820 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

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

To me the difference is between coming up with your own explanation for something that's necessarily ambiguous (a good example here would be imaging the line of dialogue your character would use in Morrowind, which is a list based dialogue) and effectively closing your eyes to the only reasonable interpretation of events in front of you.

This is why I use the example of pretending that Duncan survived past Ostagar, is with the party, and Alistair just thinks he's dead because he had a complete nervous breakdown (hence why he goes off to be a drunk).

[phaonica]

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).

I love how this is worded, and I like the idea of thinking of the Warden and the Inquisitor as a "template". For a lot of people, the Warden isn't just a story anchor that explains how their world state came about. The Warden is the vehicle by which they virtually experienced a meaningful and profound adventure. Some of these players care about who their Wardens are as much as, if not more than, the world state they created.

[In Exile]

I love how this is worded, and I like the idea of thinking of the Warden and the Inquisitor as a "template". For a lot of people, the Warden isn't just a story anchor that explains how their world state came about. The Warden is the vehicle by which they virtually experienced a meaningful and profound adventure. Some of these players care about who their Wardens are as much as, if not more than, the world state they created.

 

I note, however, that what gives rise to this relationship varies by player. I prefer VO over non-VO, but that doesn't mean that I prefer a fixed background. For me, the Inquisitor is my far the character over which I feel the most ownership, even though Hawke actually allowed me to RP a character closest to how I'd like to RP every character (which is to say reluctant trollface Hawke forever). 

 

My Qunquisitor is my favourite character, however, and certainly a lot of that comes from the combination of blank background and VO. 

[Patient.Zero]

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.

 

Oh ok, so if a character were to have an established background that you could chose to work away from or stick to, that would be the foundation you're looking for? Like the fact that you can either pursue a relationship with Triss or continue the one you'd forgotten you had with Yennefer. As long as you have some sort of bio to inform you of what the character was or could be?

 

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."

 

Can I ask how you would like race to play into the story? I believe what you're saying is that the race of you character is pretty much made moot by that fact that the organization you're part of or mission that you're are tasked with completing becomes a bigger issue then what you look like (something I think is actually pretty cool because it puts into perspective how important your mission/the mission of the organization is). As I understand it, being human in Mass Effect was of significance because you were a human among aliens, if the protagonist was in a similar situation where they were constantly out of their element because of the their race would that be something you enjoyed more? 

 

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.

 

I'm not sure how one plays with a head cannon... I just think that instead of trying to deter BioWare form making games with multiple race options because "its too hard" or "not in their tool belt" we could have more of a positive mindset and look at improving things intent of scraping them. 

[phaonica]

I note, however, that what gives rise to this relationship varies by player. I prefer VO over non-VO, but that doesn't mean that I prefer a fixed background. For me, the Inquisitor is my far the character over which I feel the most ownership, even though Hawke actually allowed me to RP a character closest to how I'd like to RP every character (which is to say reluctant trollface Hawke forever). 
 
My Qunquisitor is my favourite character, however, and certainly a lot of that comes from the combination of blank background and VO.

Exactly. Which aspects of the gameplay more strongly facilitates any given player's ability to roleplay their character is going to vary from player to player. I think that, despite the claim that "BioWare games aren't very good roleplaying games" and that "a BioWare game...is a terrible medium for that" either some people can and do roleplay their Dragon Age characters, or what they are doing isn't technically "roleplaying" but still can result in a feeling of "ownership" (which I take to mean as a feeling of having created a character that is unique and personal to them, regardless of whether or not doing such is an illusion).

[Fireheart]

I agree, but in the middle of the series, it's impossible now. Maybe in the next IP (not new ME).

[Revan Reborn]

Oh ok, so if a character were to have an established background that you could chose to work away from or stick to, that would be the foundation you're looking for? Like the fact that you can either pursue a relationship with Triss or continue the one you'd forgotten you had with Yennefer. As long as you have some sort of bio to inform you of what the character was or could be?

 

 

Can I ask how you would like race to play into the story? I believe what you're saying is that the race of you character is pretty much made moot by that fact that the organization you're part of or mission that you're are tasked with completing becomes a bigger issue then what you look like (something I think is actually pretty cool because it puts into perspective how important your mission/the mission of the organization is). As I understand it, being human in Mass Effect was of significance because you were a human among aliens, if the protagonist was in a similar situation where they were constantly out of their element because of the their race would that be something you enjoyed more? 

 

 

I'm not sure how one plays with a head cannon... I just think that instead of trying to deter BioWare form making games with multiple race options because "its too hard" or "not in their tool belt" we could have more of a positive mindset and look at improving things intent of scraping them. 

