820 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

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.

 Then you need to play as sarcastic hawke..

[phaonica]

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.

You seem to be saying that Bioware should give up trying to make a compelling story with multiple race/background options because the story could never be as good as one with more focus. Could the same be said of most of the choice mechanics in the game? If the story had fewer branching narratives, then the story would be better and more focused, right? More linear narratives can potentially have more impact because they are content that the user will be guaranteed to see and therefore more resources can be devoted to making that narrative awesome.

I'd rather they continue to try to make the multiple backgrounds thing work.

[leaguer of one]

You seem to be saying that Bioware should give up trying to make a compelling story with multiple race/background options because the story could never be as good as one with more focus. Could the same be said of most of the choice mechanics in the game? If the story had fewer branching narratives, then the story would be better and more focused, right? More linear narratives can potentially have more impact because they are content that the user will be guaranteed to see and therefore more resources can be devoted to making that narrative awesome.

I'd rather they continue to try to make the multiple backgrounds thing work.

^Set point match.

[Medhia_Nox]

While I don't really care one way or the other which stance they take - I absolutely prefer the blank slate to the pre-defined.  My imagination is better than anything they can conceive and I prefer to inject it into my playthru rather than rely on whatever watered downed, socially acceptable garbage is going to be fed to me.  

[Domiel Angelus]

Kingdoms of Amalur did an extremely good job with the silent protagonist, and our original protagonist in DA:O was silent and it made them develop all of the other characters to make up for the neutral mask of the hero. The neutral mask is a technique used so you can actually set yourself in the feet of the character and feel that you and that character are actually mixed.

 

Hawke stands too far out as his/her own character which is why it was so easy for them to make the character an NPC. Many of Hawke's decisions also weren't your own, there were no chances for a heroic sacrifice because its just not in the cards for him/her.You may be clicking the buttons to choose Hawke's general response but if ya notice its always far more developed and some times its the complete opposite of what you thought you were picking, with the silent protagonist you're able to decide in your mind exactly how the rest of that conversation goes.  When its his turn to go, its the neutral masked Inquisitor making the choice, not Hawke. 

 

If they have a Shep or Hawke protagonist, they're going further away from their roots. I don't want that sort of game again, even if it means losing out on voice acting for the hero I'd prefer the silent over the snarky. They need to take all of the advancements that they've made and build on them, don't worry about graphics or sound design. They need to refine combat and work on characters and fix the broken arms on elves.

 

DAI's biggest affront is that the characters feel underwhelming and stereotypical. All of the characters you meet feel so stiff that you could put a cardboard target dummy from WoW in their place and most people wouldn't tell the difference. The new cast had very few moments where I actually felt a solid connection. My favorite from the new bunch gets the least amount of screen time. They put all that work into making Scout Harding likable and then you can't even finish a romance with her, they could have at least given her the Kelly Chambers treatment. 

 

They played the character designs way too safe in this one and that's part of why the lead falls flatter than a cinder block tossed out a three story window. Many people have brought up the point that you can't be evil in this one, which is very true. You can be a very flagrant hero but not downright "Murder the villagers" evil villain. Your inquisitor tends to come off as more of a wishy washy weirdo that's fishing for those approval points instead of an actual human being. 

 

They could go with multiple races if they actually mean something, not just another dialogue option that gives you a little bit of insight. The War Table quests dealing with your particular race allowed you to feel that your Inquisition wasn't standing around with their thumbs up their collective bums. This is why the fact that there's no option to "Do it myself" wasn't such a letdown for me as it could have been. The reason people like playing Hawke and Shephard is they get it done, even when they can be downright nasty about it, they get it done with their own textured hands.

 

I've said this before though "There are no paragades, renegons or even renegades in the new Thedas" at least not for the protagonist and it needs to change. Voiced or silent, it needs to be fixed. The sudden lack of the rival/friendship should have been a huge identifier to people that they removed all of the chances to do it the "Marv way" (Sin City reference ).

[Revan Reborn]

You seem to be saying that Bioware should give up trying to make a compelling story with multiple race/background options because the story could never be as good as one with more focus. Could the same be said of most of the choice mechanics in the game? If the story had fewer branching narratives, then the story would be better and more focused, right? More linear narratives can potentially have more impact because they are content that the user will be guaranteed to see and therefore more resources can be devoted to making that narrative awesome.

I'd rather they continue to try to make the multiple backgrounds thing work.

I don't believe I ever said anybody should "give up." What I did state is that the kind of multiple race/background option isn't applicable to a BioWare game and it has never really worked. Again, the only time it was somewhat effective was with Origins in which you had separate and unique origin stories. I'm fine with that. However, the problem arises that all of that uniqueness goes out the window once you become the "Warden." Again, BioWare doesn't have the funds nor the resources to make four separate games just to infuse actual depth to characters based on race. BioWare even admitted that all of the various origins with varying races and livelihoods was incredibly taxing and not an efficient way of developing a game.

