85 réponses à ce sujet

[Elista]

I would love to see the origins return in DA4. It's really involving and lets you define your character before he takes action and makes important choices. I struggled to define my character in DAI, I needed several playthroughs to find who she was. And I remember how epic it was to come back to the alienage and defend it in the last battle in DAO. Even the Landsmeet was incredible with a City Elf. I was amazed when Alistair asked my Tabris about her marriage and what happened, and becoming the bann in the end was meaningful because I had seen the elves misery with my own eyes. The entire game seemed better with an origin that I loved.

[correctamundo]

I could definitely support Origin-stories in DA4. Multiple races and origins. My favourite in Origins is probably the Dalish however. Soft start and then you get to murder some shems! Followed by a mysterious ruin and a death sentence! Love it!

 

In DAI it would be totally out of place however. You start the game suffering from amnesia because of severe concussion and magical manipulation. Click new game and BAM!. Love it.

 

I am very fond of Varrics crazy story in DAII as well. What the F feeling about the darkspawn slaughter followed by Bullshit! from Cass. =)

 

But yeah, new and improved Origins in DA4 would be very welcome indeed.

[Steve.81]

I think the origin stories in DA:O were mainly a way for the devs to introduce the history and lore of the world we were going to be exploring.

I remember the first character I created. A Mage. His origin story very neatly educated me on things like the Circle, Templars, the Fade and Blood Magic. Things that were hugely important to know if you were going to be playing as a Mage.

I honestly think that was the main reason Bioware decided to go with origin stories. They created a huge mythology and came up with an elegant way to introduce the player to whatever aspects were most immediately important to the character they would be playing.

They don't really need to do that anymore. We're three games in now, we're familiar with the lore of Thedas (although there are still cool things to reveal, obviously).

That being said, I would still enjoy playing through origin stories in DA4! They do help with immersion, when it comes to building a character that "feels" real, definitely.

[Korva]

1. So did you even like DAO? If none of the origins appealed to you much, did the main story? I assume you played through it? But this doesn't mean that origins in DA4 would be just as unappealing to you, of course, so adding origins to DA4 is not exactly off the table.

 

Disliking one or more aspects of the game is in no way incompatible with liking the game as a whole, especially if said aspect had so little impact or meaning.

 

There is no guarantee that I'd dislike future origin-stories, but there's also no guarantee that I'd like them either, whereas a more vague framework is more likely to give me something that I can build an appealing premise for my character on.
 

2. I didn't find them "meaningless." Even if they'd been only at the beginning, that would've added a great story element.

 

That is where I disagree. With essentially zero impact on the actual game, I saw them as little more than a waste of resources -- and as a smokescreen that created false expectations for the rest of the game. Whether or not the origins appeal to me personally has no bearing on that impression. If anything, enjoying some aspects of the human noble origin only made me more annoyed with how little payoff there was.

 

But I'm not arguing for a repeat of DAO's exact approach, mind you. I would argue they go further.

 

Tying the protagonist more closely to the world and the story in some meaningful, ongoing and personal manner is absolutely something that should be done to correct the not-a-real-character issue. What I'm skeptical about is doing so by focusing on the past -- a preset past with no player input, at that -- instead of using hooks from the present i.e. the game's actual story and characters. Of course, they could do both ... in theory. In practice, resouces are limited, and spreading them thin is more likely to result in a shallow and unsatisfying treatment.

 

3. Are the relationships with Varric, Cassandra, and Solas forced as well?

 

False equivalence. An initially limited list of companions is not the same as them being presented as our instant best friend or some other just-so predefined relationship. It's our choice how much we interact with them and how we view them.

 

At a certain point I'm willing to just back off and let the devs create something for me. Life is like that. No one chooses their family or their background.

 

Life isn't a story. If a story doesn't give me an enjoyable premise, I won't touch it, simple as that. Especially if it keeps returning to the non-enjoyable premise instead of allowing me to move away from it ASAP.

