820 réponses à ce sujet

[Elfyoth]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Oh Shut Up! 

[AresKeith]

Playing "a strong character" means pre-defining that character.

I have Mass Effect for that. I have the Witcher for that.

I don't need Dragon Age for that. I like being able to have roleplay.

 

I actually agree with this, all they have to do is improve on dialogue and bring back cutscenes for some of the dialogue interactions 

[Heimdall]

I actually agree with this, all they have to do is improve on dialogue and bring back cutscenes for some of the dialogue interactions

And we need to remember that DAI was originally written with a human protagonist in mind. I can't wait to see what they do with a game designed from the ground up with race options.

[AresKeith]

And we need to remember that DAI was originally written with a human protagonist in mind. I can't wait to see what they do with a game designed from the ground up with race options.

 

Probably a lot more race content and armor

 

Didn't they once talk about personal quests based on their background?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

And we need to remember that DAI was originally written with a human protagonist in mind. I can't wait to see what they do with a game designed from the ground up with race options.

It doesn't even have to be from the ground up. Seeing what they were able to do in the extra year, even a few months or a year more than that would be exponentially better.

 

I hope Mass Effect starts to do race options, seeing how asked for it is there and here.

[Navasha]

I, for one, hope they NEVER go back to a pre-defined character as a protagonist.   Again, one of DA2s downfalls was being railroaded into a boring human character.    DA:I is 100 times better as a female elf, than with any other gender/race combination I have tried.  

 

So, no thanks.   Is there room for improvement in making the races feel unique.. sure.    Does that mean you scrap the idea and go back to just another boring bland character.    Would love to see Mass Effect take a chapter from DA here and allow us to play something a bit more interesting than a human.  

 

I don't think we will ever see the day when being locked into a single character is anything other than human, therefore...  I will go for racial choice EVERY time.

[Heimdall]

Probably a lot more race content and armor

Didn't they once talk about personal quests based on their background?

I think that was back when they were planning to do human background options instead of races.

[AlexiaRevan]

 

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

 

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

 

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

I disagree . 

 

This feel like punishing and putting the blame on 'having too many races to choose from therefor it killed the Story' . 

 

No , Poor writing is what killed the Story . 

 

Having Many choices is the ROOT of an RPG! 

 

I loved Hawke , but I also love having to play something else then another new HUMAN . 

 

And Shepard was great yes , but it wasn't because it was HUMAN . because the STORY was well written !! because the world was filled with ALIENS!!  

 

So yes in the end in come down how much effort they are willing to put out on making the said Specie be great . Don't blame 'having too many specie ' . Put the blame where it belong . 

[Steppenwolf]

I disagree with everything in the OP.

[Paul E Dangerously]

You didn't even get to see the Council's holograms in ME2.

 

Lol. Yes, you do when you visit Anderson in the Citadel and they offer to reinstate your Spectre status.

 

even the Human Noble does - even if a lot of that plot is dropped.

 

The plot isn't dropped; you get to confront Arl Howe and you take your sweet revenge.

 

Some people seem to forget that these are video games and not novels.

 

In case you missed the sentence directly before that statement, I was referring to the human council a Renegade Shepard can have depending on the ME1 ending import. You not only do not get to see the Council or their holograms, but IIRC there aren't even voices. It's just Udina talking to you.

 

As far as the other, there's a lot with Fergus that's just not there. He just pops out after the intro and pops in at the coronation, and it's pretty jarring.

[robertthebard]

Hm, Obsidian is a developer of indie games?

Do they have an original IP? The things I most know them for are KotoR 2, from a game originally developed by BioWare, and NWN 2, from a game originally developed by BioWare. I don't know that they've developed an original IP, ever, but just got everyone's sloppy seconds?

[Paul E Dangerously]

Do they have an original IP? The things I most know them for are KotoR 2, from a game originally developed by BioWare, and NWN 2, from a game originally developed by BioWare. I don't know that they've developed an original IP, ever, but just got everyone's sloppy seconds?

 

Alpha Protocol. And now Pillars of Eternity.

[leaguer of one]

1. This argument is mute because the story is about the world of thedus.

 

2. Ironically only having one portage reduces choice.

 

3.This is how dead this horse is...

Stop beating it.

[SofaJockey]

Skyrim, Fallout, ...  The silent protagonist is not dead.  

 

Hmmm, that's a good point, Bethesda slipped my mind as it has been a little while.

Will be interesting to see what they do next, I kind of skipped ESO after the beta...

[Cz-99]

It just depends on how it's done.

 

Skyrim gave us a nearly-voiceless protagonist but it didn't make me care all that much about my character. I enjoyed the story, but I focused on everything else around me and didn't put a whole lotta thought into my character aside from the basic stuff. This is mainly because it really doesn't matter who you are, because being the Dragonborn is all that counts. If you joined the DB and killed for fun, or stole for the Thieves Guild, etc. it didn't matter - 'cause no one brought it up and if they did it was to no avail 'cause as long as you 'killed' the big baddie at the end everything was okay.