 

Look at every modern BioWare title going back to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. DAO and DAI are the only titles out of KotOR, JE, ME 1-3, in which you could play as a different race. Contrary to popular belief, multi-race background is not a cornerstone of BioWare games. It is a cornerstone of BGS games, however, such as TES, which has offered nine races since Arena in 1994. BGS to this day is still a better roleplaying game for the amount of choice, freedom, and flexibility of the sandbox that the world of Tamriel offers. BioWare games have never rivaled that and by trying to take cues from TES and other games that don't focus on story nearly as much, we are seeing the stucture begin to collapse on itself.

 

The main prevailing issue I'm seeing in this thread is people want their cake and they want to eat it too. They want this "ultimate" RPG experience that is likely never going to happen. As a few others have stated, "your" imagination will always be better than anything BioWare comes up with. Thus, it's kind of a silly argument to say you are such a big proponent of "roleplaying" if you are playing a BioWare game, which is much more linear and restricted due to the choice-driven, story element of their games. BioWare games are great because they tell an amazing story that the writing team creates. BioWare games aren't great because you headcanon some well-conceived background that's never applicable to the game, nor any of the events, characters, or the story. As co-founder Dr. Ray Muzyka once stated when describing what a BioWare game is, it makes the player the audience, the actor, and the director all at once.

 

In other words, you aren't the writer. You have control and flexibility over the pieces that have been presented, but that is the extent of your impression on the experience. If I really just want to roleplay, I can write a fanfiction or play a tabletop RPG. A video game, especially one that is so structured around storytelling and linear as a BioWare game, is just not an appropriate medium. If that's more of what you are looking for, BGS games (TES, Fallout) are much better to elicit that kind of experience.

[In Exile]

Except those are Reputation points. As in, you get those points based on how other characters perceive you, rather than what you internally intended.

 

That's absolutely wrong. It's a tone. Don't confuse the facts that people react to them as reputation with the actual fact of the matter of how they are drafted and meant to be interpreted. When there is a discrepancy between your intention and the literal content of the line you see a marker like [Lie]. 

 

The actual content of the line changes, there is a standard and stable reaction to it and, most importantly, that's not what the word disposition means. Let's use a dictionary definition:

 

dis·po·si·tion

ˌdispəˈziSH(ə)n/

noun

noun: disposition; plural noun: dispositions

1. 1.

   a person's inherent qualities of mind and character.

   "a sweet-natured girl of a placid disposition"

   synonyms: temperament, nature, character, constitution, makeup, mentality

   "a nervous disposition"

   • an inclination or tendency.

     "the cattle showed a decided disposition to run"

     synonyms: inclination, tendency, proneness, propensity, proclivity

     "his disposition to generosity"

 

It requires a mental fantasy, not just imagination, to pretend that this is a matter of perception and not stable tone, and that's all based on the literal content of the line that you're picking. Cruel lines demonstrate cruelty. There's no "non-cruel" explanation. Aggression is similar. As is benevolence. And clever, which just means "joking".  You can't interpret them alternatively, and they are with unfailing accuracy received only one way. 

 

There's no possibility in silent PC to ever have the kind of ambiguity you want as a matter of language or the ruleset of the game. All that happens is it's easier for you to pretend like the only possible rational and reasonable interpretation isn't the only interpretation because it's easier to purposely misinterpret the line that it is to prevent an actor's delivery is something other than what it plainly is heard to be in-game. 

 

In that way, you can still use your imagination and imagine different tones. You the player see the option to say or do something, can imagine your character said or did it for whatever reason, but the people around them (companions, quest-givers, random onlookers, etc) might have misinterpreted it or looked at it through their own moral lens, and thus gave it a moral slant that your character did not intend.

 

Think of how many times in real life you said or did something, another person perceived that you meant it one way, then when you found out you said, "No, wait, that's not what I meant/I didn't mean it that way." I think that's similar to how PoE Reputation functions, only you can't really take it back or explain yourself since people gossip, word travels fast, and then word reaches new people faster than you do. (I've gone into some new areas and accepted new quests where NPCs said "I've heard/people said you're a kind sort," even though I've never met them, because I have a few points in the Benevolent Reputation.)

 

That's not how misinterpretation works IRL. Even putting aside the fact that people only get misinterpreted when the conversation is really ambiguous, and RPG dialogue is so comically on the nose that this misinterpretation isn't possible outside of sarcasm, the fact of the matter is that people correct misunderstandings all the time.  In reality, even when there's a misunderstanding, we can correct it. This horse is something we've beaten dead, revived, and obliterated in the PC VO/Silent PC threads. To say that you're being "misinterpreted" when you're roped into logically contradictory lengthy chains is silly, and it's only reconcilable with a PC who's such an unimaginable pushover that you've had whole conversations without speaking up. Which is certainly a plausible RP approach, it's not really an approach reconcilable with any other alternative RP approach. 

 

This isn't a matter of reputation, because it straight up happens with the character in front of you. To say that "rumours travel" is even more ridiculous, because it's not only predicated on the impossibility of correcting misunderstandings. 

 

If you want to engage in this kind of mental fantasy, then you're perfectly welcome to it, but to suggest that it's supported by the system rather than by your own ability to actively close your eyes to the content of the dialogue is not supported by the actual mechanics of the dialogue. 

