820 réponses à ce sujet

[DreamSever]

I must admit the inquisitor sounds boring a lot, he repeats himself too often and there is no witty option in dialogue, so hes just a cardboard box type of hero, I prefer the more fleshed out ones with personality, I didn't like DA2 as much as this game but one thing it did right was the engagement in dialogue and choosing whether to be diplomatic, sassy or badass, miss those options, instead its now ill kiss your ass(help and cry dialogue), diplomatic then not so diplomatic and instead abrupt but not badass

[Majestic Jazz]

That's just, like, your opinion man.

Seriously, how many times does it need to be explained that what you describe is not what most of us that favor race selection expect?

I get it, you favor set characters with set names, set backgrounds, and semi-set personalities. That's fine, that's your playstyle.

That's not our playstyle. We want more leeway in influencing and defining this character. We want to make it our own. That is very important to us. What you see as a weakness is what draws us to this genre in the first place.

In my opinon, the IQ was a BLAH character because I was never really able to steer him to certain extremes in the same way I was able to do with Shepard. He seemed to be neutral/monotone most of the time. You say that the IQ was great cause we can make him my own? How so? Cause no matter what I wanted him to be, the game already made that decision. Yes, Shepard was at core a pre defined person, but he was far more exciting than the lame IQ who barely showed any emotion. Data from Star Trek has more of a personality than IQ! (I know, hyperbole, but I am trying to make a point)

However, that may be why people may believe that the IQ is able to be molded in your own way BECAUSE he is so bland/blank state and that this makes it easier to head cannon the IQ's personality cause he has none so we the player have to use our imagination.

Either way, unless there is a cool azz endgame expansion for DAI, I do not see myself doing another playthrough as this game is just too boring. There is a reason why I cant play any Elder Scrolls games.

I am just waiting for Mass Effect 4 to come out, a game that is more Biowarelike and less like Bethesda.

[Revan Reborn]

In my opinon, the IQ was a BLAH character because I was never really able to steer him to certain extremes in the same way I was able to do with Shepard. He seemed to be neutral/monotone most of the time. You say that the IQ was great cause we can make him my own? How so? Cause no matter what I wanted him to be, the game already made that decision. Yes, Shepard was at core a pre defined person, but he was far more exciting than the lame IQ who barely showed any emotion. Data from Star Trek has more of a personality than IQ! (I know, hyperbole, but I am trying to make a point)

However, that may be why people may believe that the IQ is able to be molded in your own way BECAUSE he is so bland/blank state and that this makes it easier to head cannon the IQ's personality cause he has none so we the player have to use our imagination.

Either way, unless there is a cool azz endgame expansion for DAI, I do not see myself doing another playthrough as this game is just too boring. There is a reason why I cant play any Elder Scrolls games.

I am just waiting for Mass Effect 4 to come out, a game that is more Biowarelike and less like Bethesda.

I don't mind the Bethesda approach. In fact, BGS is my favorite developer and Morrowind is my favorite RPG. The problem is that's an entirely different kind of RPG from a BioWare game. The phrase "RPG" is really too vague and broad that it's as meaningless as "MMO" is today.

 

TES games are an open world sandbox in which you make your own experience. That's where games like Skyrim shine, especially because of mods. Whereas BioWare games are story-driven experiences where choice matters. They are much more linear and much more focused to deliver a truly epic hand-crafted experience for the player. BGS and BioWare couldn't be any further from each other in terms of the "RPG" spectrum.

 

Thus, the problem arises when people try and mix and match features from both philosophies. It compromises the experience. I'm fine having a blank slate in a game where the story isn't crucial and it's more about my experience exploring the world. I'm not fine having a blank slate when the story is the crucial element and the rest of the game suffers because of a worthless protagonist. That is where this issue lies at the core.

[Sylvius the Mad]

However, that may be why people may believe that the IQ is able to be molded in your own way BECAUSE he is so bland/blank state and that this makes it easier to head cannon the IQ's personality cause he has none so we the player have to use our imagination.

That's exactly it.

 

Your personality exists only in your head.  no one else ever sees it.  What they see is your behaviour, which is not equivalent to your personality.

 

In a game like Mass Effect or Inquisition, there will necessarily be limits on the behaviour of the protagonist.  The devs can't allow for everything.  But if I can't have the freedom to direct my character's behaviour, I at least need to design his personality.

