820 réponses à ce sujet

[Illegitimus]

 

Yep. I don't care if I'm a dwarf, a qunari, an elf, or a human. What I want BioWare is to choose which one we'll be.

 

If there's only one choice that choice will be human.  

[diaspora2k5]

I guess that's one way to get me to not buy it.

[CoM Solaufein]

I play RPGs to play a role and a character of my choosing, not a premade character which I detest. One reason why I haven't played DA2.

[diaspora2k5]

I play RPGs to play a role and a character of my choosing, not a premade character which I detest. One reason why I haven't played DA2.

DAII isn't a bad game by any means but it's definitely one of those one step forward, two steps back type deals.

[leadintea]

IMO, DA4 would work much better with race selection if it's done Origins style. I mean, there's such a wide range of backgrounds the protagonist could have in a place like Tevinter. You could have a human or elven mage in the high parts of society, a dwarven merchant or human warrior in the middle parts, and a slave, of all races, and a captured Qunari in the lowest parts. And since the Inquisitor is specifically looking for someone new to deal with Solas, he can have Dorian persuade the protagonist to join the Lucerni, after their Origin story, to begin preparations against Solas, kinda like Duncan did for the HoF in DAO.

[Bhryaen]

How many games out there have race choices and also have deep, rich, story and characters and companions?

*ahem* DAO *ahem*

 

Personally, I would rather have fewer race choices and a deep, rich story with real relationships with companions than a ton of racial choices.

Thing is, "more race choices" and a "deep, rich story with real relationships with companions" aren't mutually exclusive. DAO may be rare, but, well, that's why it's well-loved by a wide variety of rpg players. It has a very unique and special game mechanic among rpg's- and it happens to have an exceptionally immersive narrative. This is the DA franchise we're talking about, yeah? No need to reinvent the wheel. Just keep developing it. They could do a hell of a lot more with DA in DA4 if they focus on unique stories for each origin rather than taking up so much dev time expanding Assassin's Creed quests.

 

One of the pluses of having a single protagonist, aside from not having to spread resources so thin that you get the short stick somewhere, is that you get to see them grow, develop, mature, if there are a series of games. Iconic figures like Shepard and Geralt are such a treat to see - like an old friend.

And I feel the same about Kruklya Brosca and Jagan Aeducan and Feylathil Mahariel- like old friends I got to know, and all different- and all part of the same game! Never heard of them? Of course, not: you made your own DAO character(s). And was it not kinda fun?

 

But, hey, I'm not knocking you if you prefer pre-generated characters- you know, like the ones they give you when you first open the DA CC. Or sort of like Shepard and Hawke (since you can at least name and CC your own Shepard and Hawke) or Geralt or Talion or even The Bard from "The Bard's Tale." I've played a number of such games myself. It just happens to remain the case that reduction to a single available protagonist is also not mutually inclusive of a "deep, rich story." As much as I enjoyed "Shadows of Mordor," killing orcs isn't exactly emotionally fulfilling after the first 80hrs or so...

[robertthebard]

1) What are you talking about, rage?  What has that got to do with anything I've said?  Are you talking about them being memorable or beloved characters?  Because if you are, let's keep in mind that we're talking about a Bioware forum.  Go someplace where it's not a bunch of people drooling over this specific set of games and you're not going to find much discussion on them because, shock of shocks, people just don't care all that much about them.
 
2) Of course people want the Inquisitor as the next protagonist in this forum.  It's a fan forum, thus filled with fanboys.  Most the people you see here also liked this game and probably thought it deserved GotY for little other reason than Bioware made it.  Well I rather have a discussion with reason backing, of what can be if things are done this or that way.
 
Look, I'm not saying remove all choice, or even a character creator.  Hell, you can even have a race selection if you have, say, a mercenary background.  But this neutral character with limited background that we're supposed to fill in the holes to yet speaks with their own voice is just horrible.  These are not our characters, and if you think so I have to seriously question the RPGs you've experienced.  And frankly, the more titles Bioware creates like this, the lazier they're becoming with regards to these characters.  Shepard became more and more simplified as the titles went on, Hawke was schizophrenic as hell, and the Inquisitor is easily the worst Bioware protagonist yet created in terms of writing, acting, breaking the mold, and cliches.

Ironically, we're discussing BioWare games on a BioWare forum, and if you sincerely believe that the ME 3 forums are full of gushing fanboys, we really need to work on your definition of fanboy, or maybe gushing...