 

What you're doing is the equivalent of imagining that what Hawke says sarcastically actually is said diplomatically, with the only difference being that you can pretend that what you read is somehow more ambiguous than what you hear. 

 

 

Edit: This ignores the biggest problem with this approach, which is that conversation does not work this way. We actually have a lot of control over how we deliver things. Misunderstandings happen because we have idiosyncrasies that people who don't know us can't read, but our intention is perfectly knowable to ourselves and we only get misunderstood over things like sarcasm. Often misunderstandings verbally happen because of really shitty phrasing, where the literal content of what we say does not correspond to what we want to say. But that's now how RPG dialogue works. 

 

Also, yeah, I prefer room for imagination than having a voice actor interpret my character's emotions and intentions for me. For example, I can imagine that my character told a young widow that the potion she got her would prevent her child from being Hollowborn because she didn't want to crush her hopes, but got labeled "Deceptive" by the neighbors for her trouble; I CAN'T imagine that BioWare's character lied because she meant well when the voice actress delivers the line with an obviously deceptive, malicious, snakelike whisper, and then the animators add a little smirk to go with the voice-acting. And that's why I don't like voice-acted protagonists, or the camera constantly mugging back to the PC's face in every conversation to constantly show me how "my" character reacts before I can.

 

 

The English language and the game mechanics already break that mental fantasy for you. You can't deliver the line in a way that's not deceptive. Your character cannot lie, the game will never react to the lie, there is no possible means for you to reveal it as a lie, and you may very well be locked into actual choices that rely on it metaphysically being a lie. 

 

You can, of course, still pretend like this isn't true. But what you're doing is not resolving some kind of ambiguity. It's the equivalent of pretending that Duncan didn't die at Ostagar but rather is with the party the entire time, and just imagining off-screen interactions with him. 

[phaonica]

I don't believe I ever said anybody should "give up." What I did state is that the kind of multiple race/background option isn't applicable to a BioWare game and it has never really worked. Again, the only time it was somewhat effective was with Origins in which you had separate and unique origin stories. I'm fine with that. However, the problem arises that all of that uniqueness goes out the window once you become the "Warden." Again, BioWare doesn't have the funds nor the resources to make four separate games just to infuse actual depth to characters based on race. BioWare even admitted that all of the various origins with varying races and livelihoods was incredibly taxing and not an efficient way of developing a game.
 
Look at every modern BioWare title going back to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. DAO and DAI are the only titles out of KotOR, JE, ME 1-3, in which you could play as a different race. Contrary to popular belief, multi-race background is not a cornerstone of BioWare games. It is a cornerstone of BGS games, however, such as TES, which has offered nine races since Arena in 1994. BGS to this day is still a better roleplaying game for the amount of choice, freedom, and flexibility of the sandbox that the world of Tamriel offers. BioWare games have never rivaled that and by trying to take cues from TES and other games that don't focus on story nearly as much, we are seeing the stucture begin to collapse on itself.
 
The main prevailing issue I'm seeing in this thread is people want their cake and they want to eat it too. They want this "ultimate" RPG experience that is likely never going to happen. As a few others have stated, "your" imagination will always be better than anything BioWare comes up with. Thus, it's kind of a silly argument to say you are such a big proponent of "roleplaying" if you are playing a BioWare game, which is much more linear and restricted due to the choice-driven, story element of their games. BioWare games are great because they tell an amazing story that the writing team creates. BioWare games aren't great because you headcanon some well-conceived background that's never applicable to the game, nor any of the events, characters, or the story. As co-founder Dr. Ray Muzyka once stated when describing what a BioWare game is, it makes the player the audience, the actor, and the director all at once.
 
In other words, you aren't the writer. You have control and flexibility over the pieces that have been presented, but that is the extent of your impression on the experience. If I really just want to roleplay, I can write a fanfiction or play a tabletop RPG. A video game, especially one that is so structured around storytelling and linear as a BioWare game, is just not an appropriate medium. If that's more of what you are looking for, BGS games (TES, Fallout) are much better to elicit that kind of experience.

You just said that having "multiple race/background options isn't applicable to a Bioware Game and has never really worked" is something that Bioware needs to address, and you've said they need to address it by taking that option out. In other words, by giving it up. Because you say that having the multiple race/background thing worked somewhat in DAO and works in TES, you seem to be suggesting that having multiple race/backgrounds CAN work, but has severe resource limitations that cause the primary narrative to suffer. You also seem to be suggesting that because having their cake and eating it too is "likely never going to happen" that Bioware should quit trying. You also seem to be suggesting that "roleplaying" a Bioware character is an illusion because the player doesn't write the story, they just act one out. Regardless of whether or not that is an illusion, plenty of people do feel that it gives them a roleplaying experience and enjoy the experiment of the multiple races and backgrounds. If it takes away from the main story, it seems to be a sacrifice they are willing to take.

