my case, I'm about 2 to 3 years late coming into the franchise, so it's not at all "nostalgia". And just so you know, I played DA2 (3 playthroughs) first before DAO. Yet, I think DAO is the better game of the 3. Although, I don't hate the other 2 either.

Labeling people nostalgic just to force your point across is not nice.

[Revan Reborn]

Why are we talking about silent protagonists being "dead" when Skyrim is the current sales record holder for all of modern RPG video games? And the only RPG likely to dethrone Skyrim is going to be Fallout 4, which will also very likely feature a silent protagonist.

 

Silent protags are great, and they are very much alive. They work in fundamentally different games though. Bioware makes highly cinematic story-driven action/adventure games that leave very little room for roleplaying. Bethesda makes emergent roleplaying games. You can't really compare them because they have fundamentally different creative visions and objectives, Bioware is more interested in cinematic storytelling than roleplaying. That has basically been the precedent set by Bioware since ME1 and they seem very committed to it to this day. 

Skyrim is the exception to the rule for a variety of reasons (modding being one of the biggest ones, until Valve tried to destroy it). If you've played Skyrim, you'll notice the story isn't very good. Some of the guild quest lines are rather entertaining (Dark Brotherhood and Thieves Guild). But overall, what is the allure and appeal of that franchise is the sandbox open world. Fallout isn't nearly as popular as The Elder Scrolls so it's unlikely to surpass it based on previous sales. Also, a few years back a script was leaked for what was rumored to be Fallout 4 and there was a male and female voiced main protagonist. Even BGS may be discarding the silent protagonist because, as Skyrim suggested, it doesn't work very well.

 

No. Silent protagonists really aren't alive. They are almost extinct entirely in RPGs. As video games move closer to replicating television and film, many of these archaic techniques for making games are being discarded. The silent protagonist is one of them. Unless you are playing an indie game, you will see very few AAA RPGs, if any, that even offer a silent protagonist now-a-days. This is just the reality. In fact, you should notice that BioWare, Bethesda Game Studios, and CD Projekt Red have all taken cues from one another. Their games are becoming more and more similar rather than being starkly different. This is the nature of evolution and trying to remain relevant.

[Revan Reborn]

I haven't played baldur's gate but I've seen my bf play it. I think DAO was as close as it came to it. And it was advertised as it's spiritual successor. People who complained about the combat and art style, had no business criticizing it to start with. It was not meant to be a hack&slash game. It was a special game on it's own and did not need to be anything else.

And you're talking about a large portion of gamers never finish their games ( though I really wonder where you get this from). I wonder how many of those returned DA2.

And please, why do you always label our leaning towards DAO, nostalgia? Can't you have your favorite game without being nostalgic about it?? In my case, I'm about 2 to 3 years late coming into the franchise, so it's not at all "nostalgia". And just so you know, I played DA2 (3 playthroughs) first before DAO. Yet, I think DAO is the better game of the 3.

Labeling people nostalgic just to force your point across is not nice.

On the contrary, advertising DAO as a spiritual successor was an issue. It's fine if BioWare wanted to pay homage to its past and make a game that somewhat reflected Baldur's Gate. However, because of this, DAO largely lacked creativity and originality, especially with art direction. Combat was just never good, even on the PC. DAII was meant to rapidly speed up combat making it less clunky and awkward and truly give Dragon Age its own look and vibe, which you see very much with elves. DAO really just looked like generic fantasy, and that was a major issue for the game and something BioWare continues to struggle with. Dragon Age has always had an identity crisis and even today I'm not sure BioWare really knows what to do with it.

 

DAII actually sold really well. The problem is that there was such a negative perception about the game, largely because of "fans" bashing it for how "horrible" it was. I'm merely pointing out that DAO is not the perfect crown jewel many will make it out to be on BSN. I played it at released and the game was heavily criticized for a multitude of reasons. It still performed well, but it was far from a "game changer" and DAII was BioWare's way of trying to correct all the problems with DAO. I'm not trying to undermine your point labeling you as "nostalgic." I'm merely suggesting that people tend to look fondly on previous titles the older they are, even if those titles weren't as well-received when they actually released.

 

DAO is a great game. I thoroughly enjoyed it when it released and I still enjoy it today. In fact, I enjoy all the Dragon Age games. I don't think any of them are "bad." I think each one did some things better the others didn't. Personally, I felt DA2 had a great main protagonist and that really helped bolster the story, which actually wasn't about darkspawn like the other two. Everybody has their preferences and that's fine. I just want to make sure we recognize that every game in the series has flaws, including Origins. If it didn't, DA2 and DAI would have largely copied that approach.