So you come to the game's forum with "It's just not popular, but of course people want it, because it's the game's forum"? That statement is contradictory. If it's not popular, people wouldn't want it. I don't want the Inquisitor to come back, I also didn't want Hawke to come back, or the Warden. It's not because I didn't like the characters, it's because their arcs were done. I want the story of Thedas that they're telling. They've been telling us this since nearly day one, "the star of the show is Thedas, and the PCs are windows we can use to see the world". It doesn't have anything to do with liking or not liking any of the protagonists to date, it's all about Thedas, for me.

It's interesting to note, along this line, that I didn't buy ME until one day, when I was bored, and there were like 10 positive reviews of ME 3 marked as spam on Amazon. The Take Back movement was everywhere, trashing ME 3, and I wanted to see what the fuss was about. So, I bought the first, then the second and then the third installment. If you're supposition is true, that people aren't discussing these games anywhere else, I'd have never bought ME, because it looked more like a shooter than an RPG, and I don't do shooters, as a rule. Since they were everywhere doing everything they could to curtail sales, I bought them, so BioWare/EA can thank the Take Back movement for my purchases. I wonder how many others were as curious, and bought the games for the same reason?

[CardButton]

How does anyone expect to have a Shepard/Hawke style character if a protagonist is constantly shoved aside whenever a new game in the DA series comes out?  

 

While Hawke was never a poorly written character themselves, the setting and story of Dragon Age 2 condemned them to mediocrity.  Heck, considering the actual influence Hawke had on the events at Kirkwall (and Cory if you actually bought the DLC) its doubtful anyone would consider them the "Champion" if it weren't for Varric's book.  With the exception of Qunari occupation, Hawke's only direct affect was hastening events that would certainly have occurred with or without them. As for Shepard, that character had 3 games to get you attached to them, their decisions, their companions, and their impact on the events of the ME Universe. Bioware had built an entire franchise around that character's exploits and while we all have our opinions on how the third game ended, the quality for the majority of ME showed through due to their commitment to the character and allowing that character to grow more organically through multiple games.

 

Condemning the HoF (who was part of a self contained game with a definitive ending) or the Inquisitor (who due to the events of "Trespasser" is no longer a part of a self contained story) is rather unfair in a narrative standpoint.  Hell, as much as I like DA:I (and I do love it) it is rather apparent that it's heavy on exposition and remarkably light on actual story. It is not so much a problem of having multiple races negatively influencing the immersion of the Inquisitor's story, but rather the lack of main story content itself that severely diminishes the character's/game's effectiveness.  If your like me and don't even count "The Threat Remains", "From the Ashes", or "The Final Piece" as actual story quests (considering how lacking they are in progression or content) that leaves only SEVEN main game quests, artificially lengthened with a gathering system, with actual substance ... and "Trespasser".

 

While this reasoning may be terrible, if a fourth Hero is introduced for DA4 I would find the DA world itself ridiculous.  Due to the overwhelming fact that there are potentially Three World Saving Heroes (and a huge amount of their companions) just wandering around aimlessly during an "end of the world" style crisis ... just so the DA4 writers have something for their new Protagonist to do.  Honestly, at this point, I would prefer the return of my Inquisitor if only so I "might" have a chance to better connect to at least one of my heroes ... every Shepard needs to start somewhere. 

[Arshei]

The same character a entirely saga?

This is why i hate mass effect!

[sniper_arrow]

How does anyone expect to have a Shepard/Hawke style character if a protagonist is constantly shoved aside whenever a new game in the DA series comes out?  

 

While Hawke was never a poorly written character themselves, the setting and story of Dragon Age 2 condemned them to mediocrity.  Heck, considering the actual influence Hawke had on the events at Kirkwall (and Cory if you actually bought the DLC) its doubtful anyone would consider them the "Champion" if it weren't for Varric's book.  With the exception of Qunari occupation, Hawke's only direct affect was hastening events that would certainly have occurred with or without them. As for Shepard, that character had 3 games to get you attached to them, their decisions, their companions, and their impact on the events of the ME Universe. Bioware had built an entire franchise around that character's exploits and while we all have our opinions on how the third game ended, the quality for the majority of ME showed through due to their commitment to the character and allowing that character to grow more organically through multiple games.

 

Condemning the HoF (who was part of a self contained game with a definitive ending) or the Inquisitor (who due to the events of "Trespasser" is no longer a part of a self contained story) is rather unfair in a narrative standpoint.  Hell, as much as I like DA:I (and I do love it) it is rather apparent that it's heavy on exposition and remarkably light on actual story. It is not so much a problem of having multiple races negatively influencing the immersion of the Inquisitor's story, but rather the lack of main story content itself that severely diminishes the character's/game's effectiveness.  If your like me and don't even count "The Threat Remains", "From the Ashes", or "The Final Piece" as actual story quests (considering how lacking they are in progression or content) that leaves only SEVEN main game quests, artificially lengthened with a gathering system, with actual substance ... and "Trespasser".