[Steppenwolf]

What successes have BioWare had with pre-set PCs? We've had Hawke and Shepard, so DA2 and the ME series. Dragon Age 2 had a disjointed and largely unsatisfying story so that's a knock against the OP's conjecture. Then with Mass Effect we had one good story(ME1), one barely passable story(ME2) and one lousy story(ME3) so that's two more knocks against the OP and only one example in support. One in four is not good odds. I'll take choice over another Shepard or Hawke.

[Ashii6]

OP, I agree with you 100%. I loved my sarcastic FemHawke and I also felt very attached to my Shepard. Inquisitor on the other hand.. even fully voiced was just a blank character we were supposed to play as. I even prefered our Grey Warden to Inquisitor. In both games we could pick races, sure, but at least in Origins we had some backstory about our character and that was a small connection I needed with the character I had to play.

Inquisitor is just some person that happened to be in the Conclave. We wake up in the fade and what? Everyone knows who we are except us.
" Oh, Josie called my character Trevelyan. That's... nice? " <- BioWare should've given us some small prologue before waking up in the fade. Even a tiny-mini prologue to let us connect with the character we are suppose to play for 90 freaking hours!

I started my second playthrough few days ago. I changed class, voice, even my PC's character and nothing. I don't feel the Inquisitor AT ALL.
This is rpg game. If I can control my character, control what she says, what she's doing for most of the game, I should also feel connected with that character, but in Inquisition it didn't happen.

[Medhia_Nox]

@In Exile:  I'm curious what the difference between imagination and mental fantasy is. 

[Morroian]

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


Now I'm sure you're a troll.

 

Whats ironic is that on the question of POE being an indie game you're largely trolling.

 

 

What successes have BioWare had with pre-set PCs? We've had Hawke and Shepard, so DA2 and the ME series. Dragon Age 2 had a disjointed and largely unsatisfying story so that's a knock against the OP's conjecture. Then with Mass Effect we had one good story(ME1), one barely passable story(ME2) and one lousy story(ME3) so that's two more knocks against the OP and only one example in support. One in four is not good odds. I'll take choice over another Shepard or Hawke.

 

DA2's issues were not around Hawke being a more set protagonist. The ME3 story is actually quite good its just the ending which was a let down. Given how iconic Shepard has become I'd say overall it was a success.

[Revan Reborn]

You just said that having "multiple race/background options isn't applicable to a Bioware Game and has never really worked" is something that Bioware needs to address, and you've said they need to address it by taking that option out. In other words, by giving it up. Because you say that having the multiple race/background thing worked somewhat in DAO and works in TES, you seem to be suggesting that having multiple race/backgrounds CAN work, but has severe resource limitations that cause the primary narrative to suffer. You also seem to be suggesting that because having their cake and eating it too is "likely never going to happen" that Bioware should quit trying. You also seem to be suggesting that "roleplaying" a Bioware character is an illusion because the player doesn't write the story, they just act one out. Regardless of whether or not that is an illusion, plenty of people do feel that it gives them a roleplaying experience and enjoy the experiment of the multiple races and backgrounds. If it takes away from the main story, it seems to be a sacrifice they are willing to take.

That's quite an illogical leap on your part. I'm suggesting that multi-race doesn't really work well in BioWare games and has never been a cornerstone of their formula. I never said they should give up (DAO actually was a pretty good attempt), but in my opinion, it's harming the actual story as a result. Now, if BioWare wants to give up, that's their own prerogative. I'm merely offering my own insight and a suggestion on how they could tell a better story.

 

Actually, what I'm stating is multi-race, in particular, works well in RPGs that aren't focused around story. If there is a story, the origin approach of DAO is somewhat of a solution, but it only resolves the beginning prologue of the game. The problem is BioWare doesn't have the capacity to make your racial choice matter throughout the entire experience in a meaningful way. The only way they have proven they can is when they restrict the race you are playing, such as a human in Mass Effect.

 

The portion about "having your cake and eating it too" is more to do with "roleplaying" fans. They want to headcanon. They want to imagine conversations and a backstory for their voiceless character. Great. I suggested that a BioWare game, regardless of the formula, is a terrible medium for that. Contrary to popular belief, BioWare games aren't very good roleplaying games. If you want a good roleplaying game where you can infuse your own custom character in the world without any constraints, TES games are good for that, or just old fashion pen and paper, tabletop RPGs, fanfiction, and other activities.

 

A sacrifice who is willing to make? The small group of fans who have eight different characters they create in their head to "roleplay" in a BioWare game? Or BioWare, who is forced to appeal to the needs of the majority and to make the most well-rounded and diverse experience they possibly can? While I'm on for player expression, I just don't believe a BioWare game is the most sensical place to ask for that kind of experience because the games are so story-driven. Again, Shepard and Hawke felt more like "my characters" than the Warden or the Inquisitor ever did because they actually felt like real people that existed in their respective universes. The other two didn't and seemed out of place. Sure, I could just headcanon and rationalize it to make it "okay," but that merely hampers and undermines the game for many others who want an amazing story.

