820 réponses à ce sujet

[Elfyoth]

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

Becouse of pepole like YOU. 

 

its a joke. 

[Incantrix]

I would have some serious words if I couldn't play an elf. I do NOT want to play a human. I'm already one in real life. 

[Rannik]

As PoE is a polished 90's throw back, as far as AAA games are concerned, they are dead.

That's not to say it can't work in the indie market.

 

What the **** am I reading?

[Revan Reborn]

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.

He will certainly be there, but he's not crafting the story (the writing team is). This is how the writing process works. The lead writer crafts and develops the main story. The other writers craft and develop side quests, companions, etc. The creative lead provides vision and direction over the entire project, but more so gives advice and feedback rather than making any definitive or concrete decisions. If Walters was calling the shots, he'd still be the lead writer like he was in ME3. The reason he is not is because BioWare wants to go a new direction with Mass Effect after the original trilogy.

 

Character creation is not a choice? What is it? 

You are conflating two very different things. BioWare games are about "choice in the story." As far as character choice, that has always existed through choosing one's gender and their looks (and now voice). You don't need multiple races to have character creation choice, which is the point you are trying to make.

 

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. 

It's ironic that you make that point, because "Crestwood" was "scrapped." Not in the sense that it was removed from the game, but the environment and what you were doing there was entirely different in the extended demo BioWare showed in 2013 compared to what it ended up being at release.

 

I actually felt the DAII story was extremely well done. It certainly is more compelling than DAI, in my opinion, which is rather generic and short. While DAII's philosophy of seeing one city change over the period of ten years didn't really work, I still thoroughly enjoyed what happened in Kirkwall and how different factions shaped it.

 

I don't really understand the latter half of your paragraph. Contrary to popular belief, BioWare is not EA. That's not how the relationship works. It's more so a parternship. BioWare still largely has autonomy. EA just has some say as they provide the money and resources for BioWare to make their games. It's more of a collaborative effort than EA dictating the entire experience. If that were the case, BioWare games wouldn't have been BioWare games since DAO and beyond.

[Tex]

Yep. I think people need to think about it more broadly. Look at Mass Effect. Look at how being human and overcoming the odds was such a crucial element of the trilogy. That wouldn't have been possible had Shepard had the choice of being a hanar or an elcor. BioWare would have had to dilute the experience being Shepard is a "Spectre" and that would have been the extent of the character development. It's just not as compelling.
 
I understand the want for there to be more races, but you just end up hurting the story and hurting character development in general. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's just not financially feasible nor practical.

So then you're saying that because it takes away resources from what the majority wants their games to be. The minority who only play these games to be something other than humans should just shut up and except what will make the game better for those who only play humans. Because you and I both know if they ever took away playable races it won't be the human race they leave out in their next game.

[KainD]

You are conflating two very different things. BioWare games are about "choice in the story." As far as character choice, that has always existed through choosing one's gender and their looks (and now voice). You don't need multiple races to have character creation choice, which is the point you are trying to make.

 

The point I'm trying to make is - the more choices the better. 

Also Bioware doesn't offer any meaningful choices in the story. 

[Revan Reborn]

So then you're saying that because it takes away resources from what the majority wants their games to be. The minority who only play these games to be something other than humans should just shut up and except what will make the game better for those who only play humans. Because you and I both know if they ever took away playable races it won't be the human race they leave out in their next game.

Not at all, actually... Where in my OP or any of my posts do I say "humans rock, aliens and non-humans suck, BioWare make human-only games from now on"? I've made it explicitly clear I don't care what the actual race of the protagonist is, as long as it's one race and it is defined. The problem isn't any particular race, but rather because we have too many races that it dilutes the quality of any.

 

As far as why it appears BioWare is so human-biased, it's simple really. Races that aren't human (specifically in ME) can't really kiss and have a compelling romance. Many races that aren't human also have a lot less animations (Turians actually can't duck), a lot less customization choices (Quarians are stuck in suits) and are less relatable and harder to tell a story for. It's more of a practical matter than anything else why humans generally are always the main protagonist. DA can get away with it somewhat easier because elves, dwarves, and qunari are just fantasy humans.

 

The point I'm trying to make is - the more choices the better. 

Also Bioware doesn't offer any meaningful choices in the story. 

I understand your point. I'm merely disagreeing with your conclusion. "More choice" isn't always better.

 

As for your second statement, that's a matter of debate and for an entirely different topic.