 

While this reasoning may be terrible, if a fourth Hero is introduced for DA4 I would find the DA world itself ridiculous.  Due to the overwhelming fact that there are potentially Three World Saving Heroes (and a huge amount of their companions) just wandering around aimlessly during an "end of the world" style crisis ... just so the DA4 writers have something for their new Protagonist to do.  Honestly, at this point, I would prefer the return of my Inquisitor if only so I "might" have a chance to better connect to at least one of my heroes ... every Shepard needs to start somewhere. 

 

Dragon Age is about the story of Thedas, not Hawke/Inquisitor. 

[RenAdaar]

No no no no nonononononnoonono they just gave me the option to be a qunari they cant take it back now.

 

They will have to fight me for it  (ง •̀_•́)ง 

[CardButton]

Dragon Age is about the story of Thedas, not Hawke/Inquisitor. 

If Bioware truly wanted this to be the case they should be spacing their games out more, rather than dragging in as many Cameo's and Past Game characters as they possibly can.

 

My problem really isn't the lack of a Hawke/Shepard style hero.  In fact, if handled well a central focus on a world can be quite endearing.  My problem is the narrative absurdity of having multiple heroes of the current era (both PCs and Companions) being forced to sit idly on their hands, or play bit parts, in situations where the world is in jeopardy just to increase the relevance of the current game's Protagonist (as is exactly what happened to the HoF, The Warden (Allistair/Logain/Stroud) and Hawke in DA:I).  Even if the idea of this series is to focus on the world, these characters have been extremely influential in shaping modern Thedas and therefore cannot simply be removed or ignored.  To give them such flimsy reasons for not getting involved in a world ending crisis like "I'm searching for a cure for the Blight atm, my bad, sincerely the HoF" or "I better report this to Weisshaupt in person, cuz it would be too convenient to just send a messenger"  is both insulting to the characters and to DA as a whole. 

 

I have no idea what is in store for the fourth game (if there is even going to be one) and I hope it's fantastic, but if they plan on pulling similar stunts to remove upwards to 3 Legendary Heroes from world ending events in their own not too distant future when they have really no reason not to get involved, then I simply would prefer not to have a fourth large important piece added to the game of Thedas when apparently Bioware cannot completely handle the pieces they already have in play. D:

[Absafraginlootly]

I care more about, and enjoy playing, my inquisitors and wardens more than I do any of my hawkes and shepards. So I'm not terribly interested in DA4 protagonist that is more hawke/shepard.

[sylvanaerie]

So far, I've played Human and elf Inquisitors.  I don't know what game you were playing, or even if you played an elf inquisitor, but there was a lot of elf-specific moments in the game.  Especially if you bring Solas along.  The only time I felt they dropped the ball was in the temple of Mythal.  I would think a potential elf keeper should have known more elven writing than freaking Morrigan.  

 

One race for a protagonist wouldn't bother me much as long as the option was human.  

I get why Hawke was human only, from a dialogue/animation standpoint and because DA2 was a more 'rushed' product.  I really enjoyed Hawke, she's my favorite protagonist, but the game had some serious recognition flaws.  Mage Hawke running around--potentially blood mage--and templars just eye roll and look the other way.  Yet, Bethany is a 'dangerous apostate and must be taken in...'  I will admit, however, that Hawke was tied into the story in a personal way that neither of the other two protagonists were, which is probably why I really enjoyed her.  That and the smart ass dialogue options.    Snarky Hawke was the best!

 

Origins had a lot of mage specific moments as does Inquisition.  Fewer racial special dialogues, but they were there too.  It wasn't dumped on the player, but it was there enough to make racism/specism obvious to the player.  So far on my qunari they mention his race more than once in game, Varric even makes a point in one banter of calling the PC Tal Vashoth.  Vivienne discussed how Tal-Vashoth address mages among them.

 

Frankly, if the next game is in Tevinter, I hope there is an option to play an elf.  And you get to kill/murderknife loads of racist slaver magisters.  That would be fanservice I could get behind.

[Fearsome1]

No ..... no ........ "NOoo!" 

 

(And that's final.)

[duckley]

Couple of questions out of curiosity... to all human-only-rpg- phobs

 

• Why are humans boring?
• Why wont you  play an rpg that has a human protagonist?

