820 réponses à ce sujet

[SerendipitousElf]

I completely disagree with the OP (not even sure if the OP played the same DA games as I ), but what race I chose to play made the difference in DA:I and so did in DA:O.

 

DA story is not the story of one character. It is not even the story of the elven, human, dwarf or qunary race.  It is the story of the world of Thedas.

There should be many different protagonists of different races that play role as the story of the world is narrated and I am happy how BioWare handled this so far in this series.

 

I wouldn't try to compare DA to ME.  We have two different games for a reason - to gather to different gamers' personality and their gaming preferences.  If all BW games were to be cast in the same mold, what is the replay value in that?

[duckley]

I guess it depends on how you define roleplaying. When I play Witcher, I am Geralt (now that's a different role for me versus real life LOL). Who I side with, who I do good deeds for, who I betray, who I love, what choices I make, my personality - are all determined by me.

 

Whether these games fit a definition of RPG or not, they are games that are somewhat different in focus, and for me, I enjoy them both. Given a choice between a character-story game or a more open world game - I prefer the character driven ones....

[KainD]

Just played Pillars of Eternity recently, and that game just proves OP wrong for me.

[Aren]

What is the point of playing as an elf if you cannot be elfy about it?

A Qunari outcast is barely different from a human.

A surface dwarf is not that great either....

 

At the end you just play the same game and are barely noticed for what you actually are. Playing in Origins the different races intros was really cool but then you lose your background and become the Warden/Inquisitor whatever..... so really what is the point?

in DAO with the Noble however you have many reference and you can use the Origin as a benefit to take the throne.

For the rest i agree.

[WhoopinYourA55Mate]

Idk about you mate but thing that I despise most is being forced to play human in fantasy game!It is fantasy game which means doing/being everything in there that you will never be irl.So being stuck with human(race that you are in irl)kinda kills a point of fantasy game.So with lot of what you said I do agree...with being just one race(human) no I greatly disagree on that matter.

[TevinterSupremacist]

Uhm, let me see, OP....

 

 

NO.

[Shevy]

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.

Only for people who don't want or are unable to use their imagination to give the silent protagonist a personality, motivations and goals. I would prefer a silent one over a voiced every time. The Warden is my favourite out of the three and the silent attribut is one of the main reasons.

 

While I get that voiced is standard nowadays in the AAA sector, PoE shows impressivly how a modern silent protag can work. Way better than Hawke or the Inquisitor for me.

[Cha0sEff3ct]

I don't understand the hate with the Inquisitor. People like to default to the original or a prior title and say nothing is better than HOF or Hawke then the next game it they will say that about the Inquisitor should they introduce a new main character.

 

I feel like the Inquisitor was the perfect answer to HOF/Hawke and Shephard. You're not the awkward silent protagonist and you aren't forced into a specific race. HOF was great because of the different back stories but it is hard to implement in the Hawke/Shephard way, in the end you were just that the HOF/Warden. Hawke was engaging because he had a story and a family to get attached to. I also think the tragic events that transpired throughout the game helped you to feel closer to Hawke. In regards to Shephard, Shephard was awesome IMO and I love all 3 Mass Effect games sans the initial unexpanded endings. The expanded endings weren't perfect and not vastly different from each other but I'm glad at the attempt to fix the ridiculous same outcome in either red, blue, or green explosions. Sure you were forced to play human but still the character progression in relation to your companions was amazing.

 

I really hope they keep the Inquisitor because it's a great base. Think of DA:O, you were given your back stories. This time you are essentially creating your character's base story with this Inquisition and now we shall see where that character goes. You're no Hawke or Shephard. You are whoever you created now. This game you develop your relationships with the 9 companions and your advisers. There wasn't as much tragedy on the Inquisitor's side personally to make you feel as attached ...yet. People seem to love tragedy and killing off companions for some reason. I like for the most part the Inquisitor seemed invincible and of extreme luck in every situation and everyone survives. It was a fresh change. I think everyone needed plot armor in the first game because DA:I is the foundation. Should they give the Inquisitor a trilogy, the next 2 games can build off the story you created. Does the inquisition fall from grace? How stable and loyal are your relationships to the ruler you chose for Orlais, or who The Chantry voted as Divine? Do you rule as a tyrant? What happens with your Qunari alliance(if you sacrificed the chargers)? What are the consequences of making Cole more human or more of a spirit? What happens with your love interest, will they introduce new ones and/or make prior companions available romance options? I want to continue the Inquisitor's story. The ending leaves much to be desired. There are so many ways to take it now.

[Dieb]

While I get that voiced is standard nowadays in the AAA sector, PoE shows impressivly how a modern silent protag can work. Way better than Hawke or the Inquisitor for me.

 

But not in a modern game, and that is the problem (publicly traded company employed developers have).

 

 

Honestly, I've been playing RPGs since Castle Adventure, and I will say that not even the Warden worked for me very well. DAO was too real already. Baldurs Gates, Fallouts, and whatnot, they have a different dynamic to them. You cannot have BioWare's cinematic approach when it's partially a silent movie in the long run.

