820 réponses à ce sujet

[Hsien]

DA4 needs Shepherd, not some shepherd wannabe clone or look alike. the actual commander Shepherd.  The Eluvians lead to other worlds, what is to say that one of those worlds cannot be the one shepherd is from where he ends up in Thedas after the fiasco at the final battle on the citadel

[Hsien]

double post

[Revan Reborn]

The protagonist is N7 so it's a sure thing that we're stuck playing a human again.


By that logic Dragon Age:Origins was an indie game since it was made before EA acquired BioWare.

DAO was in development long before BioWare was a part of EA, but the game was released two years after EA had acquisitioned BioWare. Also, that's not how "indie" works. BioWare may have been an independent studio, like Obsidian, but they had large AAA publishers supplying them with money. Whether we look at LucasArts or Microsoft, BioWare has not been "indie" for a very long time. In order to be "indie," you essentially don't have a vast amount of wealth coming from a major corporation.

[Revan Reborn]

DA4 needs Shepherd, not some shepherd wannabe clone or look alike. the actual commander Shepherd.  The Eluvians lead to other worlds, what is to say that one of those worlds cannot be the one shepherd is from where he ends up in Thedas after the fiasco at the final battle on the citadel

I'd only support this theory if it turned out the Old Gods were in fact reapers in disguise trying to indocrinate all of Thedas.

[Steppenwolf]

DAO was in development long before BioWare was a part of EA, but the game was released two years after EA had acquisitioned BioWare. Also, that's not how "indie" works. BioWare may have been an independent studio, like Obsidian, but they had large AAA publishers supplying them with money. Whether we look at LucasArts or Microsoft, BioWare has not been "indie" for a very long time. In order to be "indie," you essentially don't have a vast amount of wealth coming from a major corporation.

Before Alpha Protocol Obsidian ONLY made licensed games and sequels paid for/published by big companies. They're about as "indie" as Madonna.

[Revan Reborn]

Before Alpha Protocol Obsidian ONLY made licensed games and sequels paid for/published by big companies. They're about as "indie" as Madonna.

I'm aware of what Obsidian has developed. In fact, they have made some of my favorite games: Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II - The Sith Lords and Fallout: New Vegas, in particular. What's worth noting, is Obsidian has largely only made sequels to successful franchises (BioWare games and BGS games). Their independent ventures, such as Alpha Protocol, were abysmal failures. Of course, many of the developers in Obsidian were originally part of Black Isle (in conjunction with Interplay) and responsible for the Fallout series before BGS.

 

The point being, just because you are a well-known developer doesn't mean all of your games are "AAA." Again, you are only making a AAA game if you have the backing and support of a major publisher. Kickstarter is crowdfunding and purely an indie mechanism to make games without resorting to the downsides of AAA development. In other words, Pillars of Eternity wouldn't be possible as a AAA game because it is being made for a niche and not a large population. No major publisher would have backed it because it's meant to appeal to old school RPG fans and it's not console-friendly.

[Beomer]

Hawke's story was engaging?

All he does is dick about in Kirkwall for 10 years. The only interesting thing is how Anders manipulates Hawke to start his own war.

[Revan Reborn]

Hawke's story was engaging?

All he does is dick about in Kirkwall for 10 years. The only interesting thing is how Anders manipulates Hawke to start his own war.

He's more engaging than the Warden, who never speaks and lacks an identity. He's also more engaging than the Inquisitor, who is nothing more than a title with no connection or personal relationship to anyone or anything. I'll take Hawke over two planks of wood (HoF and Inquisitor) any day of the week. At least Hawke had strong ties to family and friends that built and shaped his/her character throughout those ten years.

[Sith Grey Warden]

After DAI, I'm convinced backstory is what's important, not race choice. Origin stories let me build different motivations for my Wardens and helped form the skeletons for characterization. Hawke's backstory, limited though it was (no sight of Lothering in the intro) served a similar purpose. It's much harder to make interesting Inkies because there's just so little to go from.

Given a choice between origin choice with playable backstories and race choice as done in DAI, I'll take the origin choice. Denied either, I'll skip on DA4.*


*)assuming Inky doesn't return as protagonist, in which case I will probably still get it.

[Steppenwolf]

The point being, just because you are a well-known developer doesn't mean all of your games are "AAA." Again, you are only making a AAA game if you have the backing and support of a major publisher. Kickstarter is crowdfunding and purely an indie mechanism to make games without resorting to the downsides of AAA development. In other words, Pillars of Eternity wouldn't be possible as a AAA game because it is being made for a niche and not a large population. No major publisher would have backed it because it's meant to appeal to old school RPG fans and it's not console-friendly.

Not having a major company involved in development/publishing=/=indie.