 

Origins also gave us a voiceless character to play but your choices actually mattered. If you didn't want to lose certain followers or groups of people you had to put some thought into what kind of character you were going to play. The fact that people reacted to you made me care about my character.

 

DA2 worked because Hawke was fun. They wrote him well, picked a great VA for 'em, and even though the game suffered in many areas it got the main figure right - so that helped. If more games were to give us Hawke, Ezio, and characters like them then I wouldn't mind. However, if I'm forced to play a boring or awful main character - like that scrub from AC3 for example - then I lose both the ability to make my own char and the experience of playing a well-written pre-determined character, and I'm not a fan of that.

 

Inquisition was meh, in this regard. Yeah I got to make my own version of the Inquisitor, and we were given a few different ways to respond to this and that, but because they tried to blend the two together (or at least that's what it looks like they tried to do) it ended up being underwhelming. I didn't get as many (varied) responses as I did in Origins, and at the same time there was no way of making my character as interesting as Hawke - regardless of the fact that he was voiced and had a preset role in the story. He ended up being forced into a very specific role and you couldn't really act outside it. Even if you tried to be the biggest, most evil bastard ever or the most witty and hilarious fool in Thedas, you only lightly grazed those edges 'cause the Inquisitor is intended to be some wannabe Paragon with a neutral personality and there's very little room to change that.

 

TL;DR - If they're as fun and interesting as Hawke and Ezio, bring 'em on. Otherwise, I'll take my voiceless protagonist with varied response choices and go.

[phaonica]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I disagree that the protagonist in these games needs to be more defined. If I wanted a defined protagonist, I could play almost literally any other game. I like that Dragon Age games give us multiple races and background and whatnot. "Giving players more choice and freedom negatively impacts the overall game"? I don't agree with that, either. DAI had an abundance of issues that negatively impacted the overall game, but I think that the choice of backgrounds isn't one of them. And furthermore, there are plenty of people around who didn't find Hawke's story engaging at all, so having a more defined character didn't help those people like Hawke any better.

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

DA: I got a whole lot of things wrong, multiple races was not one of them.

[Revan Reborn]

Skyrim, Fallout, Pillars of Eternity.  The silent protagonist is not dead.  

 

Pillars of Eternity is an Indie, kickstarter side project Obsidian is doing for fun. It's meant to appeal to a niche and not a large market like a AAA game.

 

BGS is a terrible example for a developer for the simple reason they don't create story-driven games like BioWare or CDPR. They build sandbox games, where player choice and customization matter more than anything else. That being said, there are rumors Fallout 4 will have a voiced protagonist, so even BGS may toss away this old tradition of having a voiceless protagonist. We'll see when Fallout 4 is revealed officially at E3 this year.

[duckley]

I guess many players prefer race options in Dragon Age games. In my case, Hawke was not a problem because I always play human characters. But if Hawke was an elf or a dwarf or a qunari (or worse: someone like Geralt, ew) I would prefer not to play the game.

Geralt is a fabulous character IMO. He totally grows on you, and you can develop his personality in deep and subtle ways...at least thats been my experience of him. He is the definition of hero from my perspective. I say that as a huge, diehard DA fan.

[Revan Reborn]

I'd just like to point out, as many seem to be trying to change the OP, that the main protagonist doesn't have to be human.

 

I wouldn't be against playing a dwarf. I wouldn't be against playing an elf. Heck, I wouldn't be against playing a hanar. I don't need to be a human to enjoy the game. I just want consistency and a story that relates to the character being established.

 

Shepard worked because it was a story about humans. Their beginnings in the intergalactic community. Shepard's rise as the first human spectre. It was a story about being an underdog and winning against the odds. That was ME1 in a nutshell, so Shepard being human mattered a lot. That's the kind of relation I want with all of my characters. Who I am and what I'm doing should have meaning. I shouldn't be defined by an ambiguous title such as the "mysterious stranger," "Inquisitor," or "Warden." Those have no meaning and merely signify how lacking in depth those characters are.

 

Again, while BioWare games are RPGs, they are story-driven RPGs, with story being the operative term. Thus, it makes more sense to have a defined and established character because it creates a better story. If you want a character you have full creative liberty over, that makes more sense in a unchained sandbox RPG such as Skyrim or Fallout where story isn't the focus. BioWare has never been that.

 

This is just my opinion and observation of why Mass Effect is more popular than Dragon Age. You have a more impactful character that you can truly make your own and see him/her connect with the world. The only time you had that in Dragon Age was with Hawke, and that's because DAII was built in response to ME1/2 with the additions of a voice protagonist, set race, and the dialogue wheel with personalities to choose from.