 

And of course the devs need to "create something" -- that is, if they begin the game on our character's home turf instead of being thrown right into the action like say KotOR or Inquisition did. Neither way of starting the game is superior to the other IMO, though the latter does offer more freedom for us. I'm quite able and willing to work with that as long as the game gives me something enjoyable to work with first. But in my book the origins are not remotely the kind of awesome this-is-how-it-should-be example of good game design that some people consider them to be. They were far too shallow and meaningless. When it comes to letting the devs create my background for me, I'm far more partial to citing Jade Empire as a lesson in how to do it right, whereas the folks who favor origins mostly seem to dislike a single-race or single-background approach? As I said, resources are limited -- creating something like Jade Empire's personal ties to the story and the villain for multiple, very different backgrounds is technically possible, but unlikely.

 

4. Origins in no way contradict a "basic framework with room for head-canon."

 

It certainly does, at least a lot more than Inquisition does. The more is explicitly spelled out, the less room we have for our own imagination.

 

They just lay more framework than, say, Baldur's Gate which just makes whatever you're playing a generic character in those circumstances. If you prefer BG's format, I'm not going to say you're "wrong." Unlike what you're saying about origins.

 

Baldur's Gate had a pretty firmly defined origin-like beginning, actually. This is your foster father, this is your tutor, this is your friend and only age-mate, and so on. If that feels more generic than Origins, it's probably because there were even fewer options to roleplay back then and the storytelling was still in its infancy overall. (Still, I fondly remember that game both on its own merits and as the clarion call for the resurrection of a genre.)

 

Describing DA as a "5-minutes-of-fame-and-then-disposed-by-any-means franchise" sorta makes you not the most typical DA fan- if one at all- and your criticisms then must be couched in that context.

 

Unclear phrasing on my part there. The 5-minutes-of-fame criticism was meant to refer to the series' treatment of its disposable protagonists. It's one symptom of many of how little the player characters actually matter.

 

But I agree: they could adopt the origins approach again but do a lousy job of it. As they could if they don't adopt it. Adding origins experiences isn't mutually exclusive with the "better protagonist experience" you describe.

 

Of course it isn't. But the underlying problem is the protagonist not being a character. Unless or until that is fixed, no amount of added background is going to make any difference because no one around us will care about or react to it. On the other hand, the "better protagonist experience" is capable of existing indepently of a detailed background.

 

From my experience with DAO's origins I found that such a game dynamic can contribute strongly to "being allowed to explore and express our characters in-game, have the world around us take an interest and remember and react to what we say and do."

 

How? I don't recall a single instance of anyone giving a dead rat's last fart about my character's background and the effects it must have had on her. Granted, it's been a long time since I played that game, but I very clearly remember my frustration with that fact and then giving up on expecting my origin to actually matter at all -- as well as ditching any plans to maybe replay the game, because 99.9% of it was going to be the same anyway. There is that one infamous early banter with Alistair in which a brief expression of concern on his part turns out to be nothing more than a springboard for instantly making the conversation all about his emotions instead ... which is kind of symptomatic of the red-herring approach that the few instances of companions seeming to care usually take.

[sylvanaerie]

Interesting topic, OP, I would agree mostly.  I'd like to add that sometimes I would play through the origin, and just drop the character after they hit Ostagar, curious about other decisions that could have been made, seeing other content or trying something I hadn't before.  For the longest time the two dwarf origins had only been played up to Ostagar on my computer.  Then I resolved to play them all the way through and quickly fell in love with the scrappy little DC.

 

Each installment has had some kind of introduction portion about an hour or so long (depending on how much time it took to agonize over my character appearance sometimes 2 or more hours), but I think Origins did it best, drawing the character in, giving them motivations beyond just 'save the world' and teaching the new player a little something about the different aspects of the culture and lore in Thedas.

 

My dwarf noble just wanted to survive long enough to stick it to Bhelen.  My dwarf commoner wanted to protect her big sister.  My Cousland wanted Howe's head on a pike.  Each origin gave me something personal, and integrated it into the story nicely.  And I cried the first time I saw Bryce in the Temple and Fergus in the coronation chamber.  Those npc's captured the imagination and allowed me to connect with the story in a way none of the sequels have allowed me to do.

 

While I feel discussing your background with Josie was a nice touch and helped fill out my Inquisitor's personality, the discussion was so matter-of-factly done it wasn't very memorable.  After a few hours of play I'd forgotten most of it.  Except for my Circle mage who was pissed off the Circle disbanded (she lost her beloved mentor/mother figure in that rebellion--something I got to expand on with Vivienne).  That was the only inquisitor who really connected with me enough to remember what I'd said during her 'backstory discussion'.