 

 

Seems to me there are not very many, if any,  story/companion/relationship/lore rich rpgs that have multiple races... so if you wont play a DA game with a human protagonist only .... does this mean you care more about having multiple races than the story and the relationships. Does this mean no rpgs for you wjile waiting?

 

I am the reverse,. I prefer a deep rich story and companions to multiple race choice (I,e prefer DA2 and The Witcher for example, to Skyrim).

 

Despite my preference, I love RPGs and will play them even if they don't have the best story and lore, or companions so just wondering....

[AresKeith]

If game centres on Solas' agenda and i'm allowed to play an elf i'd want to be able to end up siding with Solas.

So if they don't want to allow that sort of narrative twist, easiest thing may be to block people from being allowed to play as an elf.

 

So all elves should want to side with Solas? 

[NoForgiveness]

Couple of questions out of curiosity... to all human-only-rpg- phobs
[list]
[*]Why are humans boring?

I picked human on my canon real life playthough. It was a mistake, spent a chunk of the prologue trying to change to an elf.

[*]Why wont you play an rpg that has a human protagonist?

I do play games with humans. But there's so many that when one does come along where I can play as an elf I definitely want to play as the elf.

[Nixou]

I picked human on my canon real life playthough. It was a mistake, spent a chunk of the prologue trying to change to an elf.

 

I rolled a Dwarf for my first 14 years: that was painful, especially all the schoolyard fights section: can't avoid fighting the bullies, they attack you even if you do all you can to avoid them, and you can't win because not only are you constantly weaker than them but they aggro you like crazy. Thankfully, I had the sudden-puberty-growth-spurt perk, and the whole game became a lot easier when I could finally class-change into an Average-sized White Dude.

 

***

 

It is not so much a problem of having multiple races negatively influencing the immersion of the Inquisitor's story, but rather the lack of main story content itself that severely diminishes the character's/game's effectiveness

 

 

When it comes to the main story, the problem is that a lot of content that should have been inserted in the main story was made optional:

 

• The Mage/Templar Quests should have both been mandatory instead of mutually exclusive
• The Still Waters and Capturing Caer Bronach quests should have been made mandatory, with Hawke's Warden liaison being unreachable until the two quests were completed
• Visiting the Exalted Plains, and completing the Another Side, Another Story and No Word Back should have been required to gain access to the Winter Palace
• Retaking Griffon Wing Keep should have been required to gain access to the Ritual Tower
• Exploring the Emerald Graves and completing the Freemen of the Dales quest should have been a required before launching the assault over the Arbor Wilds.

 

Because too many regions were entirely optional, they couldn't be written in the main story and as a result the local story arcs felt disjointed from the main story: for instance, resources couldn't be allocated for long and detailed cutscenes showing the Orlesian soldiers behind exhausted and fed up by the civil war, hoping that someone, anyone would put an end to the fighting: why? Because the Exalted Plains can be entered and their quests completed after Halamshiral. By wanting to give players as much freedom as possible when it came to exploring their playground, the devs impaired their own story.

 

***

 

My problem is the narrative absurdity of having multiple heroes of the current era (both PCs and Companions) being forced to sit idly on their hands, or play bit parts, in situations where the world is in jeopardy just to increase the relevance of the current game's Protagonist

 

 

It really happened only once: the HoF/Warden Commander had no reason to get personally involved in Kirkwall before his/her protégé blew up the Chantry, and by then, the game was already entering its final stretch, and Hawke was on the run when Inquisition began and still was involved in its fight against Clarel. Only the HoF/Orlesian absence during Inquisition despite many events happening on their turf was glaring.

 

If the next game's story happens in Tevinter, previous protagonists being absent or playing a secondary role won't be illogical: Hawke will be busy helping Varric in Kirkwall, the Warden Commander busy fixing Clarel's mess, and when it comes to the Inquisitor, I suspect that 90% of the next game won't involve Solas and that the Inquisitor will also remain offscreen... until the Dread Wolf hijacks the final 10%.

[Ieldra]

I play RPGs to play a role and a character of my choosing, not a premade character which I detest.

This *1000000

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Hawke? Story? Engaging? You sure have some seriously low standards.

 

Hawke had a way bigger possible personality spectrum than the Inquisitor. Our Bioware's Inquisitor is one dimensional and if you lined up every DA:I player's Inquisitor when it comes to personality and moral compass they would all be clones.

 

The Inquisitor will never be immoral, dark, grey. You have no choices. The Inquisitor is shaped in stone just like Bioware wanted him/she to be. You think choosing between templars and mages or such makes your Inquisitor unique? None of them are important personality defining choices. You have no big personality defining choices in Inquisition. You can replay the game 100 times and in every single outcome the Inquisitor will be a overly moralistic super-good-natured man/woman which will fight for good and have a high moral standard as the core of the voice acting and persona.