 

What successes have BioWare had with pre-set PCs? We've had Hawke and Shepard, so DA2 and the ME series. Dragon Age 2 had a disjointed and largely unsatisfying story so that's a knock against the OP's conjecture. Then with Mass Effect we had one good story(ME1), one barely passable story(ME2) and one lousy story(ME3) so that's two more knocks against the OP and only one example in support. One in four is not good odds. I'll take choice over another Shepard or Hawke.

Are you forgetting Revan? While the player didn't know they were Revan until halfway through the game, that is one of the most iconic and best examples of a pre-set PC. Hawke and Shepard are obviously the more modern examples from BioWare games.

 

As the other poster above so aptly put it, Hawke's character has nothing to do with the shortcomings of DAII, which are largely because of being rushed and poor game development choices. The story and the characters are actually quite good. As far as your measurement of quality with respect to ME, that's entirely subjective. I know some love ME1 more than the rest. I know some love ME2 more than the rest. Some even love ME3 more than the rest, and I'd happen to be one of them regardless of the ending.

 

Thus, you are merely using your own personal opinion to try and subvert clear situations (Revan, Shepard, Hawke) of characters who flourished quite well.

[Heimdall]

I don't believe I ever said anybody should "give up." What I did state is that the kind of multiple race/background option isn't applicable to a BioWare game and it has never really worked. Again, the only time it was somewhat effective was with Origins in which you had separate and unique origin stories. I'm fine with that. However, the problem arises that all of that uniqueness goes out the window once you become the "Warden." Again, BioWare doesn't have the funds nor the resources to make four separate games just to infuse actual depth to characters based on race. BioWare even admitted that all of the various origins with varying races and livelihoods was incredibly taxing and not an efficient way of developing a game.
 
Look at every modern BioWare title going back to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. DAO and DAI are the only titles out of KotOR, JE, ME 1-3, in which you could play as a different race. Contrary to popular belief, multi-race background is not a cornerstone of BioWare games. It is a cornerstone of BGS games, however, such as TES, which has offered nine races since Arena in 1994. BGS to this day is still a better roleplaying game for the amount of choice, freedom, and flexibility of the sandbox that the world of Tamriel offers. BioWare games have never rivaled that and by trying to take cues from TES and other games that don't focus on story nearly as much, we are seeing the stucture begin to collapse on itself.

Wait, you think Bioware was taking cues from Bethesda when they decided to try multiple races in Origins? Well, no. Bioware's first game with race selection was also the last High Fantasy game they made in 1998, Baldur's Gate, you know, the very game they billed it as a spiritual successor to. I know you're going to say "Modern Bioware", but to say they're taking cues from Bethesda on that is a bit of a stretch even if it isn't a cornerstone. If you said they took cues from Skyrim about creating an open world (As it seems half the industry did) I'd agree.  I'd also disagree about Bethesda making better roleplaying games, rather, they make a different kind of roleplaying game.
 

The main prevailing issue I'm seeing in this thread is people want their cake and they want to eat it too. They want this "ultimate" RPG experience that is likely never going to happen. As a few others have stated, "your" imagination will always be better than anything BioWare comes up with. Thus, it's kind of a silly argument to say you are such a big proponent of "roleplaying" if you are playing a BioWare game, which is much more linear and restricted due to the choice-driven, story element of their games. BioWare games are great because they tell an amazing story that the writing team creates. BioWare games aren't great because you headcanon some well-conceived background that's never applicable to the game, nor any of the events, characters, or the story. As co-founder Dr. Ray Muzyka once stated when describing what a BioWare game is, it makes the player the audience, the actor, and the director all at once.
 
In other words, you aren't the writer. You have control and flexibility over the pieces that have been presented, but that is the extent of your impression on the experience. If I really just want to roleplay, I can write a fanfiction or play a tabletop RPG. A video game, especially one that is so structured around storytelling and linear as a BioWare game, is just not an appropriate medium. If that's more of what you are looking for, BGS games (TES, Fallout) are much better to elicit that kind of experience.

See, I think you misunderstand what people want.  You keep saying that the effort fails because Bioware can't realistically make five different games to adequately flesh out a story with race selection.  And the resulting character becomes generic.

 

Here's the thing: Why do you think people bring out "Bring back the Warden" threads at least three times a week it seems?  I have a theory, if you'll indulge me.  The warden was a template, a template whose appearance and interactions with other characters players are able to use as a springboard to build on.  See, the reason the Warden and the Inquisitor seem like such dull characters to you is that they aren't characters.  They're templates.

 

Every time one of those Warden threads shows up, I tell people "Why would you want the Warden to show up as an NPC?  What was interesting, what you loved about the Warden, was what you were able to put into him/her."  And that's not a bad thing.

 

It's a midway point between a tabletop or the sort of roleplaying you do with a Bethesda game and a character like Geralt.

 

Yes, there are trade offs, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth it and a great experience can't come out of it.

[Bakgrind]

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 could not agree more HOF trumps Hawke every time. Maybe if Hawke was a better written character  he wouldn't of come off as being such a big buffoon where as every positive action he takes for himself, his family and those around him was not negated by and equal or more destructive negative action.