This doesn't necessarily have to be a codex entry, in fact I wouldn't be in favor of that. I just want the "realism" of the character to be expressed and represented in the game. My issue with the HoF and Inquisitor is I never felt like I had a voice or a say in anything. There was this disconnect because I wasn't naturally engaging in the world in a way that seemed believable. With Geralt in Shepard, they are crafted to an extent via the story, but you have control to shift and define them on a more intimate level.

 

I like how CDPR has tied Triss, Yennefer, and Geralt into this awkward love triangle. For those who haven't read the novels, they've only had exposure to Triss, even though Yennefer is Geralt's true love. So the fact that the player will be able to shape and determine Geralt's relationship going forward is the type of character depth yet player control that I believe leads to a perfect balance of the two.

 

Elves or mages generally aren't "adored" in many parts of Thedas. I'd like to see this represented in a variety of ways, through dialogue, branching choices, even combat. To give an idea, I believe it would be interesting if NPCs had a disposition system similar to Oblivion. How they feel about you and whether they like or dislike you would be based on a variety of characteristics: gender, race, class, reputation, etc.

 

So, if you are a blood mage elf who doesn't have a lot of respect or regard for others, I believe the game should reflect that. At the same time, if you are say a follower of the Chantry and dedicate your life to sacrifice and service, certain groups should think highly of you. We can call this a "reactivity" system of sorts. This is something BioWare games have largely struggled without, even in the case of their choices. I shouldn't just be making choices and things happen as a result. The world should react to what I do, who I am, and what I represent. Does that make sense?

 

I'm all for ideas as long as it doesn't adversely affect the story. As I stated above, in order to really make multi-race selection more meaningful, I believe a reactive world and intelligent AI would help solve the issue. BioWare worlds are generally rather static and unchanging. It's only through dialogue and cinematics with major plot points that things really change. Since it appears BioWare is going in the direction of a more open world experience with DAI and now the next Mass Effect, they could take some cues from BGS, Rockstar, and a few others have to breathe life into the world (not just clicking on collectibles) that is not only interesting but grounds your character in that place.

[Revan Reborn]

I agree, but in the middle of the series, it's impossible now. Maybe in the next IP (not new ME).

Well this really depends on what the next Dragon Age game is. With David Gaider out of the way, I wouldn't be surprised if BioWare does a "reboot" in a sense that they just uncover undiscovered territory. The same is currently happening with the next Mass Effect with the lead writer from Halo 4 being in charge. Rumor had it the Casey Hudson IP in development was going to have multiplayer or something to that effect, so I'm not even sure if this idea would necessarily be appropriate. We'll just have to wait and see until we hear more.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Well this really depends on what the next Dragon Age game is. With David Gaider out of the way, I wouldn't be surprised if BioWare does a "reboot" in a sense that they just uncover undiscovered territory. The same is currently happening with the next Mass Effect with the lead writer from Halo 4 being in charge. Rumor had it the Casey Hudson IP in development was going to have multiplayer or something to that effect, so I'm not even sure if this idea would necessarily be appropriate. We'll just have to wait and see until we hear more.

The writer from Halo 4 isn't in charge. He is writing the story, but Mac Walters has the final say in that department. Just saying. 

[Revan Reborn]

The writer from Halo 4 isn't in charge. He is writing the story, but Mac Walters has the final say in that department. Just saying. 

No. That's not accurate. The lead writer from halo is the lead writer for the next Mass Effect. In other words, he is creating the story and he is the final decision on it, just like Drew was on KotOR/ME1/ME2, Mac was on ME3, and David was on DAO/DAII/DAI.

 

Mac is now the "creative lead," which essentially means he's just a visionary for the product and nothing else. What his duties are is to make sure that the writing team is creating an experience that feels like "Mass Effect." He is just there to make sure that the new guy doesn't turn Mass Effect into Halo, but otherwise, he really has no authority with respect to what the new guy does.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

No. That's not accurate. The lead writer from halo is the lead writer for the next Mass Effect. In other words, he is creating the story and he is the final decision on it, just like Drew was on KotOR/ME1/ME2, Mac was on ME3, and David was on DAO/DAII/DAI.

 

Mac is now the "creative lead," which essentially means he's just a visionary for the product and nothing else. What his duties are is to make sure that the writing team is creating an experience that feels like "Mass Effect." He is just there to make sure that the new guy doesn't turn Mass Effect into Halo, but otherwise, he really has no authority with respect to what the new guy does.