[tehturian]

While I liked both Hawke and the HOF. The inquisitor I felt was an amalgamation of the downsides of both the blank slate protagonist and a defined one with the benefits of neither.  

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I understand your point. I'm merely disagreeing with your conclusion. "More choice" isn't always better.

In Role-Playing Games, yes it is. Choice is the backbone of RPGs, so more choice is always better. 

 

That's like saying more strategy and tactics in a strategy game isn't always better. 

[Ryzaki]

Wait I need a character that can't even stay constant for a trilogy? And who acts contrary to some of his/her actions in the previous games? And each game the Devs take more and more control over them away from me?

 

No thanks I'll take my Inquisitor over Shepard again.

[Fredward]

When you say 'need' you really mean 'I would prefer if' right? Cuz I'm pretty sure DAI has been their best selling game so they certainly don't need  to change anything. That being said I'm not opposed to the idea, I liked Hawke and Shepard.

[Revan Reborn]

In Role-Playing Games, yes it is. Choice is the backbone of RPGs, so more choice is always better. 

 

That's like saying more strategy and tactics in a strategy game isn't always better. 

I highly recommend you play Skyrim. It is the epitome of a game with choice, and that often works to its disadvantage. You can choose to be Dragonborn, the Dark Brotherhood Listener, the Archmage of the College of Winterhold, the leader of the Companions, and the leader of the Nightingales all in one. Even though some of these groups are sworn to hating the other (the Dark Brotherhood and the Thieves Guild do not like one another), you have the choice to join and lead all of them.

 

It doesn't matter if you don't have any proficiency in magic, you can join and lead the College. It doesn't matter if you don't have any proficiency in stealth, you can join and lead the Dark Brotherhood and the Thieves Guild. You have the choice to do everything and nothing and there are no limits on what you can do. This is bad for a variety of reasons. It leads to the game being inconsistent. It breaks immersion, which is really important in an RPG. It shows that reactivity is an illusion as the world does not react to the choices you make.

 

My point is Skyrim is the ultimate experience when it comes to doing whatever you want, because you can. That's also one of its greatest weaknesses. Because you can choose to do everything, it largely renders everything pointless. In Morrowind, you couldn't do that. If you joined the Morag Tong, you could not choose to join the Thieves Guild. Factions were rivaling outside of your choices and they reacted to you based on what you did. With too much choice comes the destruction of the entire experience altogether. Once again, no. "[M]ore choice is [not] always better."

[In Exile]

I highly recommend you play Skyrim. It is the epitome of a game with choice, and that often works to its disadvantage. You can choose to be Dragonborn, the Dark Brotherhood Listener, the Archmage of the College of Winterhold, the leader of the Companions, and the leader of the Nightingales all in one. Even though some of these groups are sworn to hating the other (the Dark Brotherhood and the Thieves Guild do not like one another), you have the choice to join and lead all of them.

 

It doesn't matter if you don't have any proficiency in magic, you can join and lead the College. It doesn't matter if you don't have any proficiency in stealth, you can join and lead the Dark Brotherhood and the Thieves Guild. You have the choice to do everything and nothing and there are no limits on what you can do. This is bad for a variety of reasons. It leads to the game being inconsistent. It breaks immersion, which is really important in an RPG. It shows that reactivity is an illusion as the world does not react to the choices you make.

 

My point is Skyrim is the ultimate experience when it comes to doing whatever you want, because you can. That's also one of its greatest weaknesses. Because you can choose to do everything, it largely renders everything pointless. In Morrowind, you couldn't do that. If you joined the Morag Tong, you could not choose to join the Thieves Guild. Factions were rivaling outside of your choices and they reacted to you based on what you did. With too much choice comes the destruction of the entire experience altogether. Once again, no. "[M]ore choice is [not] always better."

 

That's not really a "choice" thing. The idea of a choice is getting to pick between options, not getting to do everything with absolutely no restraint. I mean, in a sense in the latter case you're also "chosing" because you can't do it all at once, but that's not generally what people use the word to refer to when they say "choice". 

[Revan Reborn]

When you say 'need' you really mean 'I would prefer if' right? Cuz I'm pretty sure DAI has been their best selling game so they certainly don't need  to change anything. That being said I'm not opposed to the idea, I liked Hawke and Shepard.