[Xetykins]

On the contrary, advertising DAO as a spiritual successor was an issue. It's fine if BioWare wanted to pay homage to its past and make a game that somewhat reflected Baldur's Gate. However, because of this, DAO largely lacked creativity and originality, especially with art direction. Combat was just never good, even on the PC. DAII was meant to rapidly speed up combat making it less clunky and awkward and truly give Dragon Age its own look and vibe, which you see very much with elves. DAO really just looked like generic fantasy, and that was a major issue for the game and something BioWare continues to struggle with. Dragon Age has always had an identity crisis and even today I'm not sure BioWare really knows what to do with it.

DAII actually sold really well. The problem is that there was such a negative perception about the game, largely because of "fans" bashing it for how "horrible" it was. I'm merely pointing out that DAO is not the perfect crown jewel many will make it out to be on BSN. I played it at released and the game was heavily criticized for a multitude of reasons. It still performed well, but it was far from a "game changer" and DAII was BioWare's way of trying to correct all the problems with DAO. I'm not trying to undermine your point labeling you as "nostalgic." I'm merely suggesting that people tend to look fondly on previous titles the older they are, even if those titles weren't as well-received when they actually released.

DAO is a great game. I thoroughly enjoyed it when it released and I still enjoy it today. In fact, I enjoy all the Dragon Age games. I don't think any of them are "bad." I think each one did some things better the others didn't. Personally, I felt DA2 had a great main protagonist and that really helped bolster the story, which actually wasn't about darkspawn like the other two. Everybody has their preferences and that's fine. I just want to make sure we recognize that every game in the series has flaws, including Origins. If it didn't, DA2 and DAI would have largely copied that approach.

I would never say Origins was perfect. The reason I did not play it first was the graphics and the combat. I really did not think much of it. But I persevered for at least half an hour and I was a goner. And for me personally, they were the only 2 things I did not like about it. So obviously, the answer to those problem was not Hawke, as this thread pointed out.

Although, if ever get to play my warden again, I wouldn't mind f!Hawke to voice it.

[Revan Reborn]

I would never say Origins was perfect. The reason I did not play it first was the graphics and the combat. I really did not think much of it. But I persevered for at least half an hour and I was a goner. And for me personally, they were the only 2 things I did not like about it. So obviously, the answer to those problem was not Hawke, as this thread pointed out.

Although, if ever get to play my warden again, I wouldn't mind f!Hawke to voice it.

Those were some of the more prevalent issues, but a silent protagonist was also a problem. Many criticized DAO for being too old school and antiquated in comparison to ME, which proved a voiced protagonist worked extremely well for a BioWare game. It's debatable how well multi-race performed. What we do know is that BioWare was not impressed with multi-race in DAO and how it was executed. That's a large reason why it wasn't featured in DAII and part of the reason it wasn't being considered in DAI. They tried a new approach to multi-race in DAI, discarding the origin stories, and it led to other issues.

 

It's unlikely we'll ever be able to play as the Warden or even Hawke again. The main reason is BioWare gave players the power to kill them both, thus they'd be stepping on the toes of players who did the Ultimate Sacrifice and who killed Hawke in DAI. David Gaider even said the Warden would never have a voice because so many fans would cry out in rage and it would just lead to drama with very little benefit. For better or for worse, I think it's safe to say the Warden and Hawke's stories are officially over and they won't be revisited. The only protagonist of relevance at this point is the Inquisitor, and who knows if that will be the case in DA4.

[Immortalkickass]

The only protagonist of relevance at this point is the Inquisitor, and who knows if that will be the case in DA4.

And when DA4 comes, any mention of the Inquisitor's whereabouts will be met with 'oh he/she has disappeared without a trace, together with (insert romance partner).'

[Xetykins]

Those were some of the more prevalent issues, but a silent protagonist was also a problem. Many criticized DAO for being too old school and antiquated in comparison to ME, which proved a voiced protagonist worked extremely well for a BioWare game. It's debatable how well multi-race performed. What we do know is that BioWare was not impressed with multi-race in DAO and how it was executed.

Old school yes because it was meant to be an old school. But old school or not, it must have done something right to sell a lot on the first investment of the franchise. They had gameplay preview too, and crappy adverts, so they saw how the game looks. But still it sold well. And a sequel should have blown the sales to kingdom come, but it did not even come close. So really the masses has spoken. Don't you think? And Bioware was not happy with Origin's multi-race??? Can you give me the link of where you got this from?

