15896 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

Does it have to state that they were outright evil, self-serving or manipulating? Are we playing RPG for adults or for 6-year-olds?

 

For children, I think. Given how dumbed down it is, and completely pg-13. Anyway. I am not saying we should be the ultimate evil in the world. But there is plenty of stuff in between goody goody goody hero inquisitor (which is pretty much the only option in this game) or Satan. Behaving like a mercenary, for example. All about gaining wealth or personal power. Lots to pick from.

[midnight tea]

 

 

Also considering the fact that the lack of meaningful side quest in DAI which can be handled in different way heavily undermine the Inquisitor's personality.

I mean even if Geralt is a fixed protagonist you can shape him somehow with the way in which you handle the sidequest.

 

 

"Somehow" being a key word here.

 

Also - lack of meaningful side quests and how to handle them.... How about companion side-quests? Not only they reflect IQ's personality, but they can have very different outcomes. How much we do for other people and how we handle it is also reflected by the amount of approval or disapproval we get from people surrounding us.

 

How we treat others reflects what we are and how we're treated. It's actually a pretty elegant, organic system - it's not 'in your face', but it's also no rocket science.

[SnakeCode]

Incorrect. One may not be openly and foolishly revealing about their motives, but one can still be self-serving, power hungry, cynical, evil, manipulative, grim, ruthless, etc. The game offers dialogue choices; the Player offer motives for those choices.

My current Elven female Mage has such a personality. She simply chooses to allow others to hear what they want to hear, and manipulates the situation for the best possible personal results. The exception is made when surprised in an emotional setting; then she may remark a bit more harshly, selfishly, and direct than a premeditated response.

 

That feels an awful lot like headcanon though. Your character doesn't choose to let others hear what they want to, because you are never given the option in game to do or say otherwise. 

[Rawgrim]

That feels an awful lot like headcanon though. Your character doesn't choose to let others hear what they want to, because you are never given the option in game to do or say otherwise. 

 

Exactly.

[Hazegurl]

I will never understand why people obsess with wanting DA to be similar to TW.

I can't RP nearly as much in TW as I can in DA. DA provides significantly more agency over your character, allowing you to shape his or her personality based on the choices you make- which is a very huge thing. DA also provides me the option to actually pick my class, where each class is completely unique, and has specializations that can further shape your combat playstyle.

 

The only thing I would want DA to do is create a better world, stay consistent with their lore, and give me more options other than "guy with a heart of gold" or "guy with a heart of gold who is reluctant and humble", give more pragmatic choices instead of "Pick this to lead to a happy ending for everyone."  choices.  Perhaps DAO had more player agency but that went down over the years and now there is no agency in DAI.  The world barely responds to the little choices you do make.  It's all in your head.
 

Also, if they're gonna give us different races then I want to experience what that particular race would experience in that world, especially if I'm told certain groups are discriminated against.

 

As for classes.  DA's class system is too restrictive and not as fun as it was in DAO. In TW if I want to use my sword I'll use it, if I want to use magic I'll use it, if I want to use potions then I'll use them.  I can never understand why my mage can't use a sword or bow,  Can't use a bow as a warrior anymore.  Nope you're basically stuck as a class unless you roll a new one and there is no more variety in the classes, it's now reduced to 8 slots.

 

As for Geralt, he may be a fixed protag but he has more personality than the IQ and his emotions were mutated out of him, what is the IQ's excuse?

[midnight tea]

For children, I think. Given how dumbed down it is, and completely pg-13. Anyway. I am not saying we should be the ultimate evil in the world. But there is plenty of stuff in between goody goody goody hero inquisitor (which is pretty much the only option in this game) or Satan. Behaving like a mercenary, for example. All about gaining wealth or personal power. Lots to pick from.

 

And you CAN be all those things - you can be a faithful Andrastian who at the same time is a crappy, shortsighted leader. You can be a self-serving douche who uses the title of Herald as smoke-screen. You can be a person with strong opinions, but enough personal charm to eventually win the hearts of everyone around.

 

None of this is actually 'just headcanon' - there are dialogue options and interactions that help us establish Inquisitors as such. Oh sure, we don't trip over those options, but to say they're nonexistent and claim that there's 'only the hero or Satan' option makes me wonder if you paid attention to what happened in the game.

[Aren]

Means you can't be self-serving, power hungry, cynical, evil, selfish, mainipulative, grim, ruthless, plus plus plus.

 

You are down to two very similar options, and both are personalities the devs have designed for you.

Inq is stuck always on the same path,but i doesn't really matter s/he is just a plot device for the breach.

[Hazegurl]

 

How about companion side-quests? Not only they reflect IQ's personality, but they can have very different outcomes. How much we do for other people and how we handle it is also reflected by the amount of approval or disapproval we get from people surrounding us.

 

How we treat others reflects what we are and how we're treated. It's actually a pretty elegant, organic system - it's not 'in your face', but it's also no rocket science.