He's more engaging than the Warden, who never speaks and lacks an identity. He's also more engaging than the Inquisitor, who is nothing more than a title with no connection or personal relationship to anyone or anything. I'll take Hawke over two planks of wood (HoF and Inquisitor) any day of the week. At least Hawke had strong ties to family and friends that built and shaped his/her character throughout those ten years.

Now I'm sure you're a troll.

[Broganisity]

DA4 needs a Mabari Protagonist that no one can understand but for some reason let decide large-scale decisions that affect the lives of hundreds of thousands.

[Patient.Zero]

He's more engaging than the Warden, who never speaks and lacks an identity. He's also more engaging than the Inquisitor, who is nothing more than a title with no connection or personal relationship to anyone or anything. I'll take Hawke over two planks of wood (HoF and Inquisitor) any day of the week. At least Hawke had strong ties to family and friends that built and shaped his/her character throughout those ten years.

That's a bit harsh. The Inquisitor could have relationships with a multitude of people, be it through romantically perusing them or just being their friends. Like I said in a previous post here, if you wanted Bioware to make the character for you it's not really your character. Why do I have to play as someone who is blueprinted out for me in order to have a good gaming experience? You can make decisions in DA:I that are family oriented if you choose, does it need to be written down in a bio or something that the Inquisitor is motivated by X Y and Z for you to be able to enjoy yourself?

I ask genuinely.

[Killdren88]

I for one would love a more fleshed out character. Hawke was good. But the Development time wasn't the best thing for them. BUT at the same I do enjoy multiple races. So my thinking is they take a page from Shepard's book and from Origins. Give the character pre-existing history, but done let it define the character. Their can be call backs like with Shepard and their History, but overall the story will be the same. Here is a Elf for an example

 

Instead of Spacer, Colonist, and Earthborn. We have Dailish, City elf, freed slave.

 

Instead of  War Hero, ruthless, and sole-survivor. We have Hunter, smuggler, Tevinter.

 

Or in the case of Dwarves...we can have Casteless, surfacer, <Some caster here>.

 

Then we can chose thug, mercenary, or guard.

We can shape their History, but like Shepard we are on a set story which if done right may be carried to other games.

[Revan Reborn]

That's a bit harsh. The Inquisitor could have relationships with a multitude of people, be it through romantically perusing them or just being their friends. Like I said in a previous post here, if you wanted Bioware to make the character for you it's not really your character. Why do I have to play as someone who is blueprinted out for me in order to have a good gaming experience? You can make decisions in DA:I that are family oriented if you choose, does it need to be written down in a bio or something that the Inquisitor is motivated by X Y and Z for you to be able to enjoy yourself?

I ask genuinely.

The problem is the relationships were one-sided. Take Vivienne, for instance. By far one of the most interesting characters in all Dragon Age games, and her talents were completely wasted on the Inquisitor. The relationship and connection were no stronger at the end of the game than they were at the beginning. I never felt as if I was actually getting to know these individuals, and this ties back to the fact that the only thing that defined the Inquisitor was his/her title.

 

In Mass Effect, I actually got to know all of my crew and they got to know me. Quite often, the game makes notice that Shepard's closest friends know he/she is just a normal soldier. However, those that don't know him/her believe him/her to be the ultimate reaper killing machine. You just never have that same level of personal connection in DAI. Cullen is largely one-sided. The Iron Bull is largely one-sided. I'd argue Sera comes pretty close, if you indulge her prankster antics.

 

By in large, I felt as if I was living through these companions and their experiences rather than a beneficial exchange of encounters to form a bond. Forgive me if this is rather difficult to follow, but that's precisely why BioWare needs to pinpoint this concern.

 

Again, I feel I should point out the entire character doesn't need to be set in stone. This isn't Halo, Mario, or Uncharted. What I want is an actual foundation that BioWare has created in which we can fold and meld overtime. My Shepard is unique because he looks different and I tailored his choices based on my preferences. There is much more depth and customization in a tailored protagonist than many give credit.

[Aren]

I agree the problem with the Inquisitor is that it never felt a real person.

The Inquisitor is an hand, not a person.

[Dieb]

Was there a recent dropping of knowledge nobody told me about?

 

Everyone seems so certain of things these days.

[Neoideo]

What is the point of putting multiple races if it has no impact on the game at all, let alone the intro which is the same no matter what race yo choose. In the end, the effect of choosing the race is just for changing the skin of your protagonist. In that case I would prefer one well made protagonist such as Hawke, or to make individual stories for each race, at least their origin part.

[Heimdall]

Yes, It is indeed his opinion and a valid and interesting one. He is just expressing it. Even if that causes you (and your "most of us" made up group) get irritated.

Speaking of "we want" and "important to us" or "our playstyle" , as if you were some sort of designated spokesperson for a given group of gamers does not give your equally subjective posts, any extra weight.

You sarcastically speak of "semi-set personalities" in a game that has less races to choose from for the protagonist as if there were so many different personalities to choose from in DA:I.