[Revan Reborn]

And when DA4 comes, any mention of the Inquisitor's whereabouts will be met with 'oh he/she has disappeared without a trace, together with (insert romance partner).'

Very likely. If there is anything about BioWare that's predictable with previous main protagonists, they always have the hero and his/her love interest riding off into the sunset...

 

Old school yes because it was meant to be an old school. But old school or not, it must have done something right to sell a lot on the first investment of the franchise. They had gameplay preview too, and crappy adverts, so they saw how the game looks. But still it sold well. And a sequel should have blown the sales to kingdom come, but it did not even come close. So really the masses has spoken. Don't you think? And Bioware was not happy with Origin's multi-race??? Can you give me the link of where you got this from?

You keep saying "the masses has spoken," but on what exactly? Again, the criticisms of DAII had nothing to do with lack of multi-race. It had more to do with a really simplified combat system, lack of environments, lack of customization and gameplay features, lack of a strong antagonist, as well as a multitude of other technical problems. Lack of multi-race never even came up as being a criticism or bad judgment call for DAII.

 

I don't have a link on hand currently. This was something David Gaider (Lead Writer for DAO, DA2, and DAI) talked about how origin stories weren't practical and BioWare did not like the results. DAI was an attempt at trying to diffuse the racial variety throughout the experience rather than front-loading it all at the beginning of the game like DAO. You might be able to find it if you search for it.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 

BioWare games are story-driven roleplaying games. In other words, story comes first, roleplay comes second. This is what distinguishes BioWare from everything else. What I'm actually suggesting is BioWare to emphasize the story more and the roleplay less because you can't do both exceptionally well. BioWare has tried and failed both times. Being able to customize different gender and looks is fine. Having different races that add little value and detract from the story? A waste of resources.

Nonsense. There have been games that offer great story but also great roleplayability, Bioware included. They only 'failed' because you don't like it. Please provide concrete evidence rather than just personal opinions and preferences to back up your assertions. 

[Revan Reborn]

 

 

Nonsense. There have been games that offer great story but also great roleplayability, Bioware included. They only 'failed' because you don't like it. Please provide concrete evidence rather than just personal opinions and preferences to back up your assertions. 

 

This isn't a personal opinion. BioWare has built their entire reputation on being story-driven experiences where choice matters... That is the definitive BioWare experience. Ask the founders or any employee of BioWare with clout and they will say the same thing. The roleplaying is merely a secondary component to what is the larger purpose of the game. Where the roleplay is relevant is by having the ability to choose the choices that craft the story and the more technical aspects such as player progression and a party-based system. That is the extent of the "roleplay" in a BioWare game. Anything beyond that, such as headcanon and the like, is purely additional player agency some of the community wants that BioWare has never guaranteed nor stated their games to necessarily provide. Dragon Age has attempted to accommodate this fringe of the community with varying results.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

This isn't a personal opinion. BioWare has built their entire reputation on being story-driven experiences where choice matters... That is the definitive BioWare experience. Ask the founders or any employee of BioWare with clout and they will say the same thing. The roleplaying is merely a secondary component to what is the larger purpose of the game. Where the roleplay is relevant is by having the ability to choose the choices that craft the story and the more technical aspects such as player progression and a party-based system. That is the extent of the "roleplay" in a BioWare game. Anything beyond that, such as headcanon and the like, is purely additional player agency some of the community wants that BioWare has never guaranteed nor stated their games to necessarily provide. Dragon Age has attempted to accommodate this fringe of the community with varying results.

I'm still waiting for evidence that race selection limits this rather than enhances this other than you thinking so. 

[Xetykins]

I did try searching for it. David Gaider said that they are not happy with Origins' multi-race? I can't see it anywhere.
The masses has spoken with their wallets obviously? I don't know what DA2 lacked for others. For me it did not lack anything because i played it first and did not come with any expectations, and enjoyed it for what it was. I just enjoyed Origins more.
And they went back to multi-race in dai, when they could easily have continued with Hawke or another pre defined protagonist. The cost of making those races playable is probably a lot, yet they made it. Do you think the'll do that if they thought it won't be well received? This is EA.