 

So, origins for the next protagonist would be nice.

 

As an aside--since I have a ton of difficulty making characters in the creator, I'd also like to see a 'teaser release/demo' of a character creator like we had with Origins and somewhat with DA2.  The character creator for Origins allowed us to make characters and save them for use in the actual game.  The DA2 one allowed us to make custom Hawke's with the new creator and play through the opening sequence outside Lothering and a wee bit into some of the story in Kirkwall.  Barring that, making a 'mirror of transformation ala Black Emporium' available upon release would be nice too.

 

It would have been nice if something like that had been released for Inquisition to allow us to get at least a feel for the fantastic CC and the combat system.

[tehturian]

I had a total role playing boner when my city elf and the Dalish returned to Denerim to defend the alienage during the final battle.

 

In conclusion, I'm all for it.  

[Korva]

And I cried the first time I saw Bryce in the Temple and Fergus in the coronation chamber.

 

Seeing what may or may not have been Bryce's ghost was the only time in the game when I actually felt like I was playing a Cousland. It was a good moment, but not remotely enough overall ... and of course no one reacted to it.

 

Fergus should have shown sooner. My Warden is dead, and while seeing him at the funeral provided a brief moment of relief that he'd made it, that was immediately followed by annoyance at Bioware for not giving me an actual reunion. It could have been very poignant and made the choice to go to her death should Riordan fail both easier (at least one of the family survived) and harder (but now, after losing everyone else, he's also going lose the sister he only just reunited with).

 

As an aside--since I have a ton of difficulty making characters in the creator, I'd also like to see a 'teaser release/demo' of a character creator like we had with Origins and somewhat with DA2.  The character creator for Origins allowed us to make characters and save them for use in the actual game.

 

100% agreed. It's a regrettable step backwards that characters can't be saved in the creator, especially considering the increasing complexity and the crappy unnatural lighting which makes some features look completely different than they do in proper sunlight. I also have trouble making characters, and having a pre-release CC tool to play around with both helps gets excitement up and lets me jump into a game without spending frustating hours trying to "get it right" but having to start from scratch each time.

[Bhryaen]

We agree that race/background should offer a decent amount of unique or divergent content, yes. Where we disagree is how that's implemented.

 

I think that Origins are a bad way to go about it because they load up the beginning with wholly exclusive content. This means that there is less exclusive content to seed throughout the entire game. Development isn't free, unfortunately. Resources are finite. The origins had their place in Origins, but going forward I think they are just too inefficient. 

I'm not getting how you think "loading up the beginning with wholly exclusive content" necessarily means "less exclusive content to seed throughout the entire game." Why not just do both? DAO managed it wonderfully- just not enough to really develop the idea as much as they could have. Yes, resources are finite- always will be- but they do have a very proficient team at this point and have been doing this for a living for a while now, many since before DAO. If origins were "efficient" in DAO, there's no reason they can't be "efficient" again.

[Bhryaen]

I think the origin stories in DA:O were mainly a way for the devs to introduce the history and lore of the world we were going to be exploring...

I honestly think that was the main reason Bioware decided to go with origin stories. They created a huge mythology and came up with an elegant way to introduce the player to whatever aspects were most immediately important to the character they would be playing.

They don't really need to do that anymore. We're three games in now, we're familiar with the lore of Thedas (although there are still cool things to reveal, obviously).

DAO's origins did introduce us to the lore of their new gameworld very well. That was one key aspect of them. But they didn't exactly need to do so. It was a unique method they chose to run with. They could just as well have made a single protagonist like the Witcher who just encounters a lot of codex entries and slowly encounters all the various relevant races and nations. Arguably not quite as warm a welcome, but it would also have introduced us to the gameworld. What origins did better than that was lend the introduction a much more engaging, immersive, and even endearing experience in which that lore comes alive. You experience it first-hand. You get to live that lore. And they created loads of DA fans that way.