 

We already know the next Mass Effect game will have another human N7 operative as the lead. It makes sense for many of the reasons I've listed here. Again, I'm not opposed to a lead being something other than human. I just want worth in the character I shape, not fluff and shallow storytelling.

[duckley]

Can't believe I'm saying this and picking this side of the coin now but here goes nothing:
If we can't define our hero ourselves anymore, I'm switching to Bethesda's games. Part of what I like about RPGs is the ability to play as a race of my own choice.

I think some games lend themselves better to the multiple race concept, Bethesda games maybe one company that can excell in those types of rpgs. But when the story and character development is so deep, the resources it takes to offer multiple races I do believe can dilute the overall experience.

I play a variety of rpg games for a variety of reasons. I see Bioware as character driven type rpgs. Games like Skyrim, not so much. The Witcher games seem very character driven, while Dragons Dogma or Diablo not as much. Personally I tend to play as a human, or sometimes an Elf, so not an issue. I do want to play a character with depth, personality, a history, and a story to tell. Thats one of the things I like best about Witcher for example, or even Hawke.

[Revan Reborn]

I think some games lend themselves better to the multiple race concept, Bethesda games maybe one company that can excell in those types of rpgs. But when the story and character development is so deep, the resources it takes to offer multiple races I do believe can dilute the overall experience.

I play a variety of rpg games for a variety of reasons. I see Bioware as character driven type rpgs. Games like Skyrim, not so much. The Witcher games seem very character driven, while Dragons Dogma or Diablo not as much. Personally I tend to play as a human, or sometimes an Elf, so not an issue. I do want to play a character with depth, personality, a history, and a story to tell. Thats one of the things I like best about Witcher for example, or even Hawke.

This hits on so many points. The problem many are having here is they want the best of both worlds. They want freedom of expression and a great story. It's just not possible on a practical or cohesive level. There are limits.

 

RPGs are very broad in scope and what they encompass. Some RPGs are better for defined characters. Some are better for open-ended characters. The main distinction here is story-driven RPGs and sandbox RPGs.

 

Story-driven, like BioWare games and CDPR, thrive more when they have a more established and defined character. The story is stronger. The characters are stronger. The overall experience is stronger.

 

Sandbox, like BGS games, thrive more on complete freedom and choice. Just to make a short note, BGS is my favorite developer and TES is my favorite series. I've been playing TES games since Morrowind in 2002 and I will unequivocally say it is one of the best games ever created. The amount of freedom and choice is unparalleled with what is offered in a TES game. That being said, the story is typically weak and often not very compelling to start. Try beating the main campaign of Oblivion...

 

Thus, people need to come to a realization and a choice. If you want more character creation and to "roleplay" your character more, BioWare games aren't necessarily appropriate for that to start. As far as the actual game is concerned, you follow a linear story in which has diverging paths based on your decisions. Whereas a BGS game allows you to do whatever you want in whatever order and you just go out and explore. That is much better from a "roleplay" standpoint.

 

I'm not suggesting BioWare shouldn't do multi-race at all. However, they, and the community, needs to recognize that such a concession does not necessarily make sense for the kind of experience they build and weakens the game as a result. As others have stated, if I wanted to have multiple races, there are ten to choose from in Skyrim with different racial abilities and perks (not including mods). I don't need Dragon Age to fail to do what Skyrim can do so much better. I'd rather BioWare focus on their strengths: great characters and great story.

[Steppenwolf]

Pillars of Eternity is an Indie, kickstarter side project Obsidian is doing for fun. 

 

Pillars of Eternity is not an indie game. It was made by a huge team of industry veterans for like $4,500,000.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

In your opinion, maybe race selection lessens the storytelling. To others, it enhances the storytelling since it allows the player to see and handle the situations we are put in from different angles. You can have both a lot of choices and a good story. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

This is just my opinion and observation of why Mass Effect is more popular than Dragon Age. You have a more impactful character that you can truly make your own and see him/her connect with the world. The only time you had that in Dragon Age was with Hawke, and that's because DAII was built in response to ME1/2 with the additions of a voice protagonist, set race, and the dialogue wheel with personalities to choose from.

 

We already know the next Mass Effect game will have another human N7 operative as the lead. It makes sense for many of the reasons I've listed here. Again, I'm not opposed to a lead being something other than human. I just want worth in the character I shape, not fluff and shallow storytelling.

Mass Effect is more popular since it appeals to a larger audience. 

 

For RPG fans, it gives them a good scifi story with lots of roleplayability. 

For Shooter fans, it gives them a Shooter with a good scifi story. 

 

And we sdon't know it is human-only yet. DAI was originally presented as human-only, but they added race selection in later. Since ME:Next has at least a year of development left, we can't say for sure what it will and will not have in terms of protgonist.