[Revan Reborn]

I did try searching for it. David Gaider said that they are not happy with Origins' multi-race? I can't see it anywhere.
The masses has spoken with their wallets obviously? I don't know what DA2 lacked for others. For me it did not lack anything because i played it first and did not come with any expectations, and enjoyed it for what it was. I just enjoyed Origins more.
And they went back to multi-race in dai, when they could easily have continued with Hawke or another pre defined protagonist. The cost of making those races playable is probably a lot, yet they made it. Do you think the'll do that if they thought it won't be well received? This is EA.

Not likely. Dragon Age never has focused on any particular protagonist to continue a story. Dragon Age is much more about massive events that bring an unsuspecting victim and turn him/her into a hero. That has literally been the commonality and basic theme for every protagonist since DAO.

 

Multi-race is a lot of work. It's part of the reason DAI was delayed an entire year because of the amount of effort that needed to go throughout the project to make it a reality. I don't think multi-race was necessarily a motivating factor for why BioWare or EA thought it might do better. The only rationale is BioWare wanted to make a game that could appeal to as many people as humanly possible. Thus, they tried to offer as many choices as they could with multi-race being one of them.

 

In other words, BioWare largely tried to make a "jack of all trades master of none" experience. DAI is by far the most ambitious Dragon Age experience to date. Yet, this very fact is also why it fails in many regards because there is just too much and BioWare wasn't able to commit adequate effort to everything. This is why the main story and main protagonist are largely bland and undwhelming, and multi-race does not help resolve that problem.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Multi-race is a lot of work. It's part of the reason DAI was delayed an entire year because of the amount of effort that needed to go throughout the project to make it a reality. I don't think multi-race was necessarily a motivating factor for why BioWare or EA thought it might do better. The only rationale is BioWare wanted to make a game that could appeal to as many people as humanly possible. Thus, they tried to offer as many choices as they could with multi-race being one of them.

 

In other words, BioWare largely tried to make a "jack of all trades master of none" experience. DAI is by far the most ambitious Dragon Age experience to date. Yet, this very fact is also why it fails in many regards because there is just too much and BioWare wasn't able to commit adequate effort to everything. This is why the main story and main protagonist are largely bland and undwhelming, and multi-race does not help resolve that problem.

No, Dragon Age was given an extra year and Bioware decided afterwords to use that time to add race selection. They already got the extension back when DAI was going to have a Human-only protagonist. Race selection had nothing to do with the decision to delay. 

 

So you admit that race selection wasn't the 'problem' with DAI, but wasn't enough to 'fix' it? So why argue against having something you don't see as the source of DAI's 'problems'? 

[Revan Reborn]

No, Dragon Age was given an extra year and Bioware decided afterwords to use that time to add race selection. They already got the extension back when DAI was going to have a Human-only protagonist. Race selection had nothing to do with the decision to delay. 

 

So you admit that race selection wasn't the 'problem' with DAI, but wasn't enough to 'fix' it? So why argue against having something you don't see as the source of DAI's 'problems'? 

That's an irrelevant point. Multi-race would have required an extensive amount of time regardless of the reason for the delay.

 

That's not exactly what I said. I'm saying it wasn't the only problem with DAI and that's largely because the scope of the game was just too large. I still believe it is a serious issue from a storytelling perspective because you bind the hands of the writers behind their backs, giving them little flexibility in how events play out.

[Cyonan]

This isn't a personal opinion. BioWare has built their entire reputation on being story-driven experiences where choice matters... That is the definitive BioWare experience. Ask the founders or any employee of BioWare with clout and they will say the same thing. The roleplaying is merely a secondary component to what is the larger purpose of the game. Where the roleplay is relevant is by having the ability to choose the choices that craft the story and the more technical aspects such as player progression and a party-based system. That is the extent of the "roleplay" in a BioWare game. Anything beyond that, such as headcanon and the like, is purely additional player agency some of the community wants that BioWare has never guaranteed nor stated their games to necessarily provide. Dragon Age has attempted to accommodate this fringe of the community with varying results.

 

Actually in the modern BioWare games your choices don't matter all that much. The majority of choices made in Mass Effect 1 become an email in Mass Effect 2 and are never heard from otherwise.

 

Even a lot of your big choices throughout Mass Effect 1 and 2 become little more than a number in Mass Effect 3 that can easily be negated as long as you do all the side activities or play a few rounds of MP.

 

Other than that a number of them got altered later on anyway: Udina always becomes the councilor and the Rachni always come back.

 

Plus, Origins had some solid RPing. Even Inquisition isn't bad in letting you RP the minor details of your character, but you're still stuck playing the diplomatic leader.

 

Not to mention that being story driven with choice and good RP aren't mutually exclusive.