The term "need" was used as a mechanism for people to enter the thread and discuss their opinions. As far as DAI being "their best selling game," that would be incorrect. DAI certainly did well and I'm not against it winning GotY, but ME3 certainly has sold many more copies. We can just look at the raw data of sale of copies alone:

 

Mass Effect 3 - 5.49 million copies sold globally on all platforms:

http://www.vgchartz....e=mass effect 3

 

Dragon Age: Inquisition - 3.32 million copies sold globally on all platforms:

http://www.vgchartz....s=0&results=200

 

Mass Effect is by far BioWare's most profitable and successful franchise to date. Dragon Age is just not on the same level in terms of success.

[Revan Reborn]

That's not really a "choice" thing. The idea of a choice is getting to pick between options, not getting to do everything with absolutely no restraint. I mean, in a sense in the latter case you're also "chosing" because you can't do it all at once, but that's not generally what people use the word to refer to when they say "choice". 

"Choice" is the freedom to choose. It is "free will," player agency, the capacity for the player to have control over the experience. Whether it is choosing a paragon choice in a Mass Effect game, or choosing to join the Companions, it is all "choice."

 

The person above wants more choice, such as multiple races. I'm merely making a parallel that more choices isn't always better as it will impact something else. Whether it is because it dilutes the main story or because your ability to choose breaks the immersion or game is immaterial. They both are having the same adverse effect on the experience because the player has too much choice.

[Heimdall]

"Choice" is the freedom to choose. It is "free will," player agency, the capacity for the player to have control over the experience. Whether it is choosing a paragon choice in a Mass Effect game, or choosing to join the Companions, it is all "choice."

As In Exile said, that's not generally how people are using it here.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I highly recommend you play Skyrim. It is the epitome of a game with choice, and that often works to its disadvantage. You can choose to be Dragonborn, the Dark Brotherhood Listener, the Archmage of the College of Winterhold, the leader of the Companions, and the leader of the Nightingales all in one. Even though some of these groups are sworn to hating the other (the Dark Brotherhood and the Thieves Guild do not like one another), you have the choice to join and lead all of them.

 

It doesn't matter if you don't have any proficiency in magic, you can join and lead the College. It doesn't matter if you don't have any proficiency in stealth, you can join and lead the Dark Brotherhood and the Thieves Guild. You have the choice to do everything and nothing and there are no limits on what you can do. This is bad for a variety of reasons. It leads to the game being inconsistent. It breaks immersion, which is really important in an RPG. It shows that reactivity is an illusion as the world does not react to the choices you make.

 

My point is Skyrim is the ultimate experience when it comes to doing whatever you want, because you can. That's also one of its greatest weaknesses. Because you can choose to do everything, it largely renders everything pointless. In Morrowind, you couldn't do that. If you joined the Morag Tong, you could not choose to join the Thieves Guild. Factions were rivaling outside of your choices and they reacted to you based on what you did. With too much choice comes the destruction of the entire experience altogether. Once again, no. "[M]ore choice is [not] always better."

And for a Sandbox RPG, which The Elder Scrolls franchise is, that makes Skyrim better than Morrowind because the point of a Sandbox RPG is to let the player do whatever they want however they want, like a kid can use their imagination to do whatever they want however they want while playing in a sandbox.

 

In story-driven RPGs, like what Bioware does and what we are talking about in here, more choice is referring to things like character creator options, gender options, race options, plot options, dialogue options, etc. 

[Revan Reborn]

And for a Sandbox RPG, which The Elder Scrolls franchise is, that makes Skyrim better than Morrowind because the point of a Sandbox RPG is to let the player do whatever they want however they want, like a kid can use their imagination to do whatever they want however they want while playing in a sandbox.

 

In story-driven RPGs, like what Bioware does and what we are talking about in here, more choice is referring to things like character creator options, gender options, race options, plot options, dialogue options, etc. 

The point of a sandbox is actually for the players to have the developer tools so they can craft their own customized experience within reason. It is not to contradict and break the game making much of what is happening meaningless. Those are two different things. Talk to anyone who has played Morrowind and 9/10 they will say it's far superior to Skyrim, and this is one of the reasons why.

 

BioWare games have plenty of choice in character creator and the story without needing multiple races. That's the point. You are highly under-valuing how much choice is already there because you want to be a different race. Again, what is the point of more choice if it adversely affects the game? That's exactly what races do in DAI. There is little benefit to gain from it and it actually dilutes and lessons the character and story overall. This is not a benefit and it is not making DAI a "better RPG."