 

And DAI lets me do that in a way the ME games never do.

 

DAI offers me more freedom.  ME offers me less.  And to quote Yngwie Malmsteen, "What do you mean 'less is more'?  More is more!"

[Majestic Jazz]

That's exactly it.

Your personality exists only in your head. no one else ever sees it. What they see is your behaviour, which is not equivalent to your personality.

In a game like Mass Effect or Inquisition, there will necessarily be limits on the behaviour of the protagonist. The devs can't allow for everything. But if I can't have the freedom to direct my character's behaviour, I at least need to design his personality.

And DAI lets me do that in a way the ME games never do.

DAI offers me more freedom. ME offers me less. And to quote Yngwie Malmsteen, "What do you mean 'less is more'? More is more!"

Well I will defer to what Revan Reborn said. I dont mind using head cannon in a large open world in a vague setting to bring personality to my player like in Morrowind or Oblivion. But in a heavy story focused game, I dont want my character to be a dud but someone with explosive fireworks.

The blank state of the IQ would work great in Skyrim, but in a Bioware game where it is about cinematic storytelling, I want some umph to my protagonist.

Even the Warden in DAO had more going for him/her cause the Origins story really fleshed out the character. With DAI, we have to use our imagination which ISNT what is expected from a modern Bioware game.

Again, I believe this is the case of Bioware bending backwards to appeal to external player bases. With ME2 the focused changed to appeal to the shooter crowd and now with DAI it was to appeal to the Skyrim crowd as this is evident in DAI playing more like an offline MMO.

From what we know from ME4 now (even though Revan Reborn hopes is just false leaks) it looks like Bioware will be exploring more of what made ME1 such a great game which was space exploration. Hopefully Bioware got the "Skyrim urge" out of their system now so with DA4, it would be more like DAO/DA2 and less like DAI.

[Qun00]

I agree the problem with the Inquisitor is that it never felt a real person. He was characterized by the title he had. He is the Inquisitor and nothing else. Being human, elf, dwarves or qunari didn't change anything. Before DAI I was in favor of multiple playable races but now i'm so against it because it results in a dull protagonist. I adore elves in fantsy setting but really there is no point in being one if the story barely recognize you as one.
If restricting our choices for the proganist is going to deliver a deeper character then I'm all for it. In the ME forum part I wrote against multiple playable races for the next ME game.

It changes nothing?

There's tons of dialogue in the game related to just that.

Problem is, people don't want to roleplay. They want to be a spoonfed a good character.

Well I will defer to what Revan Reborn said. I dont mind using head cannon in a large open world in a vague setting to bring personality to my player like in Morrowind or Oblivion. But in a heavy story focused game, I dont want my character to be a dud but someone with explosive fireworks.

The blank state of the IQ would work great in Skyrim, but in a Bioware game where it is about cinematic storytelling, I want some umph to my protagonist.

Even the Warden in DAO had more going for him/her cause the Origins story really fleshed out the character. With DAI, we have to use our imagination which ISNT what is expected from a modern Bioware game.

Again, I believe this is the case of Bioware bending backwards to appeal to external player bases. With ME2 the focused changed to appeal to the shooter crowd and now with DAI it was to appeal to the Skyrim crowd as this is evident in DAI playing more like an offline MMO.

From what we know from ME4 now (even though Revan Reborn hopes is just false leaks) it looks like Bioware will be exploring more of what made ME1 such a great game which was space exploration. Hopefully Bioware got the "Skyrim urge" out of their system now so with DA4, it would be more like DAO/DA2 and less like DAI.

The Inquisitor isn't a blank state.

Each race comes with a predetermined background, while you get to choose the details when interacting with other companions when they address it.

It's the best of both worlds.

[JeffZero]

I fully admit I don't want to replay, but then, I hardly ever replay games within their first couple of years of release. The Mass Effects were the only exception in over a decade. That's on me.

 

For my money, the Inquisitor's pretty cool. Not great, but passable. I'm with MJ on wanting a "cool azz" endgame expansion, however. #1 hope by far, even if I'm not particularly... hopeful. Inquisition's endgame was kind of a hot mess of nothingness IMO. It needs something. Big. Especially since the odds are slim we're picking up with these people in a hypothetical fourth game.