 

So, even if every player of DA4 will have played through the whole series (and not every player will have) and is more or less familiar with the many identities paved out in Thedas (there are quite a few), it would still be potentially both informative and exciting to start out immersed in some specific world-state, particularly ones that they haven't yet explored in such depth. We know Zevran's experience, but what is it really like to live in Antiva? Or the isolated peninsula of Rivain? Or Cassandra's Nevarra as a non-Pentaghast (or as a Pentaghast noble for that matter)? If you start out in an involved situation as a slave and/or Magister-candidate in Tevinter, experience the more specific details of the sort of life those entail by actually playing them, you'd be getting just as much of an introduction to the lore, possibly more since you'd be encountering social elements you don't get from a codex entry, but you could also be getting a very unique, even personal, experience of the lore- being a part of that lore- and one that could carry with you as you carry on throughout the game.

 

I'm more concerned that they're bored writing the same lore codexes after three games of it by now that they won't be interested enough (or happy) to roll with them again a fourth time. Maybe a few eager, talented, new writers to add a fresh perspective? Still, they haven't explored very far, say, the Vints or especially the qunari as a "homeworld" yet, to name a few, just told us about them, had some conversations about them, and they have quite a bit of storytelling to do with new dwarven and elven lore as well that could be done with origins, not to mention "those across the sea" who remain a mystery... and "scaled ones..." They've plenty to extrapolate from.

 

Not that you're against any of that, just addressing the concern you articulated...

[Steve.81]

Not that you're against any of that...

 

Nope, I'm not against any of that at all.  In fact it sounds pretty awesome!  Well said.

 

Maybe it's something they will consider doing again.  Maybe depending on where they decide to set the next game because like you say, there's some places we don't really know that much about.  It is a very good way to introduce new lore and world building story elements when we're starting in an unfamiliar place.

[Bhryaen]

Disliking one or more aspects of the game is in no way incompatible with liking the game as a whole, especially if said aspect had so little impact or meaning.

 

There is no guarantee that I'd dislike future origin-stories, but there's also no guarantee that I'd like them either, whereas a more vague framework is more likely to give me something that I can build an appealing premise for my character on.
 

 

That is where I disagree. With essentially zero impact on the actual game, I saw them as little more than a waste of resources -- and as a smokescreen that created false expectations for the rest of the game. Whether or not the origins appeal to me personally has no bearing on that impression. If anything, enjoying some aspects of the human noble origin only made me more annoyed with how little payoff there was.

 

 

Tying the protagonist more closely to the world and the story in some meaningful, ongoing and personal manner is absolutely something that should be done to correct the not-a-real-character issue. What I'm skeptical about is doing so by focusing on the past -- a preset past with no player input, at that -- instead of using hooks from the present i.e. the game's actual story and characters. Of course, they could do both ... in theory. In practice, resouces are limited, and spreading them thin is more likely to result in a shallow and unsatisfying treatment.

 

 

False equivalence. An initially limited list of companions is not the same as them being presented as our instant best friend or some other just-so predefined relationship. It's our choice how much we interact with them and how we view them.

 

 

Life isn't a story. If a story doesn't give me an enjoyable premise, I won't touch it, simple as that. Especially if it keeps returning to the non-enjoyable premise instead of allowing me to move away from it ASAP.

 

And of course the devs need to "create something" -- that is, if they begin the game on our character's home turf instead of being thrown right into the action like say KotOR or Inquisition did. Neither way of starting the game is superior to the other IMO, though the latter does offer more freedom for us. I'm quite able and willing to work with that as long as the game gives me something enjoyable to work with first. But in my book the origins are not remotely the kind of awesome this-is-how-it-should-be example of good game design that some people consider them to be. They were far too shallow and meaningless. When it comes to letting the devs create my background for me, I'm far more partial to citing Jade Empire as a lesson in how to do it right, whereas the folks who favor origins mostly seem to dislike a single-race or single-background approach? As I said, resources are limited -- creating something like Jade Empire's personal ties to the story and the villain for multiple, very different backgrounds is technically possible, but unlikely.

 

 

It certainly does, at least a lot more than Inquisition does. The more is explicitly spelled out, the less room we have for our own imagination.

 

 

Baldur's Gate had a pretty firmly defined origin-like beginning, actually. This is your foster father, this is your tutor, this is your friend and only age-mate, and so on. If that feels more generic than Origins, it's probably because there were even fewer options to roleplay back then and the storytelling was still in its infancy overall. (Still, I fondly remember that game both on its own merits and as the clarion call for the resurrection of a genre.)