 

As I posted above, ME3 has sold almost double what DAI has sold globally on all platforms. So, based on your logic, that must mean ME3 is actually the "better RPG" in spite of it having less choice since you can only be human. It seems to me that base on sales, alone, BioWare should just use the Shepard model for all of their games if they were looking at this from a business standpoint. More people seem to prefer a defined character rather than a blank slate.

[Shevy]

 

 

BioWare games have plenty of choice in character creator and the story without needing multiple races. That's the point. You are highly under-valuing how much choice is already there because you want to be a different race. Again, what is the point of more choice if it adversely affects the game? That's exactly what races do in DAI. There is little benefit to gain from it and it actually dilutes and lessons the character and story overall. This is not a benefit and it is not making DAI a "better RPG."

It makes it a better RPG for me. It all depends on where you set your preferences. You seem like a player who doesn't want to or is unable to use its imagination to roleplay.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The point of a sandbox is actually for the players to have the developer tools so they can craft their own customized experience within reason. It is not to contradict and break the game making much of what is happening meaningless. Those are two different things. Talk to anyone who has played Morrowind and 9/10 they will say it's far superior to Skyrim, and this is one of the reasons why.

Morrowind may be a better game, but Skyrim is a better Sandbox RPG because of it letting the player do nearly anything they want, the purpose of a Sandbox RPG. And you never contradict the game since the game was made to let you do those things. 

 

 

BioWare games have plenty of choice in character creator and the story without needing multiple races. That's the point. You are highly under-valuing how much choice is already there because you want to be a different race. Again, what is the point of more choice if it adversely affects the game? That's exactly what races do in DAI. There is little benefit to gain from it and it actually dilutes and lessons the character and story overall. This is not a benefit and it is not making DAI a "better RPG."

I never said they don't and am not under-valuing anything. Have I ever said that DA2 or the ME trilogy or older Bioware games sucked because you can only play as human? The answer is no. What I am saying is that having race options adds even more to an already big pile. 

 

Just because there was little benefit and diluted the experience for you doesn't mean there is little benefit for everyone. The fact that so many people begged Bioware to bring back race options in DAI to the point Bioware did with the time extension shows how many people like the option to pick a race. 

 

 

As I posted above, ME3 has sold almost double what DAI has sold globally on all platforms. So, based on your logic, that must mean ME3 is actually the "better RPG" in spite of it having less choice since you can only be human. It seems to me that base on sales, alone, BioWare should just use the Shepard model for all of their games if they were looking at this from a business standpoint. More people seem to prefer a defined character rather than a blank slate.

As I said before, Mass Effect also appealed to a much larger audience. Larger audience leads to more sales. And when did I say sales determine how good something is? There are overhyped turds of games that sell like mad and there are underrated masterpieces of games that barely sell at all. 

 

This just proves how little you actually read my posts since you are thinking I am saying multiple things I haven't said or even implied once. 

[Revan Reborn]

It makes it a better RPG for me. It all depends on where you set your preferences. You seem like a player who doesn't want to or is unable to use its imagination to roleplay.

BioWare games are story-driven experiences first and RPGs second. I, and likely most, buy BioWare games to experience the story BioWare tells. Whether it was the epic twist in KotOR, the amazing ride that was Mass Effect, or killing the Archdemon at Denerim, it's the story that makes the game, not the roleplay. If I want to roleplay, again, I write a fanfiction or I play TES. That is a much better RPG than a BioWare game.

 

Morrowind may be a better game, but Skyrim is a better Sandbox RPG because of it letting the player do nearly anything they want, the purpose of a Sandbox RPG. And you never contradict the game since the game was made to let you do those things. 

 

 

I never said they don't and am not under-valuing anything. Have I ever said that DA2 or the ME trilogy or older Bioware games sucked because you can only play as human? The answer is no. What I am saying is that having race options adds even more to an already big pile. 

 

Just because there was little benefit and diluted the experience for you doesn't mean there is little benefit for everyone. The fact that so many people begged Bioware to bring back race options in DAI to the point Bioware did with the time extension shows how many people like the option to pick a race. 

 

 

As I said before, Mass Effect also appealed to a much larger audience. Larger audience leads to more sales. And when did I say sales determine how good something is? There are overhyped turds of games that sell like mad and there are underrated masterpieces of games that barely sell at all. 

 

This just proves how little you actually read my posts since you are thinking I am saying multiple things I haven't said or even implied once. 