As the game is right now, no matter what race you choose from, you will always end up with a "no-personality at all" inquisitor (some sort of post-lobotomy main character) because the devs had to sacrifice developing an interesting protagonist in pro of having several choices for faces and body shapes for inquisitors. Oh yeah, they certainly can look very different but they will act exactly the same no matter the race, tattoos, horns, muscle or broken arms.

I'm all for having 100 different races to choose from. That's not the problem IMHO. It is a problem when the only difference between them is that they look different.

If you've encountered the OP's threads before than you know that the OP has a habit of taking his own opinion for objective truth and dismissing anyone else's contradicting opinions as ignorant or based on misunderstanding. That's what irritates me about his opinion, not that he expresses it.

I'm not saying my opinion is more valid, quite the opposite really. My opinion is equally valid as his, which is a concept he has historically had trouble grasping.

That's just it, you aren't choosing from a bunch of set personalities in DAI, that's what I like about it.

I think you're kinda missing the point of molding the protagonist. Which is fine, but maybe this game just isn't for you. Anyway, I felt the PC's race was adequately acknowledged in DAI.

[Elfyoth]

OP you need to understand why pepole here in DA like playable races, first of all in Mass Effect, there are humans and aliens. Here the races are based on real life cultures. Now for example I am a person that created himself in DAI (For reasons) And I am jewish and I think that Elves are based on them, so I chose to play as an Elf. But IF, there were ONLY humans, and "aliens" I would have agreeed with you. But this is the DA universe. In DA2, I felt like they took from me some important choices. Did I create Hawke? No, I only changed Hawke's appreance. 

 

Now, when you say that the Inquisitor was suppoused to be human, I disagree. The plot is perfect for Elves. Idk about Dwarves, or Qunari, cuz I havent played them yet. A question for you. Which races have you played in DAI? And have you finished at least ONE playthrough with Elves? 

[Elfyoth]

The Inquisitor is an hand, not a person.

 

 

Really? Since when do hands talk, decide fate of nations, and lets not forget, decide the Grey Warden's fate? With weapons only? If it the Inquisitor was a hand, then we would have literlly, only faught in Inquisition with no choices at all. And if we did have choices it was by the axe. 

[MattH]

The issue isn't multiple races, its the implementation of them.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

@OP:

...and the silly idea of romancable NPCs? multiple romance options are bad for game developement and storytelling. When there are so many variables and possibilities to consider, it dilutes and cheapens the overall story.

[Patient.Zero]

The problem is the relationships were one-sided. Take Vivienne, for instance. By far one of the most interesting characters in all Dragon Age games, and her talents were completely wasted on the Inquisitor. The relationship and connection were no stronger at the end of the game than they were at the beginning. I never felt as if I was actually getting to know these individuals, and this ties back to the fact that the only thing that defined the Inquisitor was his/her title.

 

In Mass Effect, I actually got to know all of my crew and they got to know me. Quite often, the game makes notice that Shepard's closest friends know he/she is just a normal soldier. However, those that don't know him/her believe him/her to be the ultimate reaper killing machine. You just never have that same level of personal connection in DAI. Cullen is largely one-sided. The Iron Bull is largely one-sided. I'd argue Sera comes pretty close, if you indulge her prankster antics.

 

By in large, I felt as if I was living through these companions and their experiences rather than a beneficial exchange of encounters to form a bond. Forgive me if this is rather difficult to follow, but that's precisely why BioWare needs to pinpoint this concern.

 

Again, I feel I should point out the entire character doesn't need to be set in stone. This isn't Halo, Mario, or Uncharted. What I want is an actual foundation that BioWare has created in which we can fold and meld overtime. My Shepard is unique because he looks different and I tailored his choices based on my preferences. There is much more depth and customization in a tailored protagonist than many give credit.

 

There is a whole cutscene with Iron Bull that demonstrates that fact the your friends know you're just a person while the general pubic believe/make you out to be something more, there are two or three with Josephine, and the theme continues in multiple conversations with a lot of the folks you talk to especially your friends. Also, a page ago you were saying how much you loved all the characters and they made the game for you why are they're one sided now? And even so if the character are one sided that not the fault of the protagonist. Those characters are going to exist in Thedas with or without. Your character's background has nothing to do with them. So allowing for your character to have multiple backgrounds due to the option of being multiple races isn't poor storytelling because of "too many variables or possibilities", it's just a way for the player to go about making their own interesting character.

 

Remember when you said that you thought world building could be a double edged sword? I don't think it has to be, I'm going to mention Geralt again because The Wither 3 is a nice example of a character with foundation. Geralt's story is Geralt's not yours. I don't think the the player really "moulds" him, Shepard or Hawke, they just choose a face (or hair in Gerald's case). If you're saying that when playing DA:I a more notable difference between races other in the subtle ones you get in codexes, banter, interactions with your companions and NPCs then I can see that, but such changes don't have to be come with a fixed character.