 

 

Unclear phrasing on my part there. The 5-minutes-of-fame criticism was meant to refer to the series' treatment of its disposable protagonists. It's one symptom of many of how little the player characters actually matter.

 

 

Of course it isn't. But the underlying problem is the protagonist not being a character. Unless or until that is fixed, no amount of added background is going to make any difference because no one around us will care about or react to it. On the other hand, the "better protagonist experience" is capable of existing indepently of a detailed background.

 

 

How? I don't recall a single instance of anyone giving a dead rat's last fart about my character's background and the effects it must have had on her. Granted, it's been a long time since I played that game, but I very clearly remember my frustration with that fact and then giving up on expecting my origin to actually matter at all -- as well as ditching any plans to maybe replay the game, because 99.9% of it was going to be the same anyway. There is that one infamous early banter with Alistair in which a brief expression of concern on his part turns out to be nothing more than a springboard for instantly making the conversation all about his emotions instead ... which is kind of symptomatic of the red-herring approach that the few instances of companions seeming to care usually take.

Did you play anything other than a human noble origin in DAO to the conclusion? With a non-human you get a number of references to your origin throughout DAO- from simple NPC comments regarding your race or, say, being Dalish among alienage elves (IIRC)- to the Gauntlet confrontation with your past "regrets," to different request options at the game conclusion, to especially the return experience to your origin area. The Dalish encounter a different clan but get a different sort of welcome than others, one's Tallis gets a much later-game return, but you'd have to have gotten to know Shianni to appreciate it, and the dwarf origins have an especially rich return, possibly moreso the DN. Humans in DAO never got much "human-centric" or even "nation-centric" (such as being frowned upon as a Ferelden by an Orlesian or chided by a fellow Free Marcher from a different city) commentary and the human-exclusive content never had much to do with their origin other than, yeah, only a human can take Ferelden's throne. Though there was, of course, Howe, and possibly being called "shem" by elves (which makes it no wonder that human-only players often dislike elves in DA). If you never played a non-human, you won't know what I'm referring to when I say origins had an impact in DAO. Certainly more than a mere "smokescreen."

 

(To be upfront, I never played a human past Lothering, so maybe there's more human-exclusive content I left out, but from what I've gathered from reading about other players' humans in DAO, I get the impression I'm estimating correctly. I played every other origin start to finish.)

 

But I'm also not saying, "Just do DAO again." I'm saying, "More of that in DA4." In other threads I've been arguing for more involved human origins than we got in DAO. Then all players could get the origins experience.

 

Replayability was greatly enhanced by the ongoing connection to the origin experience of multiple origins. I had a similar experience as others who've posted on this thread- having played the original origins first before even getting past Ostagar. Sooo fun as mini-game stories in themselves, particularly knowing that they were going on in parallel timelines with other characters I'd make and being able to play them differently each time. I had no idea with all those Ostagar characters that there was a return experience to look forward to as well or other references along the way. This is another reason why I don't get the same impression of a "smokescreen" from origins: simply playing them out as separate identities and "quantum possibilities," so to say, was already in itself fun as a way to start and get a grounding in a character and the lore. Even if they'd not had any references back to the origin start experience through the rest of the game, I'd still argue for them (and for extending them past the introduction stage, however long the introduction may be). They were what made me want to play DAO so much.

 

I admit, I mentioned Baldur's Gate as a sort of trap. (I noticed that great Tamoko quote in your signature.) I loved BG (BG1 mostly). You're right that you get an "origin-like" start in BG1. And you acknowledge that you start with set relationships, even a "friend-from-way-back" that as a player you're only meeting for the first time. (Except that you actually keep that same companion for the rest of the game in BG, something they could do with new DA4 companions, having them be available regardless of origin but be special companions for each origin at game start.) And when you return to Candlkeep there all sorts more NPCs claiming to know you and to have had a relationship with you, apparently a good one despite playing snarky or head-canoning being "chaotic evil." And you keep getting called "child" and "whelp" despite using gray hair. And yet you "fondly remember" BG! And you were able to head-canon as you preferred, all the same. Despite Imoen's insistence that you're best buddies, you can totally blow her off- or greet her warmly. You can't evade a number of the dialogs (without some pretty funny chase scenes) if you're going to move the story forward, but you can determine the nature of the relationship you've had with the people you grew up with. As you can be a "bufflehead" to Gorion and/or Winthrop or be nice with them.