 

DA;I is more a movie than an RPG game.  

[Ghost Gal]

Still not buying that Shepard or Hawke are supposedly better-written or more in-depth than DAO or DAI protagonists.

 

I've played ME and looked at detailed DA2 cutscenes and walkthroughs, and they just seem to have three equally rigid, restrictive, one-dimensional personalities.

 

Hawke has three settings: "Completely Polite," "Completely Aggressive," and "Completely Insensitive." One must always pick the same shallow personality (each with the emotional range of a teaspoon) each conversation, or else Hawke comes across as having Multiple Personality Disorder if you try to choose two or more personality icons in the same conversation.

 

Likewise, Shepard has three settings: "Paragon," "Stoic," and "Racist Skinhead." Not only that, but "Paragon" and "Racist Skinhead" give out personality points, so most people just click on the Paragon or Renegade button as much as possible to cash in on as many points as possible so they can make conversation checks or gain Paragon/Renegade-specific powers and reputation points. That doesn't really encourage roleplay depth, range, or diversity since gameplay rewards encourage players to choose one of two settings: "selfless diplomatic hero" and "ruthless human supremacist."

 

Emotional range and depth works better for the Warden and Inquisitor since the former is silent (so you can imagine whatever tone you want) and the latter still sounds like the same person each conversation. You can mix and match different responses and have a number of dominant personality traits and more situational personality traits depending on the conversation.

 

For example, if you imagine your character being mostly stoic but letting his guard down when he's around his friends, you can mostly choose "stoic/aggressive" dialogue options when dealing with strangers and officials but more "humorous" responses when talking to companions, and he'll still sound like consistently the same person, just showing different sides to different people and situations (like real people). Or a mostly kind/polite/diplomatic character occasionally choosing aggressive dialogue options in stressful situations (like in the Orlesian Ball or Fade), showing that even kind people have their limits. Or a mostly wise-cracking Inquisitor who consistenly says kind things to helpless refugees in need but picks "gruff" dialogue options to enemies. (Not like "always wisecracking Hawke suddenly puts on his Serious Face with his Serious Voice and suddenly acts like a humorless hemorrhoid patient this conversation, only to turn back into the always wisecracking jerkass next conversation.")

 

That creates far more of a personality spectrum than anything "one personality per game or MPD Hawke or Shepard" could offer.

[NoForgiveness]

Hawke had a way bigger possible personality spectrum than the Inquisitor. Our Bioware's Inquisitor is one dimensional and if you lined up every DA:I player's Inquisitor when it comes to personality and moral compass they would all be clones.

 

The Inquisitor will never be immoral, dark, grey. You have no choices. The Inquisitor is shaped in stone just like Bioware wanted him/she to be. You think choosing between templars and mages or such makes your Inquisitor unique? None of them are important personality defining choices. You have no big personality defining choices in Inquisition. You can replay the game 100 times and in every single outcome the Inquisitor will be a overly moralistic super-good-natured man/woman which will fight for good and have a high moral standard as the core of the voice acting and persona.

 

DA;I is more a movie than an RPG game.  

 

 

pffft. Nah, Hawke had 3 personalities. Literally. Even if you did jump around alot it would still assign the most used one. Inquisitor's more neutral tone allows them to use a wider range of emotions when it matters(reactions wheel) and it still ends up being believable for the character.  

 

DAO and DA2 did have alot better choices but morality and personality are 2 separate pieces that help define a character. 

[GoldenGail3]

The same character a entirely saga?
This is why i hate mass effect!

Thank you! I agree and I've played through ME.

[Abyss108]

Hawke had a way bigger possible personality spectrum than the Inquisitor. Our Bioware's Inquisitor is one dimensional and if you lined up every DA:I player's Inquisitor when it comes to personality and moral compass they would all be clones.

 

The Inquisitor will never be immoral, dark, grey. You have no choices. The Inquisitor is shaped in stone just like Bioware wanted him/she to be. You think choosing between templars and mages or such makes your Inquisitor unique? None of them are important personality defining choices. You have no big personality defining choices in Inquisition. You can replay the game 100 times and in every single outcome the Inquisitor will be a overly moralistic super-good-natured man/woman which will fight for good and have a high moral standard as the core of the voice acting and persona.

 

DA;I is more a movie than an RPG game.  

 

This is strange to me, because my Inquisitor was nothing like the character you just described.