[Phoe77]

Serious question.  What do people want to see to make it seem like the character's race has an impact in the game?  Do they want to see dialogue that has to do with the protagonist's race?  Is it a matter of having race-based content such as a quest that's either only available to a protagonist of a certain race or can be completed in a unique way based on race?  

 

Also, and I'm sure this has been said beforehand, I feel like characters with a less fixed background are easier to define the personality of than those with fixed backgrounds.  With a character like Shepard or Hawke, there are certain personality traits that are non-negotiable.  You can't make a Shepard that isn't determined to stop the Reapers.  You can't play as a Hawke who doesn't care for his family.  Even the less fixed characters like the Inquisitor have certain unavoidable values.  For instance, all Inquisitors want to stabilize Thedas. 

 

What's important to me (and I'm sure to other people with similar preferences) is that you are able to define the underlying aspects of your character that influence their personality.  I don't know if that falls into this whole "mental fantasy" thing that people are talking about, but I personally find it to be an enjoyable aspect of a game.  I think that going too far down the road of fixed protagonists would negatively impact that aspect.

[Revan Reborn]

Wait, you think Bioware was taking cues from Bethesda when they decided to try multiple races in Origins? Well, no. Bioware's first game with race selection was also the last High Fantasy game they made in 1998, Baldur's Gate, you know, the very game they billed it as a spiritual successor to. I know you're going to say "Modern Bioware", but to say they're taking cues from Bethesda on that is a bit of a stretch even if it isn't a cornerstone. If you said they took cues from Skyrim about creating an open world (As it seems half the industry did) I'd agree.  I'd also disagree about Bethesda making better roleplaying games, rather, they make a different kind of roleplaying game.
 

See, I think you misunderstand what people want.  You keep saying that the effort fails because Bioware can't realistically make five different games to adequately flesh out a story with race selection.  And the resulting character becomes generic.

 

Here's the thing: Why do you think people bring out "Bring back the Warden" threads at least three times a week it seems?  I have a theory, if you'll indulge me.  The warden was a template, a template whose appearance and interactions with other characters players are able to use as a springboard to build on.  See, the reason the Warden and the Inquisitor seem like such dull characters to you is that they aren't characters.  They're templates.

 

Every time one of those Warden threads shows up, I tell people "Why would you want the Warden to show up as an NPC?  What was interesting, what you loved about the Warden, was what you were able to put into him/her."  And that's not a bad thing.

 

It's a midway point between a tabletop or the sort of roleplaying you do with a Bethesda game and a character like Geralt.

 

Yes, there are trade offs, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth it and a great experience can't come out of it.

That's not really what I meant, but we'll roll with it. I'm quite aware that BioWare has been making games since the early 90s (their first game wasn't even an RPG). It's also fair to point out that the "Baldur's Gate" BioWare no longer exists. The "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic" BioWare doesn't even exist anymore. One of the things BioWare does with every new generation is they change their formula philosophically and mentally. With the release of Mass Effect, they added a voiced protagonist, the dialogue wheel, and Hollywood-esque cinematography. With the current generation, BioWare has incorporated a larger focus on a more open world experience and continuing a buildup on multiplayer as a source of longevity.

 

Why this matters? What BioWare did in Baldur's gate is irrelevant as that was a different studio and many of those developers are gone. What BioWare does today is starkly different, and outside of two of their most recent games, BioWare doesn't have a tradition of multi-race protagonists. As far as why people care so much about the Warden? I'll give you my explanation:

 

While you make a valid point that the Warden is more a template than a character, I don't believe that's necessarily why people want to see him/her. The issue, or perhaps benefit, is that Dragon Age, as a franchise was built around the Warden. Many of the major events and characters that have since shown up in all the Dragon Age games are somehow related to the actions of the Warden. Whether it's Alistair as King of Ferelden, Morrigan and Flemeth, Leliana, Cullen, etc. All of these characters have one thing in common: they all knew the Warden. Obviously, your own choices can significantly change who is what and why.

 

It is because of those choices that I made in Origins and how they have affected the world state of Thedas since then that I indirectly care about my Warden. It's not because of necessarily who he is or what he did, but rather the consequences of his actions. If not for these various characters, events, and civilizations that have been intrinsically affected by the Warden, I don't think anybody would care. It's the fact that he had such an impact on so many different ways that I believe many would like to see him have some sort of major role in a future game. In a sense, it's as if the Warden, for many, is the very foundation of what is the Dragon Age universe. That is why I believe so many see the Warden as so ideal and so compelling. In many ways, I'd say he shares quite a few similarities with how Revan is perceived.

[Isaidlunch]

Multiple races are here to stay whether you like it or not (I certainly don't), but I think where DAI went wrong is that the story didn't feel personal. It's hard for me to care about the Inquisitor when they just jump from plot point to plot point with nothing ever really happening to them. I'd much prefer a PC like the Imperial Agent from SWTOR where the PC develops along with the story.

[WildOrchid]

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.