 

Well, it was the same with DAO, just a lot more interesting and elaborate to play through with a more mature, sophisticated world-portrayal than BG's. Orzammar and dwarven lore are immense compared to Candlekeep's tiny grounds (at least since you don't access the library until later.) And there's more recurring and engaging content than just Gorion's ghost in your dreams or his letter in the library chest. I see no reason why DAO is any more restrictive with its origin story frameworks than BG was. It's more directed, but that's more a matter of rich storyline development- the thing you're arguing for, in part. You can still establish exactly the kind of relationship with the characters that populate your character's pre-Warden life that you prefer, even if the characters themselves are fixed. As a DN, Harrowmont will still greet you as you're first exiled to the Deep Roads, Gorim will still be loyal to a fault if you treat him like an underling, Trian will still be a douche even if you're supportive, Bhelen will still betray you whether you're naive with him or not. But you can play through those relationships as you wish, extrapolate that you're a frequenter of Tapster's Tavern, invent a character "off-screen" who you know among the lower castes that you keep private for their protection- with nothing in the origin to contradict you. As a Dalish you can head-canon being an elf that feels repugnant at other elves' use of the term "shem-" and choices you get in your origin support that. DAO gives you plenty of choices and circumstances beyond BG's and yet ultimately the only thing restricting head-canon openness in DAO's origins is one's own imagination. In fact, I find that more elements to the origin experience give me more raw material for contemplating origin aspects not covered. But I adored the origin stories they created in DAO anyway, so...

 

Those set parameters to your BG origin experience were inevitable. Life is indeed more than your (or someone else's) account of it (though the phrase "tell me your life story" isn't exactly nonsensical). You don't choose your upbringing or even place in the world until you're in a position to do something about it, and even then you only have so many choices before you, given the circumstances and your own tendencies as a person. But at least your life as a member of one society or another in DAO could be determined by you as the player in multiple ways. People have complained about "inconsequential choices," but if you're the sort of roleplayer that enjoys creating a particular sort of life, those choices permeated throughout the game go some distance to provide substance for that life. DAI did well at that where it did it. And given how diverse Thedas has ended up being, it works better to have multiple possible race and nationality origin experiences in order to a attain a much better immersion in all of it.

 

Other than just your stated preference for a more "blank slate" character history... which is simply a preference that I and many others don't share (possibly the only thing being debated here since, I already strongly agree, pretty sure no rpg'er would disagree, the devs need to devote themselves to making the world more responsive to your protagonist's identity and choices)... Other than that, the only argument you put forward on which I can see origins as a game element failing is the recurring argument of "limited resources." On this neither of us can really say anything definitive: we're not the Bioware devs, not part of Laidlaw's team, not hearing how ambitious their plans are, not aware of how many resources EA is willing to grant, and thus can only guess at what the devs could pull off in DA4. Could they stretch themselves out too far and end up with more quantity, less quality? Yes. I'd argue they did that in DAI, creating lots of little side quests throughout their huge area maps without allocating- possibly not being able to allocate- the resources to make the quests particularly enjoyable or meaningful as encounters. It's a risk. But we're not in a position to estimate accurately what a gamble it would be to make a multi-origin "Jade Empire" DA. (I never played JE, probably should check it out from what you're saying.) My own relatively uneducated guess is that it would pay off, would be well worth it, and would result in a fantastic DA4 if they focus on the character-building experiences of each origin as they're developing an awesome main story through them. If the devs are going to keep experimenting with each DA installment, that would be the experiment I'd most want them to invest in. But, yes, not as a game mechanic gimmick, even if it is unique to DA- rather as a strong tool for telling a rewarding story in multiple ways and letting us be a part of them all.

 

EDIT:

Sorry for the WallOText... possibly a character flaw on my part that I can't see a better way to reply sufficiently well...

[Absafraginlootly]

Its not accurate to say there was no difference based on origins after the origins themselves. There are conversations all over the game that differ depending on who you are.