[LPPrince]

I fully admit I don't want to replay, but then, I hardly ever replay games within their first couple of years of release. The Mass Effects were the only exception in over a decade. That's on me.

 

For my money, the Inquisitor's pretty cool. Not great, but passable. I'm with MJ on wanting a "cool azz" endgame expansion, however. #1 hope by far, even if I'm not particularly... hopeful. Inquisition's endgame was kind of a hot mess of nothingness IMO. It needs something. Big. Especially since the odds are slim we're picking up with these people in a hypothetical fourth game.

 

The sole reason I'm not replaying Inquisition is because the game takes so long to complete if you do everything, which I'd like to do each playthrough.

[phaonica]

I still don't think that the Inquisitor being arguably dull is because of the multirace option. Most of the game was probably finished before the delay, when multirace was added, so the Inquisitor was probably dull long before multirace was added.

[Qun00]

I must admit the inquisitor sounds boring a lot, he repeats himself too often and there is no witty option in dialogue

Just a few days ago, I was in the Winter Palace and Josephine's sister asked my Inquisitor if it's true that the mages in Redcliffe were performing rituals and sex orgies.

I picked the response where my character sarcastically replies "It's all true, especially the part where everyone was nude."

I don't think the forum's rules would allow me to express how baffling it is that people refuse to pay attention while playing this game.

[JeffZero]

The sole reason I'm not replaying Inquisition is because the game takes so long to complete if you do everything, which I'd like to do each playthrough.

 

Yeah, I mean, the odds of my replaying Inquisition went down the drain all the further with all this fluffy stuff that's in the game. Just no way. Which sucks, because I'd kinda like to do an elf run... but... well... unless there's a big endgame DLC shindig, it'll probably have to wait until ~2019.

[LPPrince]

Yeah, I mean, the odds of my replaying Inquisition went down the drain all the further with all this fluffy stuff that's in the game. Just no way. Which sucks, because I'd kinda like to do an elf run... but... well... unless there's a big endgame DLC shindig, it'll probably have to wait until ~2019.

 

Hah, my run is an elf run. iWon. 

[Revan Reborn]

Well I will defer to what Revan Reborn said. I dont mind using head cannon in a large open world in a vague setting to bring personality to my player like in Morrowind or Oblivion. But in a heavy story focused game, I dont want my character to be a dud but someone with explosive fireworks.

The blank state of the IQ would work great in Skyrim, but in a Bioware game where it is about cinematic storytelling, I want some umph to my protagonist.

Even the Warden in DAO had more going for him/her cause the Origins story really fleshed out the character. With DAI, we have to use our imagination which ISNT what is expected from a modern Bioware game.

Again, I believe this is the case of Bioware bending backwards to appeal to external player bases. With ME2 the focused changed to appeal to the shooter crowd and now with DAI it was to appeal to the Skyrim crowd as this is evident in DAI playing more like an offline MMO.

From what we know from ME4 now (even though Revan Reborn hopes is just false leaks) it looks like Bioware will be exploring more of what made ME1 such a great game which was space exploration. Hopefully Bioware got the "Skyrim urge" out of their system now so with DA4, it would be more like DAO/DA2 and less like DAI.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with analyzing the competition and taking notes. On the contrary, I think there is a lot BioWare could learn from BGS, CDPR, and other premiere RPG developers. That being said, you can't just copy/paste features from one game into another. Every feature you do has to make sense for your overall game philosophy and all the features need to work seamlessly together.

 

While DAI was overall a very good game, I felt BioWare was trying too hard to implement systems from other games that didn't necessarily translate well. We can look at open world as one of the biggest examples. DAI isn't even a true open world game like Skyrim, and yet BioWare did not understand how to bring replay value and interest to a much larger environment.

 

Instead of having emergent gameplay, more intelligent AI, dynamic events, or actual points of interest with their own story and unique loot, we received a repeatable kill quest searching for resources, a connect-the-dots mini-game, some rifts, locations to set camps, and the occasional quest. Otherwise, the various environments (especially the larger ones) were largely static and felt empty. Not having day/night cycles and a lack of dynamic weather certainly didn't help.