 

I actually don't like DA's approval system.  Perhaps it would be better if we can choose to hide the messages or something.  I also see companion interaction as only one part of defining a character.  As a person will behave differently around those they need or like than some random person in the world. DAI never gave us the opportunity to interact with those outside our group.  Also the companion interactions weren't that great either. Even that card game was odd.

[Dreadstruck]

I'm kinda in the same boat as KBomb here, if we could have a rich, immersive world, deep characters both large and small, deep, branching quest lines etc AND the option to create my own character, i'd be in gaming heaven. If I am forced to choose though, then i'd gladly take the former over the latter. It just so happens that i've found games with a set protagonist tend to have deeper, more cohesive stories, in rpgs or otherwise.

 

 

Funny you mention Red Dead Redemption by the way, anyone else getting serious RDR vibes from TW3?

 

Heh, I just realized that the game is indeed in the veins of RDR. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, mind you.

 

Also don't get me wrong, I'd love the **** out of a game that would combine the two aspects. It's just... if I want to play an RPG, I'd rather have the actual content of the gameworld of decent quality to play with, rather then castrating the game in order to get more "player agency" or whatever. Just my opinion.

[midnight tea]

 

I actually don't like DA's approval system.  Perhaps it would be better if we can choose to hide the messages or something.  I also see companion interaction as only one part of defining a character.  As a person will behave differently around those they need or like than some random person in the world. DAI never gave us the opportunity to interact with those outside our group.  Also the companion interactions weren't that great either. Even that card game was odd.

 

Are you sure you want to make a claim that DA never let us interact with anyone outside of the group? Because I remember NPCs I could interact with, in pretty much every zone (that's not counting all the other NPCs we've met when doing, say, main quest) - especially those I can recruit as agents, even going as far as deciding their future fate. Those weren't very deep interactions, true, but so far into my TW3 playthorugh I haven't encountered interactions there that are significantly deeper, save a few sidequests.

[Aren]

My current Elven female Mage has such a personality. She simply chooses to allow others to hear what they want to hear, and manipulates the situation for the best possible personal results. The exception is made when surprised in an emotional setting; then she may remark a bit more harshly, selfishly, and direct than a premeditated response.

no,not really is just headcanon,in DAO actually i was playing a manipulative Warden that has made many reassurances to Eamon regarding on how important was to put Alistair on the throne, just to take his support and then take the throne for himself and put Alistair aside.

there are many examples like this for DAO.

[KBomb]

Are you sure you want to make a claim that DA never let us interact with anyone outside of the group? Because I remember NPCs I could interact with, in pretty much every zone (that's not counting all the other NPCs we've met when doing, say, main quest) - especially those I can recruit as agents, even going as far as deciding their future fate. Those weren't very deep interactions, true, but so far into my TW3 playthorugh that's significantly deeper, save a few sidequests.

Deeper compared to what? What NPC offered deep conversation? (That wasn't an agent or quest giver)

[midnight tea]

Deeper compared to what? What NPC offered deep conversation? (That wasn't an agent or quest giver)

 

Sorry, some of sentence was cut there during edits - I meant "Those weren't very deep interactions, true, but so far into my TW3 playthorugh I haven't encountered interactions there that are significantly deeper, save a few sidequests".

[Spectre Impersonator]

Witcher 3 is not witcher 1... And in my May ways DAI forgot what dragon age is. The fluff, the fetch quests, ignoring lore about mages, the terrible tactical cam, the rediculously small skill list for each class, the short main campaign, the lack of side quest specific companion dialogue. I could go on, but it's gutted and empty. It's not the sequel origins deserves.

While The Witcher series has come a long way forward since the very rough first game, Dragon Age has devolved into some sort of robotic, soulless mess.

Go return the ring in the hinterlands. What did your party say? Nothing? Moving on.

How about the urn of ashes quest you get from the note on the ground? Nothing? Moving on.

And this is true not just of some, but MOST side quests. If we're lucky we get a sentence from an NPC, but nothing from our party. Varrick doesn't comment, replacing him with cole on a future playthrough won't affect most side quests.

It's lazy, and it's empty. They threw out the reason that origins was so replayable, it felt different every time with every group of companions. This doesn't.

Exactly. I suspect someone high up at Bioware is under the impression that seeing the message "Cassandra Greatly Improves" is the height of emotional engagement. I thank you for taking the time to point out these SPECIFICS because, as they say, the devil is in the details.

[Hazegurl]

Are you sure you want to make a claim that DA never let us interact with anyone outside of the group? Because I remember NPCs I could interact with, in pretty much every zone (that's not counting all the other NPCs we've met when doing, say, main quest) - especially those I can recruit as agents, even going as far as deciding their future fate. Those weren't very deep interactions, true, but so far into my TW3 playthorugh that's significantly deeper, save a few sidequests.

 

The only person I remember having interactions with was that Sutherland guy. Which consisted of simply supporting him and then saving him later.  Whose future fate do you decide? What job they'll take? How does this define the IQ?