[Revan Reborn]

Actually in the modern BioWare games your choices don't matter all that much. The majority of choices made in Mass Effect 1 become an email in Mass Effect 2 and are never heard from otherwise.

 

Even a lot of your big choices throughout Mass Effect 1 and 2 become little more than a number in Mass Effect 3 that can easily be negated as long as you do all the side activities or play a few rounds of MP.

 

Other than that a number of them got altered later on anyway: Udina always becomes the councilor and the Rachni always come back.

 

Plus, Origins had some solid RPing. Even Inquisition isn't bad in letting you RP the minor details of your character, but you're still stuck playing the diplomatic leader.

 

Not to mention that being story driven with choice and good RP aren't mutually exclusive.

Whether it's "true" or not is irrelevant. That is how BioWare has marketed their games since KotOR and they continue to market them as such. Yes, there is a lot more illusion of choice and choices that have little meaning in general. However, there are some choices with impact.

 

As far as Udina, the Rachni, etc. That has nothing to do with BioWare games not having choice. That has to do with poor writing and BioWare not planning ahead when creating the Shepard trilogy. Had BioWare known well in advance where the trilogy was going, they could have avoided many of those mistakes.

 

I never said they are mutually exclusive. I said that an undefined character with multi-race impacts the story negatively. Sure, you can have "story driven with choice and good RP," but it won't be very good or compelling when one is adversely affecting the other.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

That's an irrelevant point. Multi-race would have required an extensive amount of time regardless of the reason for the delay.

 

That's not exactly what I said. I'm saying it wasn't the only problem with DAI and that's largely because the scope of the game was just too large. I still believe it is a serious issue from a storytelling perspective because you bind the hands of the writers behind their backs, giving them little flexibility in how events play out.

It's not an irrelevant point when you are spreading false information. 

 

And you have yet to show any actual evidence that race selection negatively affects storytelling other than various examples of personal opinion. 

[Cyonan]

Whether it's "true" or not is irrelevant. That is how BioWare has marketed their games since KotOR and they continue to market them as such. Yes, there is a lot more illusion of choice and choices that have little meaning in general. However, there are some choices with impact.

 

As far as Udina, the Rachni, etc. That has nothing to do with BioWare games not having choice. That has to do with poor writing and BioWare not planning ahead when creating the Shepard trilogy. Had BioWare known well in advance where the trilogy was going, they could have avoided many of those mistakes.

 

I never said they are mutually exclusive. I said that an undefined character with multi-race impacts the story negatively. Sure, you can have "story driven with choice and good RP," but it won't be very good or compelling when one is adversely affecting the other.

 

What you said was that they built their reputation on choice mattering, and that it was part of the "BioWare experience". However while they have lots of choice most of those choices don't ultimately matter.

 

Also, they marketed Origins as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate more than anything else.

 

I still have seen no evidence that multi-race negatively impacts anything relating to the story. Mass Effect's story is not better or worse than Inquisition's, the choices don't matter any more in Mass Effect, and there is less room for RP.

 

The worse that happens is that the game will treat an elf which in lore there has been quite a bit of racism against suspiciously like a human other than the odd line specifically designed for elves.

 

If that bothers you that much, you can play the game as Human and get the same experience you would have if they didn't include multiple races.

[phaonica]

Ask the founders or any employee of BioWare with clout and they will say the same thing. The roleplaying is merely a secondary component to what is the larger purpose of the game. Where the roleplay is relevant is by having the ability to choose the choices that craft the story and the more technical aspects such as player progression and a party-based system. That is the extent of the "roleplay" in a BioWare game. Anything beyond that, such as headcanon and the like, is purely additional player agency some of the community wants that BioWare has never guaranteed nor stated their games to necessarily provide. Dragon Age has attempted to accommodate this fringe of the community with varying results.

 
They have said the story is important, and that the way players experience their story is what they like to focus on, but at the same time, they express that they know and are sensitive to that different players have different things that they love about their games, which are also important.
 

Gaider: It's like if were were to say "Hey you people who want to know more about the romances and are interested in the romances... hush, hush... the gameplay is obviously way more important." It *is* important...I think that is the majority of our marketing. But when you look at what Bioware actually talks about when we market, the percentage skew is not towards the romances. But there are people who are interested in the romances and that's a totally legitimate thing if that's the most important thing in the game to you--cool!