Thank you for proving my point. Mac's job is to make sure the writers don't stray from the vision he has set. So the writers, even the lead writer, has to have what they do approved by him, therefore he has the final say just like I said.

[tanuki]

As I stated above, in order to really make multi-race selection more meaningful, I believe a reactive world and intelligent AI would help solve the issue. 

See, you say it yourself. Bioware shouldn't get rid of races, but make them more meaningful for the story. Like you and others said, more reactivity. I would also want them to continue with race-gated or even class-gated romances as well as race-specific quests. So far in DAI only elves got some recognition in their respective playthroughs, largely due to the Solas' romance (even if for females only) and all elven lore for which elf inquisitors had a say here and there. Dwarf and qunari, though, unfortunately, could just be short human and tall human commoners, because aside from few NPC comments, their races didn't play any role.

[Eelectrica]

No, of all the things the game needs, a fixed race protagonist is not one of them. Needs more options, not less!

[PhroXenGold]

Well this really depends on what the next Dragon Age game is. With David Gaider out of the way, I wouldn't be surprised if BioWare does a "reboot" in a sense that they just uncover undiscovered territory. The same is currently happening with the next Mass Effect with the lead writer from Halo 4 being in charge. Rumor had it the Casey Hudson IP in development was going to have multiplayer or something to that effect, so I'm not even sure if this idea would necessarily be appropriate. We'll just have to wait and see until we hear more.

 

It's getting a little away from the main topic, but this reminds me of something I've been thinking about for a while - I kinda want BW to leave the Dragon Age pretty soon. Not leave Thedas, but set the next game, or at least the one after that, a century or two later.

[Eelectrica]

See, you say it yourself. Bioware shouldn't get rid of races, but make them more meaningful for the story. Like you and others said, more reactivity. I would also want them to continue with race-gated or even class-gated romances as well as race-specific quests. So far in DAI only elves got some recognition in their respective playthroughs, largely due to the Solas' romance (even if for females only) and all elven lore for which elf inquisitors had a say here and there. Dwarf and qunari, though, unfortunately, could just be short human and tall human commoners, because aside from few NPC comments, their races didn't play any role.

I would expect a playable Qunari would be very interesting in DA4 since it's expected to be me set in the northern regions. With the Tevinter/Qunari war going on that could really open up a lot of extra dialogue options for a Qunari protagonist.

[Khaeix]

I would adore DA4 with a fixed protagonist. Without all the different races those resources could be used elsewhere to create a better game. I enjoyed DA2 more than DA:O because Hawke was a character. The problem I have with DA:O and DA:I is that the PC is so bland, they're just blank canvases who stiffly talk to NPCs who have way more personality than my Warden or Inquisitor ever could. I know I could headcannon it in, but I don't want to have to create a whole backstory for a character I won't care about in five years. 

 

Of course, I did enjoy DA:O and DA:I, and the Elder Scrolls games, but I prefer a game where there's a set character and I can experience the story the way the writers intended. 

[KainD]

Some people here have ''flawless'' logic like:

 

Assassins creed is the best RPG ever! Set hero, deep story, everybody even calls you by name, story reacts to your actions, all the quests have consequences! Choices? Who needs choices.. choices only take away from the story.. 

[Revan Reborn]

Thank you for proving my point. Mac's job is to make sure the writers don't stray from the vision he has set. So the writers, even the lead writer, has to have what they do approved by him, therefore he has the final say just like I said.

No. You really don't get it. "Creative lead" means he advises and gives feedback/suggestions on all parts of the experience, not just the writing. Again, the lead writer has the final say. Period. It is his story to tell.

 

See, you say it yourself. Bioware shouldn't get rid of races, but make them more meaningful for the story. Like you and others said, more reactivity. I would also want them to continue with race-gated or even class-gated romances as well as race-specific quests. So far in DAI only elves got some recognition in their respective playthroughs, largely due to the Solas' romance (even if for females only) and all elven lore for which elf inquisitors had a say here and there. Dwarf and qunari, though, unfortunately, could just be short human and tall human commoners, because aside from few NPC comments, their races didn't play any role.

I stated reactivity would help solve the issue, not fix it entirely. It's a step in the right direction, but hardly does it resolve the entire behemoth that is crafting meaningful and distinct multi-race depth in a BioWare game. I'd just like to point out that the more "limits" BioWare places on things because of race, gender, class, etc., the less content there is for everybody. That's not to say it's necessarily a bad thing, but some portions of the community would perceive it that way. Again, we have to recognize that BioWare is a company of limits and cannot do everything. Thus, we have to determine what should be devoted to and what shouldn't be, as any choice that is prioritized mean something else gets less consideration or isn't implemented in the game at all.