 

The ones that most immediately jump to my mind are a good wack of orzammar convos for Dwarven Nobles, and going to the alienage and talking to shianni again and having her mention your wedding to the shock of your companions. There are more of course.

 

Now if you feel that these difference are minor, irrelevent or not worth it, then thats fair enough. But they do exist. And for many of us, them, combined with how immersed you are in the character (which the origins make very), can make a huge difference between play experiences.

 

I personally think that's worth repeating and doing it even better.

[sylvanaerie]

Its not accurate to say there was no difference based on origins after the origins themselves. There are conversations all over the game that differ depending on who you are.

 

The ones that most immediately jump to my mind are a good wack of orzammar convos for Dwarven Nobles, and going to the alienage and talking to shianni again and having her mention your wedding to the shock of your companions. There are more of course.

 

Now if you feel that these difference are minor, irrelevent or not worth it, then thats fair enough. But they do exist. And for many of us, them, combined with how immersed you are in the character (which the origins make very), can make a huge difference between play experiences.

 

I personally think that's worth repeating and doing it even better.

 

I especially enjoyed the mage origin, not for the origin itself, but for the wealth of mage specific responses you got in the game if you identified yourself as one.  IMO the best Teagan flirt line (in my signature) is for a mage warden.

[AntiChri5]

I'm not getting how you think "loading up the beginning with wholly exclusive content" necessarily means "less exclusive content to seed throughout the entire game." Why not just do both? DAO managed it wonderfully- just not enough to really develop the idea as much as they could have. Yes, resources are finite- always will be- but they do have a very proficient team at this point and have been doing this for a living for a while now, many since before DAO. If origins were "efficient" in DAO, there's no reason they can't be "efficient" again.

DAO did not manage it wonderfully. It popped up every now and then, but generally once you hit Ostagar the player loses so much reactivity and uniqueness that it's hard to keep going. Lots of people have mentioned how many times they replayed the Origins alone. To me, that doesn't say "Man, the Origins were great!" To me it says "Man, the rest of the game was ****."

 

Origins put an incredible amount of resources into providing a wildly different introduction. But this burns a lot of the budget early and sets an impossible standard that they cannot live up to.

 

I don't want dead zones in my games. And when it comes to dead zones, Origins is one of the worst games out there. Some really great moments but with such utter grind between them.

 

In a perfect world, we could have both Origins and an incredible amount of variation and divergence seeded throughout the game. But finite resources almost guarantee that one gets in the way of the other. What if it were a choice, in Inquisition, between a mage origin or a plotline running throughout the game where a group of Templars who joined the Inquisition at the very beginning object to the PC being the "Herald" and desert. As the game progresses, they come up more and more attempting to spread distrust of the PC. By the time the PC becomes Inquisitor they have become enemies and the Inquisitor eventually has to fight them. A good five or six quests, spread along the course of main game.

[vertigomez]

But there's something great about not just saying Rica's your sis after you're already a Herald, but also knowing her before everything goes south. In DAO you actually have a Brosca home, and everyone's just doing their thing as they would regardless of a blight- with all the drama and events associated with that life- and then it gets interrupted in a "game-changer" type of way. That's why I ended up feeling for Rica so much: for a time it was just she and I... and ol' lush mum... and Leske if he stops leering. Those were experiences of my life I wouldn't have had if they had just had Rica walk up and say, "Remember back in Dust Town?" when there was no back-in-Dust-Town experience. "Oh, yeah, good times, right?" "Uh, no... didn't you read the Codex on Dust Town?" "Oh, right. I'll do that right away then get back to you..." "Ahem, just read the dialog wheel. All you need to know." Ya know? Playable origins are what made it feel truly epic.
 
It's like the difference between method acting and the Stanislavsky approach- the latter has you just extrapolate from your own experiences regardless of the portrayal you're doing- showing sadness about some grave tragedy in the story by recalling some sad event IRL like when you lost your kitten- whereas method acting has actors gaining weight for parts, learning martial arts, live in a slum or mansion for a while, live in a log cabin with few amenities, etc., so that they actually live the role and convey it in their performance. (I may have gotten those clarified wrong, but you get the idea.) I want to live my origin, not just presume it.