"Well, there are games out there that have gay characters that don't ballyhoo it". Well those are probably games where you also don't romance those characters so it's not really relevant except in the context of you experiencing the story, which *is* what we are bringing focus on.

This is the kind of game that we make: a game where there are choices that we have lots of different players who believe in things that are more important to them. Some people just want to kill ****. Some people just want to go and romance everybody and have that nice little combat minigame that happens occasionally -- and that is perfectly fine.

https://www.youtube....h?v=4zjJR_VC8aw

 
The extent of roleplaying to them is not just player directing the story, skill progression and technical whatnot. The roleplaying experience, to them, is about a player exploring what it is like to be someone other than themselves.
 
 

Weekes: My main first DAO playthrough was a female elf mage in a romance with Leliana and my first DA2 playthrough was a female who romanced Isabella and I talked yesterday to a straight woman who was really happy playing a male Shepard romancing Kaiden in ME3. So I think it's false to say just because someone does not identify as LGBT themselves that they have no interest in this content and this content could only possibly be interesting to 'the gays'.

Gaider: Well it *is* a roleplaying game.

Weekes: A lot of times that kind of exploration or, you know, going "Wow I wonder what this would be like and what it's like to have this type of relationship as this type of person" that's... that's a really valuable interesting thing for everybody.
 
https://www.youtube....h?v=4zjJR_VC8aw

And, while I was looking for your source about Gaider saying that the origin stories were problematic, I came across this quote where Gaider suggests that gameplay and choices, ect are important enough to them to sacrifice part of a story:

 

Gaider: The narrative of a game is not the single most important element. Yes it is important but a lot of times we have to compromise on the story in ways that you wouldn't have to in places where you wouldn't have gameplay or choices or technical limitations.

http://swooping-is-b...om/1286233.html

This is what I've come across about DA2 being human-only:

 

Gaider: You can still customize your character and choose gender, but the benefit of having the player be a human with a specific background is that we can use hooks from that background in the larger plot. The various origins you could play through in the first game were excellent in introducing new players to the world, but once you completed them their relevance to the larger plot was limited. This is not to say we’ll never revisit the ideas of origins in Dragon Age again, just that in Dragon Age 2 the benefit of a story where the player’s background is integral to what happens was something we wanted to try.

http://www.tor.com/b...nd-mike-laidlaw

[Isaidlunch]

I wouldn't be surprised if race choice returns in DA4 but with the same background for all of them.

[Revan Reborn]

 
They have said the story is important, and that the way players experience their story is what they like to focus on, but at the same time, they express that they know and are sensitive to that different players have different things that they love about their games, which are also important.
 

 
The extent of roleplaying to them is not just player directing the story, skill progression and technical whatnot. The roleplaying experience, to them, is about a player exploring what it is like to be someone other than themselves.
 
 

And, while I was looking for your source about Gaider saying that the origin stories were problematic, I came across this quote where Gaider suggests that gameplay and choices, ect are important enough to them to sacrifice part of a story:

 

This is what I've come across about DA2 being human-only:

 

It's worth pointing out that much of your "evidence" has less to do with "roleplay" and more to do with "romance options," which have been a heated area of discussion in BioWare games since the beginning really. Especially since the beginning of fully-rendered romance scenes starting in ME1, it has become a hot button issue and BioWare tries their best to be open-minded and politically correct for all sexual orientations. That's a bit different from our discussion about headcanon and people having flexibility with their protagonist. Romances are much more of a social concern and it's one BioWare takes very seriously.

 

Obviously there is more to BioWare games than just stories. If it was just a story, it would be a book. That being said, BioWare built their entire reputation off of story-driven games with choices that matter (whether the latter part is actually true or not is irrelevant). What has to be considered is what will BioWare incorporate into the experience along with the story. Of course compromises to the story have to be made with gameplay and a large slew of other things. The point of this thread is that multi-race further compromises the story and the strength of the main protagonist.

 

It's a discussion of whether that's really a good thing overall or actually a detriment to BioWare games. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Everybody has their preferences and I see that having a stronger protagonist has largely benefited the storytelling overall. When the character is just a blank slate or doesn't have much of a personality, the game is affected by that ambiguity and it's up to the player to just headcanon what actually happened. I don't buy BioWare games to headcanon. I buy BioWare games to play a story-driven RPG with choices that matter. If I wanted my own story, I wouldn't look towards a BioWare game for that experience. That's my position.

[In Exile]

I wouldn't be surprised if race choice returns in DA4 but with the same background for all of them.

 

*cough* Tevinter slave *cough*

 

Right?