 

Some people here have ''flawless'' logic like:

 

Assassins creed is the best RPG ever! Set hero, deep story, everybody even calls you by name, story reacts to your actions, all the quests have consequences! Choices? Who needs choices.. choices only take away from the story.. 

Yes. We certainly all are advocating for the removal of choice from a BioWare game, even though that's obviously a cornerstone of their development whereas multi-race creation is not...

[SerendipitousElf]

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.

 

You are contradicting yourself. Orlais, Ferelden and Kirkwall are in Thedas and as the story jumps from place to place it is obvious that it is not just the story of any of them. Same applies to the protagonist - there is a new one in each installment to make exactly the point that the main story is not about any of them either. They just carry the story of the world as it develops. It is not the story of the blight, the bridge or the mages/templar war. These events happen in the Dragon Age and are world threatening events which are presented in a chronological sequence consistent with telling the story of the world.

Whether you agree or not, obviously DA is an epic story of the world during the span of the Dragon Age. It also reflects in the name of the series, so the intent of the creators of the game is more than obvious.

 

What Gaider says is not a moot point. He's left the DA series after the release of DAI, so your argument here is moot. Guessing and twisting his words' meaning to suit your argument is not too convincing either.

 

I played the game (all three DA) and formed my opinion based on game play as well as codex entries and wartable missions that are part of the games. You bring in the technicalities that affect the mechanics of the game - the argument is not at all about these and as such is utterly pointless.

 

An argument against having another DA2 type game in the series is the sales figures - DAI sold more games in the first few months after release than DA2 in few years (3.3 million and 2.5 millions respectively, all platforms).

Spoiler

Although the numbers may not be exact, they are representing the sentiment towards the games well enough to bring my point in.
http://www.vgchartz....s=0&results=200

Since numbers speak louder than words, it is obvious that BW did it right with DAI as well as with DAO. The numbers for DA2 could have been much worse if not for the DAO success which fueled the anticipation of repeat performance and could also have been one of the reasons for the dismal reception and low game ratings afterwards.

 

Limiting the options to the story of a single protagonist from a single race (I would guess a human? is what you have in mind since you advocate for Geralt, Hawke and Shepard) would not necessarily be a good thing as the sales history of the series tells. Besides it would work against what DA series is all about, IMO.

[Morroian]

No. You really don't get it. "Creative lead" means he advises and gives feedback/suggestions on all parts of the experience, not just the writing. Again, the lead writer has the final say. Period. It is his story to tell.

 

Maybe maybe not its hardly set in stone especially given Walters role in previous games. I would think it highly likely that Walters would have a large say in the plotting of the game and the narrative direction.

[Aren]

Shepard and Hawke are living people while the Inquisitor and the Warden are more like Shale they were created by Caridin with the anvil o f the void,they have no good memories of what they are and their soul is a distant echo.

The Warden was so soulless that players are  capable to resurrect her/him in Dragon age Awakening due to the fact that he/she lack of a proper soul the Archdemon was not a danger at all

[SomberXIII]

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

This type of attitude is what makes BSN toxic.

[Aren]

This type of attitude is what makes BSN toxic.

BSN is already a toxic swamp, this is why the developers and writer don't come here

[KainD]

Yes. We certainly all are advocating for the removal of choice from a BioWare game, even though that's obviously a cornerstone of their development whereas multi-race creation is not...

 

Character creation is not a choice? What is it? 

[Elfyoth]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

The races were not the only reason some things got scrapped. I mean what if Crestwood got scrapped becouse of somthing else entirely? And wasent this story a good one for you? 

 

Look, Hawke was a human, origin decided by bioware. And we got to Kirkwall. Only. The story was not as epic as DAO's story. And imo not as good as DAI's story. We literlly, fought everyone in the city, resulting in one victory and the rest is deafeat. We got the next antagonist out. We found the Red Lyrium for money. And at the end of it. Lost. I mean it wasent Hawke's fault entirely, and he/she didint mean it, but it happened. Why? Story reasons. Just then cuz Hawke was a human, the fans didint complain on the reaces instead they complained on Bioware and EA. As much as they are "diffrent" Bioware IS EA. Now bioware created what the fans wanted. (most of them) But since it was 3 years by now, they complain on both EA and the RAces. Cuz the Races are only at fault and EA. Becouse bioware didint read their minds. It is annoying.