 

We can also look at features such as mounts, the ability to jump, etc. as more evidence showing BioWare was just copying and pasting many features even if they weren't necessarily implemented well or made sense. I'd argue DAI mounts might be worse to navigate than horses in Oblivion, and that's saying something... Jumping has little to no value and could be better translated into the actual experience. There are a lot of things BioWare added that many fans wanted due to having them in other games. Unfortunately, BioWare did a less than stellar job of adding many of these features.

 

I think, for BioWare's sake, that it's more beneficial to try and improve in areas of their own expertise rather than just trying to add as many features as they can. I'd argue many would find more value in a extremely polished and well-executed linear experience rather than an open ended one where half the features are mediocre or not adequately implemented. BioWare doesn't have the luxury of a mod community to fix its game's shortcomings like BGS, so while its important to always evolve the BioWare formula, they can't forget what they do well.

 

For the next Mass Effect, and especially DA4, BioWare really needs to heavily consider each new system they incorporate and whether that actually makes sense to their experience and actually adds to it. If it doesn't, it's probably better to just cut the feature and work on something else.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well I will defer to what Revan Reborn said. I dont mind using head cannon in a large open world in a vague setting to bring personality to my player like in Morrowind or Oblivion. But in a heavy story focused game, I dont want my character to be a dud but someone with explosive fireworks.

The blank state of the IQ would work great in Skyrim, but in a Bioware game where it is about cinematic storytelling, I want some umph to my protagonist.

I don't think BioWare games are about cinematic storytelling. I think they're roleplaying games.

If I wanted storytelling, I'd play JRPGs or Metal Gear Solid or something where the plot advances solely in non-interactive cutscenes.

Even the Warden in DAO had more going for him/her cause the Origins story really fleshed out the character.

However they did it in DAO would work fine for me, since I didn't notice it happening. I don't think DAO did that at all, but if you think it did, great - we can both be happy.

With DAI, we have to use our imagination which ISNT what is expected from a modern Bioware game.

It should be expected in any roleplaying game. How can you make decisions for Shepard without headcanoning his motives?

Again, I believe this is the case of Bioware bending backwards to appeal to external player bases.

I think it's evidence that BioWare has finally stopped doing that. It's only the newer fans who demand cinematic presentation; old-timers like me want roleplaying freedom.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mobile double post

[Majestic Jazz]

I don't believe there is anything wrong with analyzing the competition and taking notes. On the contrary, I think there is a lot BioWare could learn from BGS, CDPR, and other premiere RPG developers. That being said, you can't just copy/paste features from one game into another. Every feature you do has to make sense for your overall game philosophy and all the features need to work seamlessly together.

While DAI was overall a very good game, I felt BioWare was trying too hard to implement systems from other games that didn't necessarily translate well. We can look at open world as one of the biggest examples. DAI isn't even a true open world game like Skyrim, and yet BioWare did not understand how to bring replay value and interest to a much larger environment.

Instead of having emergent gameplay, more intelligent AI, dynamic events, or actual points of interest with their own story and unique loot, we received a repeatable kill quest searching for resources, a connect-the-dots mini-game, some rifts, locations to set camps, and the occasional quest. Otherwise, the various environments (especially the larger ones) were largely static and felt empty. Not having day/night cycles and a lack of dynamic weather certainly didn't help.

We can also look at features such as mounts, the ability to jump, etc. as more evidence showing BioWare was just copying and pasting many features even if they weren't necessarily implemented well or made sense. I'd argue DAI mounts might be worse to navigate than horses in Oblivion, and that's saying something... Jumping has little to no value and could be better translated into the actual experience. There are a lot of things BioWare added that many fans wanted due to having them in other games. Unfortunately, BioWare did a less than stellar job of adding many of these features.

I think, for BioWare's sake, that it's more beneficial to try and improve in areas of their own expertise rather than just trying to add as many features as they can. I'd argue many would find more value in a extremely polished and well-executed linear experience rather than an open ended one where half the features are mediocre or not adequately implemented. BioWare doesn't have the luxury of a mod community to fix its game's shortcomings like BGS, so while its important to always evolve the BioWare formula, they can't forget what they do well.

For the next Mass Effect, and especially DA4, BioWare really needs to heavily consider each new system they incorporate and whether that actually makes sense to their experience and actually adds to it. If it doesn't, it's probably better to just cut the feature and work on something else.