[In Exile]

Only for people who don't want or are unable to use their imagination to give the silent protagonist a personality, motivations and goals. I would prefer a silent one over a voiced every time. The Warden is my favourite out of the three and the silent attribut is one of the main reasons.

 

While I get that voiced is standard nowadays in the AAA sector, PoE shows impressivly how a modern silent protag can work. Way better than Hawke or the Inquisitor for me.

 

Actually, POE doesn't. To begin with, POE has preset tones. You can disable the option, but your choices fall into the: Honest/Deceptive, Passionate, Clever, Diplomatic, and Aggressive disposition choices. You can't use your imagination to imagine different tones - it's the same reality ignoring head-canon. More importantly, POE is pure text. You don't have a block of 3D model standing still in every scene while other characters do things. That's the issue with a lack of VO in a party-based cinematic game. 

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Hell no, Shepard is so boring especially ME3 Shep.We already had Dragon Effect (DA2), we don't need a repeat of that. Dragon Age is about the world of Thedas so give me Elves, dwarves and Qunari choices!

 

Also if you think having a non-voiced PC somehow limiting then it says more about your imagination than the character. And I never understood the 'blank stare' argument. Hawke and Inquisitor also have plenty moments where they look like dead mummies standing around. The start of Inquisition has one of the worst facial expression and delivery by a PC.

[Draining Dragon]

Choice and freedom hurts RPGs?

[Felya87]

Shepard had some kind of personality only because she was exported in three games. And even than, in ME3 she have way too much autodialogue and forced sentiment I didn't want on her (why is she friend with Liara and Miranda? She can't stand them!!!) killing all the roleplay.

 

Hawke had one of three forced personality on her, it was terrible. No way to choose her race, no way to have a more nuanced character between saint/joking idiot/jerk.

 

So no. A fixed character doesn't mean a more deep character. Is just a forced character. if I want a forced character, I'm going to play some adventure like Uncharted, AC or any other game with a fixed character.

 

I'll keep my Wardens and Inquisitors, thank you. I love all them. Hawke is food for deamons. The races work in DAI, and I love them. It can be implemented better, can be expanded in future titles, but the races must be there. Othervise, I'll play something else.

[canarius]

Lol Hawke is one of the lamest protagonists and you want him over the most badass character ever?? This post must be a joke. DA4 needs the HoF back not Hawke.

[JamieCOTC]

I do recall the devs stating that origin stories would be interwoven w/in the main plot, though I don't think it came off very well. It would have been better to had the Elven Inquisitor's in one of the zones and to help them there than on the war table. The same w/ the noble, mage, dwarf and qunari. I did like the war table more than I thought I would, but it was no substitute for actual gameplay. It was said there was as much back story for the Inquisitor as there was for the Warden, but I just don't see it. Another thing is that, as it's always been said that DA is about Thedas and not one character and this is very evident in DA:I. For lore hounds, DA:I was incredible and I did love many of the new characters, but w/out a strong central character to get attached to, Thedas feels a little hollow.

[Shechinah]

The origin backgrounds, I believe, were intended to be have more weight back when it was human-only protagonists though however well that would have held up had it not been changed is debatable.

[Heimdall]

I feel like the Inquisitor was the perfect answer to HOF/Hawke and Shephard. You're not the awkward silent protagonist and you aren't forced into a specific race.

Well, I wouldn't say perfect, as I think there's room for improvement and I like having a new protagonist every game (I think it lets Bioware experiment more with their formula).

But definitely a step in the right direction.

[uzivatel]

About midway the DAO campaign, I completely forgot my mage was an elf. The game forgot as well.
I appreciate the attempts BioWare did in Inquisition, but the Inquisitor remains somewhat forgettable compared to Hawke.

[Revan Reborn]

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? 

I understand entirely. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for expression and players being able to mold their experience how they like. However, such a concession can have adverse effects on the overall storytelling. That is my argument. As far as being pro-human or suggesting the Inquisitior was originally human, I never said any of that. I could care less what race or alien species I am. I just want a compelling story with an interesting character I can shape and mold. If that happens to be a hanar or a darkspawn, I'm all for it if BioWare can make an amazing and compelling story out of it. That's what I want.

 

@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.

There's nothing wrong with romancing companions. The problem is there are a lot of politics that go along with it (straight, gay, bisexual, pansexual, etc.) and everybody has their preferences. It's an unwinnable battle that BioWare will always confront with every game they make. They can't please everybody and someone will always be disappointed. I actually wouldn't mind if romances played a larger role in games rather than just being side story ventures.

 

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.

I don't dispute that, but there's a difference when the Iron Bull talks about the "Inquisitor" versus Garrus, Jack, or Joker talking about "Shepard." Certainly various companions will make reference to the fact that the Inquisitor is actually just a regular person, but it's never really expanded beyond that. I don't know this regular person because he/she was never fleshed out. That's why it's a flimsy claim to make, in my opinion. With Shepard, I know exactly who he/she is because there was more direction and thus I was able to structure his/her experiences in a way that were parallel to the discussions.