 

LOL

[Revan Reborn]

Multiple races are here to stay whether you like it or not (I certainly don't), but I think where DAI went wrong is that the story didn't feel personal. It's hard for me to care about the Inquisitor when they just jump from plot point to plot point with nothing ever really happening to them. I'd much prefer a PC like the Imperial Agent from SWTOR where the PC develops along with the story.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. If people are accurate and DAI originally was only going to have humans as the only race, that would have meant only one DA game would have offered a multi-race option. Even now, I believe it's a heated discussion within BioWare whether multi-race should be a feature or if going a more defined route is better for their overall experience.

 

I don't believe SWTOR is necessarily a fair comparison just becauseof how long the story experiences are for each class. When you actually consider what DAI is, the main story really isn't that long. It's the exploration, massive environments, and other activities that really flesh out the game. So, when just looking in isolation of what actually happens to the Inquisitor, it's rather brief and, as you said, not very personal.

 

I don't believe the Inquisitor is beyond help. If he/she were to be the protagonist in the next game, then further character development would be possible. However, since DA does not follow the trilogy development cycle that ME does, it's unlikely the Inquisitor will return.

[SerendipitousElf]

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.

 

The race of the warden was referenced in the letter from the warden in DAI when I was playing a dalish elf inquisitor and my warden was a dalish elf too.

According to David Gaider, lead writer, Dragon Age is the story of Thedas, so good luck crushing his myth. 

Spoiler

http://www.ea.com/ne...age-inquisition

My claim is based on my experience as a target audience.  I did not play nor will play ME - the Shepard story, simply because playing a trilogy of the same character's life doesn't appeal to me.

[Revan Reborn]

According to David Gaider, lead writer, Dragon Age is the story of Thedas, so good luck crushing his myth. 

Spoiler

http://www.ea.com/ne...age-inquisition

My claim is based on my experience as a target audience.  I did not play nor will play ME - the Shepard story, simply because playing a trilogy of the same character's life doesn't appeal to me.

What Gaider says is a moot point as he is no longer the lead writer on BioWare and it doesn't matter if his assertion does not comport with the facts. None of the Dragon Age games are remotely about "the story of Thedas." You could make that stretch somewhat with DAI, but you are still largely just in Ferelden and Orlais. DAO is purely Ferelden and DAII was Kirkwall. What mattered in these games were the events, not the world of Thedas. Again, the Fifth Blight, the Mage Rebellion, and the Breach.

 

I think what perhaps Gaider was trying to convey is that the lore of Dragon Age is supposed to add and improve upon the story he, and the other writers, are trying to tell. Not that the games, themselves, are literally "the story of Thedas." Just play the game and you would realize that statement is either being misinterpreted or doesn't actually make sense with what is happening in the game.

 

Whether you want to play Mass Effect or not doesn't matter. Mass Effect is a BioWare product, just like Dragon Age. What affects one affects the other. Why do you think Dragon Age started using the dialogue wheel, the voiced protagonist, the cinematography, and the personality traits to start? That's all from Mass Effect.

[Heimdall]

That's not really what I meant, but we'll roll with it. I'm quite aware that BioWare has been making games since the early 90s (their first game wasn't even an RPG). It's also fair to point out that the "Baldur's Gate" BioWare no longer exists. The "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic" BioWare doesn't even exist anymore. One of the things BioWare does with every new generation is they change their formula philosophically and mentally. With the release of Mass Effect, they added a voiced protagonist, the dialogue wheel, and Hollywood-esque cinematography. With the current generation, BioWare has incorporated a larger focus on a more open world experience and continuing a buildup on multiplayer as a source of longevity.

Multiplayer didn't start until ME3 and they only started with open world in DAI. You could make a very shaky claim that strains of open world can be found in MEs Mako sequences, but it would be a weak one.

Most developers gain and lose staff over decade and a half, so has Bethesda. Not all of them are gone though. Baldur's Gate 2 was David Gaider's first job writing video games and he was the lead writer on Dragon Age until just recently. My point is, just because the company has changed doesn't mean their past doesn't influence them. That, and that there's a long history of RPGs providing race choice or something similar, lead me to say that attributing that to Bethesda is a bit of a stretch.
 

Why this matters? What BioWare did in Baldur's gate is irrelevant as that was a different studio and many of those developers are gone. What BioWare does today is starkly different, and outside of two of their most recent games, BioWare doesn't have a tradition of multi-race protagonists. As far as why people care so much about the Warden? I'll give you my explanation:
 
While you make a valid point that the Warden is more a template than a character, I don't believe that's necessarily why people want to see him/her. The issue, or perhaps benefit, is that Dragon Age, as a franchise was built around the Warden. Many of the major events and characters that have since shown up in all the Dragon Age games are somehow related to the actions of the Warden. Whether it's Alistair as King of Ferelden, Morrigan and Flemeth, Leliana, Cullen, etc. All of these characters have one thing in common: they all knew the Warden. Obviously, your own choices can significantly change who is what and why.
 
It is because of those choices that I made in Origins and how they have affected the world state of Thedas since then that I indirectly care about my Warden. It's not because of necessarily who he is or what he did, but rather the consequences of his actions. If not for these various characters, events, and civilizations that have been intrinsically affected by the Warden, I don't think anybody would care. It's the fact that he had such an impact on so many different ways that I believe many would like to see him have some sort of major role in a future game. In a sense, it's as if the Warden, for many, is the very foundation of what is the Dragon Age universe. That is why I believe so many see the Warden as so ideal and so compelling. In many ways, I'd say he shares quite a few similarities with how Revan is perceived.