Well said

[Cyberstrike nTo]

In my opinon, the IQ was a BLAH character because I was never really able to steer him to certain extremes in the same way I was able to do with Shepard. He seemed to be neutral/monotone most of the time. You say that the IQ was great cause we can make him my own? How so? Cause no matter what I wanted him to be, the game already made that decision. Yes, Shepard was at core a pre defined person, but he was far more exciting than the lame IQ who barely showed any emotion. Data from Star Trek has more of a personality than IQ! (I know, hyperbole, but I am trying to make a point)

However, that may be why people may believe that the IQ is able to be molded in your own way BECAUSE he is so bland/blank state and that this makes it easier to head cannon the IQ's personality cause he has none so we the player have to use our imagination.

Either way, unless there is a cool azz endgame expansion for DAI, I do not see myself doing another playthrough as this game is just too boring. There is a reason why I cant play any Elder Scrolls games.

I am just waiting for Mass Effect 4 to come out, a game that is more Biowarelike and less like Bethesda.

 

I hate to break it to you but you're wrong:  

You can play the Inquisitor as a religious zealot, an agnostic, or as an atheist you can also change your beliefs as the game progresses.

You can also play the character as a tolerant person towards other character's sexualities, or be an intolerant jerk to the same.

The human Inquisitor have bad blood between her/him and their family or have a stable relationship with their family. 

The elven Inquisitor can be exiled from their clan or the Keeper sent her/him to the Conclave to see what was going on.

The dwarven Inquisitor can be a murderer or a non-violent thief/the person the Carta sent to collect money from their victims.

 

I would say DA:I gives you more control over your Inquisitor's personality than just about any Bioware game has to date. All those examples I mentioned are also subtle and not thrown in at the character creation menu.

[Revan Reborn]

I hate to break it to you but you're wrong:  

You can play the Inquisitor as a religious zealot, an agnostic, or as an atheist you can also change your beliefs as the game progresses.

You can also play the character as a tolerant person towards other character's sexualities, or be an intolerant jerk to the same.

The human Inquisitor have bad blood between her/him and their family or have a stable relationship with their family. 

The elven Inquisitor can be exiled from their clan or the Keeper sent her/him to the Conclave to see what was going on.

The dwarven Inquisitor can be a murderer or a non-violent thief/the person the Carta sent to collect money from their victims.

 

I would say DA:I gives you more control over your Inquisitor's personality than just about any Bioware game has to date. All those examples I mentioned are also subtle and not thrown in at the character creation menu.

All of those examples are subtle and have little impact on the overarching story. I don't mind the finer, little details. However, that hardly makes a compelling argument for why multi-race works. Having a few lines of dialogue or acknowledgement hardly makes something believable or tangible. It's not just words that matter, but actions.

[Mr. Homebody]

I am just waiting for Mass Effect 4 to come out, a game that is more Biowarelike and less like Bethesda.

 

Agree. However latest unofficial news about ME 4 are rather pessimistic. Return of Mako and hundreds of planets to explore. Which probably means a lot, A LOT of meaningless fillers, fetch quests and space elf roots. I don't want to judge so early but it looks bad, perhaps even worse than DA:I. I don't like direction chosen by Bioware, not at all.

[Il Divo]

I don't think BioWare games are about cinematic storytelling. I think they're roleplaying games.

If I wanted storytelling, I'd play JRPGs or Metal Gear Solid or something where the plot advances solely in non-interactive cutscenes.
However they did it in DAO would work fine for me, since I didn't notice it happening. I don't think DAO did that at all, but if you think it did, great - we can both be happy.
It should be expected in any roleplaying game. How can you make decisions for Shepard without headcanoning his motives?
I think it's evidence that BioWare has finally stopped doing that. It's only the newer fans who demand cinematic presentation; old-timers like me want roleplaying freedom.

 

I'd say RPG's to a large extent feel like cinematic story-telling. At least coming from a pen and paper background, I can honestly say that Mass Effect and cinematics feel more in line with what I'm familiar with/ what I want from a role-playing experience than, say, BG or Elder Scrolls do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd say RPG's to a large extent feel like cinematic story-telling. At least coming from a pen and paper background, I can honestly say that Mass Effect and cinematics feel more in line with what I'm familiar with/ what I want from a role-playing experience than, say, BG or Elder Scrolls do.