 

I do love most of the companions, besides Blackwall. They, themselves, aren't one-sided. That's not what I meant. What I was suggesting as they are the only characters with depth in comparison to the Inquisitor. Thus, it's one-sided because they are more interesting and compelling to associate with than the Inquisitor is. That was what I was trying to convey.

 

I have to disagree with your point about The Witcher. Yes, Geralt is largely an established character, but this is just as much the player's journey as it is Geralt's. The reason I say this is because the games are sequels to the novels. This takes place afterwards, and the first thing that happens in TW1 is Geralt has lost his memory and is running from The Wild Hunt. The two games do a great job of actually poking fun at the fact that various characters know Geralt and he doesn't remember them, giving more agency and power to the player (especially if they haven't read the novels) because they don't know these people either. What TW1 and TW2 largely did was recreate Geralt in such a way that players could relate to him while also controlling his actions, because the choices you made in TW2 can determine what kind of world state TW3 will have. Geralt, in my opinion, is just as maleable as Shepard, except you can't change his face or gender.

[Revan Reborn]

I completely disagree with the OP (not even sure if the OP played the same DA games as I ), but what race I chose to play made the difference in DA:I and so did in DA:O.

 

DA story is not the story of one character. It is not even the story of the elven, human, dwarf or qunary race.  It is the story of the world of Thedas.

There should be many different protagonists of different races that play role as the story of the world is narrated and I am happy how BioWare handled this so far in this series.

 

I wouldn't try to compare DA to ME.  We have two different games for a reason - to gather to different gamers' personality and their gaming preferences.  If all BW games were to be cast in the same mold, what is the replay value in that?

Race doesn't matter in Dragon Age. The only game you could make an argument it did was Origins with the Origin stories. That was an experiment that BioWare tinkered with that ultimately wasn't nearly as effective or practical as they wanted. After the origin story, your race doesn't matter. You are just the "Warden."

 

This is a myth I want to crush. Contrary to popular belief, Dragon Age isn't "the story of the world of Thedas." What Dragon Age actually does is explain "major events in Thedas." Whether it's the Fifth Blight, the start of the Mage Rebellion, or the coming of the Breach, these are major points in the history of the world. We've barely explored any of Thedas. We may as well call Dragon Age "Ferelden and then some." The only developer who actually makes games where the "story is the world" is BGS with The Elder Scrolls. Especially with Morrowind, Oblivion, and Syrim, it is the world that matters more than anything else.

 

BioWare makes both games. They are both story-driven RPGs with a focus on great characters, choices, and story. It's the same model, regardless of your "claim" that both are meant to appeal to different target audiences. The only absolute difference is one is science fiction and one is fantasy, but the games have more in common than you'd probably care to admit.

 

Idk about you mate but thing that I despise most is being forced to play human in fantasy game!It is fantasy game which means doing/being everything in there that you will never be irl.So being stuck with human(race that you are in irl)kinda kills a point of fantasy game.So with lot of what you said I do agree...with being just one race(human) no I greatly disagree on that matter.

Except, this isn't a discussion about being forced to be a human. I'd love to play as a main qunari protagonist. My point is I want quality over quantity. Having multiple races merely lessens the worth of the main character from a storytelling standpoint.

 

Lol Hawke is one of the lamest protagonists and you want him over the most badass character ever?? This post must be a joke. DA4 needs the HoF back not Hawke.

I don't want Hawke or the HoF to return, actually. This is even more true regardless of the fact that both are still alive. Those stories have been told and BioWare has already moved on. What I do want is a better crafted main protagonist so that I can actually make the character mine own and not impact to the detriment of the story.

 

About midway the DAO campaign, I completely forgot my mage was an elf. The game forgot as well.
I appreciate the attempts BioWare did in Inquisition, but the Inquisitor remains somewhat forgettable compared to Hawke.

Yep. This is the problem. It's a cosmetic choice, but not one with actual depth or worth. Dragon Age promotes racism against dwarves and elves and discrimination against mages. That should come through just as strong based on what the protagonist is. Instead, regardless of what race you are, the ambiguous "Inquisitor" moniker overrides any possibility of depth or interest with multiple races.

[Quaddis]

About midway the DAO campaign, I completely forgot my mage was an elf. The game forgot as well.
I appreciate the attempts BioWare did in Inquisition, but the Inquisitor remains somewhat forgettable compared to Hawke.

 

Of course Quizzy is more forgettable then Hawk. It is really hard to forget awful character like that.

[leaguer of one]

Of course Quizzy is more forgettable then Hawk. It is really hard to forget awful character like that.

You do understand that this is a roleplaying game and you have to build your characters persona, right?

[TheChris92]

Hah, no. If anything, I'd just want the options for being a smarmy pleb to still be available, otherwise, I'd want a different protagonist altogether.

 

I do enjoy the self-righteousness of Revan Reborn threads -- Pretty fun to stumble across.