An interesting idea, and I think that might be part of it, but I don't think that's all of it.

Many people are aren't just hankering for "that guy who saved the werewolves". They keep asking for "Liam Couseland who avenged his family viciously and maneuvered his way to Ferelden's throne" or "Lia Surana who's still hurting from Alistair's rejection" or "Elly Tabris who's happily slaughtering Antivan Crows alongside Zevran". And I see people saying similar things about their Inquisitors, hoping Bioware will continue to use them in further games. Bioware provided the foundations and players were able to build a character off of it (With reasonable limits in variation). Yes, much of this can't be reacted to or accounted for by Bioware, but what they do provide is Companions and a (usually) strong main plot to interact with that makes the player character feel connected to the world in a way Bethesda characters never do. But I freely admit, they don't have as much depth or feel as connected as Geralt.

On the RPG spectrum, Bioware's work exists somewhere between The Witcher and Elder Scrolls protagonists. It can be a slightly awkward position, but it's also able to take advantage of strengths from either end of that spectrum. I'd prefer they stayed there.

[phaonica]

That's quite an illogical leap on your part. I'm suggesting that multi-race doesn't really work well in BioWare games and has never been a cornerstone of their formula. I never said they should give up (DAO actually was a pretty good attempt), but in my opinion, it's harming the actual story as a result. Now, if BioWare wants to give up, that's their own prerogative. I'm merely offering my own insight and a suggestion on how they could tell a better story.

You specifically said "I'm merely offering my own insight and a suggestion on how they could tell a better story...multi-race doesn't really work ... it's harming the actual story "

So you're actually doing what? Pointing out that you think the story has a problem, suggesting that having the multi-race option is causing a problem, and then actually not suggesting how they could make it better? Did you not suggest that they quit using the multi-race option in favor of a more defined character, or am I confusing you with someone else? If so, I apologize.

 

The portion about "having your cake and eating it too" is more to do with "roleplaying" fans. They want to headcanon. They want to imagine conversations and a backstory for their voiceless character. Great. I suggested that a BioWare game, regardless of the formula, is a terrible medium for that. Contrary to popular belief, BioWare games aren't very good roleplaying games. If you want a good roleplaying game where you can infuse your own custom character in the world without any constraints, TES games are good for that, or just old fashion pen and paper, tabletop RPGs, fanfiction, and other activities.

Well the only Bioware games that I've ever played were the Dragon Age titles. I'd never played a Bioware game until DAO, and it did the race/background thing okay, by even your own admission. Perhaps it was ignorant of me to hope that the other Dragon Age titles would have this feature, but it was one of the features I liked. I was disappointed to find out, iirc, that it wasn't a feature they had really intended to continue using. I thought it was worth the effort to try to make it work. Even if Bioware doesn't have a history of making that type of game, they attempted it previously and it worked alright.

A sacrifice who is willing to make? The small group of fans who have eight different characters they create in their head to "roleplay" in a BioWare game? Or BioWare, who is forced to appeal to the needs of the majority and to make the most well-rounded and diverse experience they possibly can? While I'm on for player expression, I just don't believe a BioWare game is the most sensical place to ask for that kind of experience because the games are so story-driven. Again, Shepard and Hawke felt more like "my characters" than the Warden or the Inquisitor ever did because they actually felt like real people that existed in their respective universes. The other two didn't and seemed out of place. Sure, I could just headcanon and rationalize it to make it "okay," but that merely hampers and undermines the game for many others who want an amazing story.

As the other poster above so aptly put it, Hawke's character has nothing to do with the shortcomings of DAII, which are largely because of being rushed and poor game development choices. The story and the characters are actually quite good. As far as your measurement of quality with respect to ME, that's entirely subjective. I know some love ME1 more than the rest. I know some love ME2 more than the rest. Some even love ME3 more than the rest, and I'd happen to be one of them regardless of the ending.

Thus, you are merely using your own personal opinion to try and subvert clear situations (Revan, Shepard, Hawke) of characters who flourished quite well.

I was referring to the group of players who do enjoy the multiple race option. They are, admittedly, probably a smaller group than those who don't have an opinion about whether or not there is a multiple race option. That doesn't mean, though, that it's impossible to construct a great story if you have to take into account a more loosely defined main character. I think it can be done, and I think it's worth doing.

It is not true for everyone that Hawke and Shepard's story are better. I felt like the Warden was far more "my characters" than Hawke. And a lot of other players seem to have felt that way too. And furthermore, for me personally, Hawke's character was the primary shortcoming of DAII. I felt that the story and the characters were not good. I'm playing it right now, to give it another chance, and all the characters are even worse than I remember, including Hawke. This isn't to say that my opinion somehow invalidates anyone else's; it's just to point out that none of this is objective. One is not necessarily wrong while the other is right; they're all opinions based on personal taste.