I think RPGs should be more of a simulation, which is how I remember tabletop games being. The rules of the game governed what happened, but within those rules anything was possible.

The only narrative was the one that emerged from the players' actions.

[Il Divo]

I think RPGs should be more of a simulation, which is how I remember tabletop games being. The rules of the game governed what happened, but within those rules anything was possible.

The only narrative was the one that emerged from the players' actions.

 

I wouldn't completely disagree. As a tabletop gamer, of course the rules applied equally to everyone, PC's and enemies alike, involving combat and other things.

 

But I don't think any of that prevents comparisons with cinematic story-telling. While certainly more focused, I can honestly say interactions in Mass Effect more closely resemble how I might approach role-playing than say Morrowind (despite how much I love the game).

 

In tabletop for example, there is a distinct emphasis on what's happening "on screen" at least in my experience.

[Revan Reborn]

I think one thing that's worth noting is BioWare games, at least since KotOR, have never been even remotely similar to a tabletop RPG experience. The only BioWare title in recent memory that was going to mimic that format was BioWare Austin's Shadow Realms, which was cancelled before it was ever released. It's a little unrealistic and unreasonable for BioWare to follow that formula when they have been incredibly story-focused since at far back as KotOR. I tend to believe what people remember most about BioWare games are the relationships and the events that happen in the story.

 

Finding out you are Revan in KotOR. Finding out Master Li was using you all along in order to steal the Water Dragon's power. Learning that Sovereign is actually a reaper and was pulling Saren's strings as well as trying to bring and end to the cycle. Watching Loghain leave King Cailan and his army to die against the darkspawn. It was these major events that had a significant impact on the story and made the players care what was happening in the story.

 

There is a place for headcanon. I just believe character development and story in-game is far more important to the kind of RPG BioWare creates.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

All of those examples are subtle and have little impact on the overarching story. I don't mind the finer, little details. However, that hardly makes a compelling argument for why multi-race works. Having a few lines of dialogue or acknowledgement hardly makes something believable or tangible. It's not just words that matter, but actions.

 

Those kind of things are in the Mass Effect games but aren't used outside of one mission in the first game. How does Shepard with the sole survior psych background feel about working with Cerebus a group that caused her/him a lot of psychological damage, and yet in ME2  that was NEVER brought up and there were long threads on BSN about it. Shepard's views on religion is brought up only once with Ashley in the first game and never brought up again, If you make Shepard religious how do feel about being brought back from the dead? Has Shepard lost, confirmed, or found her/his faith?  

 

Just because they don't huge impact on the story, I like having some control over my PC in shaping their social/political/religious views from what the devs give me. I think this why a lot of people here are hung up so much on The HoF so much, with nothing really stated about the character's beliefs other than what the game allows the HoF becomes a projection for them so they can make the HoF whatever else than combo of a human/elf/dwarf and a warrior/rouge/mage.

 

One race or multi-race it doesn't matter to me as long as I find the story compelling.   

[Revan Reborn]

Those kind of things are in the Mass Effect games but aren't used outside of one mission in the first game. How does Shepard with the sole survior psych background feel about working with Cerebus a group that caused her/him a lot of psychological damage, and yet in ME2  that was NEVER brought up and there were long threads on BSN about it. Shepard's views on religion is brought up only once with Ashley in the first game and never brought up again, If you make Shepard religious how do feel about being brought back from the dead? Has Shepard lost, confirmed, or found her/his faith?  

 

Just because they don't huge impact on the story, I like having some control over my PC in shaping their social/political/religious views from what the devs give me. I think this why a lot of people here are hung up so much on The HoF so much, with nothing really stated about the character's beliefs other than what the game allows the HoF becomes a projection for them so they can make the HoF whatever else than combo of a human/elf/dwarf and a warrior/rouge/mage.

 

One race or multi-race it doesn't matter to me as long as I find the story compelling.   

I'm not disputing that at all. I'm merely suggesting it doesn't have a significant impact on the story, thus supporting the multi-race argument is not credible. It's fine with not all of your choices having meaning. It's not fine when your race has no meaning and a qunari is treated the same way as a human. That's an issue because race should matter. Ideas about religion or mental state is not nearly as important in most cases for a BioWare game.