There is no evidence to support that "so many people begged BioWare to bring back race options in DAI." Especially if you are referring to BSN, this is a minority of the actual BioWare fan base. Not to mention, those who typically speak the loudest rarely are the majority. The term "vocal minority and a silent majority" comes to mind. How many people actually wanted multiple races? That's the true question.

 

When you make absolute statements such as "many people" begged BioWare for multi-race and that "more choice makes a better RPG," it's hard to have a discourse with you. There is no evidence to support any of your assertions are true. On the contrary, if we just look at numbers and sales, multi-race would actually suggest it harms overall sales of BioWare titles. Thus, it could very well be that the "roleplay" fans on BSN are the only ones who actually want such a feature to start.

 

Again, I think there is a serious disconnect here for many posters. BioWare games are story first and an RPG second. To not understand this is the reason why this discussion is going on and why BioWare games, such as Dragon Age, have struggled. You don't see this issue in Mass Effect largely because the story comes first and BioWare makes that clear. Again, BioWare games are storytelling experiences meant to be observed and react to. This isn't a game where you make up your own fiction and try to conform the experience to your own imagination.

[Xetykins]

I am all for playing the same protagonist. I personally would have loved the warden in all the series. But that boat sailed a long time ago. They started with different protagonist in each series, they might as well stick with it. Imo Hawke would have been an OP protagonist in another game that's not called Dragon Age. The Inquisitor? I really don't know where to place her.

Whatever Bioware wants to do with the 4th, I will still buy it because they are my kind of drug. I only ask for a tighter story like Origins, the protagonist does not matter anymore.

[SerendipitousElf]

The term "need" was used as a mechanism for people to enter the thread and discuss their opinions. As far as DAI being "their best selling game," that would be incorrect. DAI certainly did well and I'm not against it winning GotY, but ME3 certainly has sold many more copies. We can just look at the raw data of sale of copies alone:

 

Mass Effect 3 - 5.49 million copies sold globally on all platforms:

http://www.vgchartz....e=mass effect 3

 

Dragon Age: Inquisition - 3.32 million copies sold globally on all platforms:

http://www.vgchartz....s=0&results=200

 

Mass Effect is by far BioWare's most profitable and successful franchise to date. Dragon Age is just not on the same level in terms of success.

 

I see you made a good use of the source I pointed to you, however you totally missed the point with DAI sales. ME3 has been out for how long, three years? Did your figures include the DLC sales? 

DAI has been out for 5 months at best. Maybe you should wait three more years and for all the DLC to be released for DAI - then count the sales and compare if you would like an honest comparison and assessment.   

[Revan Reborn]

I am all for playing the same protagonist. I personally would have loved the warden in all the series. But that boat sailed a long time ago. They started with different protagonist in each series, they might as well stick with it. Imo Hawke would have been an OP protagonist in another game that's not called Dragon Age. The Inquisitor? I really don't know where to place her.

Whatever Bioware wants to do with the 4th, I will still buy it because they are my kind of drug. I only ask for a tighter story like Origins, the protagonist does not matter anymore.

That's a tragic conclusion to make. If the protagonist does not matter anymore, then what's the point? I may as well just watch a TV show or a movie if only the story matters and my character and his/her impact are meaningless. What makes video games different is the level of interactiveness in the experience. I want my protagonist to matter. Otherwise, everything else I'm doing in a video game has little meaning or value.

[Felya87]

The term "need" was used as a mechanism for people to enter the thread and discuss their opinions. As far as DAI being "their best selling game," that would be incorrect. DAI certainly did well and I'm not against it winning GotY, but ME3 certainly has sold many more copies. We can just look at the raw data of sale of copies alone:

 

Mass Effect 3 - 5.49 million copies sold globally on all platforms:

http://www.vgchartz....e=mass effect 3

 

Dragon Age: Inquisition - 3.32 million copies sold globally on all platforms:

http://www.vgchartz....s=0&results=200

 

Mass Effect is by far BioWare's most profitable and successful franchise to date. Dragon Age is just not on the same level in terms of success.

 

are those numbers about the same time, (x months after the game was out) or is ME3 sales until now, and DAI until now? and remember that many fan of ME/DA wheren't very keen to buy any other BioWare game either. ME3 lived of hype for being the last chapter of a trilogy. DAI was the "let's try to resurrect a product".

 

Because DAI was said to be the best selling just out.