 

Outside the main mission (the only one being Wicked Eyes and Hearts) who did we interact with to the point of defining who the IQ is as a person?  How does the world change and respond to the IQ based on those interactions? The Judgements? All you do is decide whether to punish a criminal or recruit them. At the most it says you're either nice, gullible, or hard on criminals. Now this could be something to go on if Bioware gave us some sort of follow up on making these choices.

 

 At the most you get some companion disapproval or approval points. The people you recruit don't define who the IQ is as a person. Meeting some random hunter and asking them questions does not define the IQ. 

 

So yeah I stick to my claim.

[Spectre Impersonator]

It doesn't help that I find the entire TES setting nothing but boring.  It's the most generic "let's rip of Tolkien and every D&D campaign you might have played" story I've ever seen.

To me, this is exactly what Dragon Age has always felt like. I mean, its own creator doesn't seem to be particularly good writer and I expect most of the good in the DA universe is derivative stuff.

[TheOgre]

To me, this is exactly what Dragon Age has always felt like. I mean, its own creator doesn't seem to be particularly good writer and I expect most of the good in the DA universe is derivative stuff.

 

I loved DAO but from what I read earlier, it's a near plagiarism of the Wardens of Time series. If it's at all true, I can see why there is a lack of consistency between series in passion.

[Elhanan]

None of those have any end-games to them. And when cutscenes and autodialogue shows me complete personality changes in my character, it all goes out the window.
 
That example you are using is nothing but headcannon. The game doesn't support this or offer options for this at all.

And yet is has for every DA game. Mage in Origin placed a lone Alistair on the throne for max control. Mage in DA2 decimated the Templars and grasped as much power as possible before vanishing. And in DAI, the apprentice Keeper is planning to follow that same pattern. None used blatant statements; all used the dialogue conversation for max personal gain.

Head canon or not, the characters are Evil.

[bondari reloads.]

Is that a book series? Googling it yields only results on WOW wiki; I'm curious.

[Toasted Llama]

Didn't know about her smut-reading or anything else before the giggle fit my inquisitor had.That stuff happens very early. Besides Cassandra isn't my character, and I should have no control over her personality. The inquisitor is, though. And when the game takes control over a character I am told I  have full control over, and changes his personality completely, roleplaying has gone right out the window. The Inquisitor has gone from being the PC to an NPC.

 

Sorry to break it to you but they don't require any personalities. They require certain acts.

Oh that giggle fit. Yeah, uhm, flirting usually doesn't involve grumpy faces, constipated expressions and angry gestures. Weird, I know.

I mean seriously. What's next? Going to complain the heart options are too pink? The heart options are too hearty? You're romancing for crying out loud. Of course it's going to be giggly, lovey dovey and happy and joy and wonders and not angry and mean and selfish and what not.


And yeah, romances indeed require certain acts. Acts of kindness, warmth and affection. Unless you're trying to get into an abusive relationship, which isn't a romance at all.

It baffles me how this is a problem.

[Elhanan]

That feels an awful lot like headcanon though. Your character doesn't choose to let others hear what they want to, because you are never given the option in game to do or say otherwise.

They have thus far. And when playing a scheming, manipulative character, it may be best to leave the plan revelations to lesser villains; target on the back and all that....

[Spectre Impersonator]

Yeah ok, but did you forget all the free stuff for Mass Effect 3 multiplayer (I m not even talking for the free stuff for Dragon Age) ? Characters ? Weapons ? Maps ? New ennemies ? And don't even try to argue it was a really good multiplayer and the free stuff was much more than some cosmetics for The Witcher 3.

 

Bioware are not greedy

 

And I don't want Dragon Age to be like TW. Dragon Age is fine.

Nope, I didn't forget, but then I loved Mass Effect 3 (horrible ending aside) and this thread isn't about that franchise. I don't remotely love Inquisition. Different dev teams and remember that the furious reaction to the ending had even EA looking to make nice with players. Dragon Age is slowly dying the death of being the weakest fantasy title RPG most folks experience and I'm just trying to help it reach its potential. 

[DragonKingReborn]

Is that a book series? Googling it yields only results on WOW wiki; I'm curious.

 

I'm only guessing, but I think it was a typo - they may have meant "Wheel of Time".  There are parallels.  Blight, Shadow(Dark)spawn, broad notions of gender equality, lots of apostrophes in the names etc etc.

 

But plagiarism...doubtful.

[BabyPuncher]

The Inquisitor is an excellent example of how petty and limited the RPG community's conception of 'freedom' seems to be.

The player is given plenty of 'freedom' to respond to a lot of dialogue. There were a number of times I saw four choices available to comment on whatever question he was he being asked. That's nice to have available. The player is 'free' to pick a dialogue option that comes reasonably close to their real beliefs.

So I can get a number of choices to decide what my favorite color of nug is or whatever.

But what I didn't see is 'freedom' to ever have the protagonist do something particularly smart. Or brave. Or charismatic. Or driven. Or anything, really. I had no 'freedom' to give the Inquisitor any of those qualities.

[jsachun]

Was it just me, or did walking in to White Orchard and looking at the Notice Board remind you of walking in to Lothering and seeing the Notice board.