Fair point! I guess I'm sort of seeing it like DA2... we didn't actually live in Ferelden, hiding our little apostate family among the hedgerows, but I still felt connected to Carver, Bethany, Leandra... even Malcolm as a posthumous character. I think playable origins are ideal, but if we can't have that then I'd be just as happy for a real, tangible connection. I would have loved to have run into Adaar's kith over the course of the game. Just imagine meeting Shokrakar and Ashaad (and Ashaad 2)!

[KotorEffect3]

The origin stories were very fun and gave each playthrough it's own unique flavor.  Would love to see the concept return.

[jedidotflow]

Origins work if they're tied to the main story. Otherwise, they're just filler. I hate games that start with a lot of exposition. I'd rather get some action going and then slow the pace gradually.

 

Adding to this, as a Person of Color who likes to play as humans, it sucked to have to make my Warden a lily-white noble. I couldn't make him brown because his entire family was pale af. At least Hawke had his family members reflect his skin color, but DA2 is trash.

[Phoe77]

I agree with most of the points made against origins.  I do believe that they become largely irrelevant for vast portions of the game and I'm not fond of the idea of having relationships with other character established for me.  It was lucky that I happened to be so fond of the Couslands, but the mage origin gets more and more tedious each time I play it for that reason.  

 

Inquisition gave me enough of a background to work with and then allowed me to flesh out the specifics myself.  Even better, I don't have to play through an additional hour or so of prologue before the game really begins.  After so many time through them, most of the origins just feel like a chore to go through now, and I appreciate that Inquisition doesn't make me go through two prologues.

[Bhryaen]

DAO did not manage it wonderfully. It popped up every now and then, but generally once you hit Ostagar the player loses so much reactivity and uniqueness that it's hard to keep going. Lots of people have mentioned how many times they replayed the Origins alone. To me, that doesn't say "Man, the Origins were great!" To me it says "Man, the rest of the game was ****."

 

Origins put an incredible amount of resources into providing a wildly different introduction. But this burns a lot of the budget early and sets an impossible standard that they cannot live up to.

 

I don't want dead zones in my games. And when it comes to dead zones, Origins is one of the worst games out there. Some really great moments but with such utter grind between them.

 

In a perfect world, we could have both Origins and an incredible amount of variation and divergence seeded throughout the game. But finite resources almost guarantee that one gets in the way of the other. What if it were a choice, in Inquisition, between a mage origin or a plotline running throughout the game where a group of Templars who joined the Inquisition at the very beginning object to the PC being the "Herald" and desert. As the game progresses, they come up more and more attempting to spread distrust of the PC. By the time the PC becomes Inquisitor they have become enemies and the Inquisitor eventually has to fight them. A good five or six quests, spread along the course of main game.

I think I understand the argument you've been making- and others- didn't before because I conceive of the integration of the origin stories with the main campaign differently from you. You think that, because all the various origins converge at a certain point and divergence is now no longer completely parallel, the game fails somehow- namely at Ostagar. I don't see the failure because I see pretty much any game other than DAO (due to its unique origins mechanic)- as already being completely convergent right from the beginning that way. There are no parallel origins experiences to have in other games- so it's always repetitive with little variation on replays other than if you choose a new class (or race, but only because of different race advantages or appearance- i.e., gameplay, not story) or new dialog options along the single story told in the game. So you're faulting DA for having origins because there apparently isn't enough origins content, but yet you don't fault other games for having none at all.

 

It's like a new twist on the Woody Allen joke:

Restaurant goer 1: "The food here is just awful."

Restaurant goes 2: "Yes, and such small portions."

 

Except that you know the food is good...

 

Even as much as I want origins to matter, actions and interactions during an origins section to matter, NPCs we meet during the origins to matter- even I'm not looking for no convergence at all. What would that mean anyway? Completely separate games within a single game with only the most passing acknowledgement of the other origins' potential timelines? That actually sounds kinda interesting- to never explore the same interactions or encounters as any character from another origin- but that's not what I'd conceived because I like to have occasional convergence at some point. It's what grounds the character I've created in the main plot- however varied they may have become in my mind due to the origin experience. Could they pull off a whole game with multiple completely divergent stories? Maybe, but now I'm seeing more why you've been saying that would use too many resources. That I think I'd agree with. They'd essentially be making several main plots. Plus I'd miss out on the fun of knowing another of my characters had been in the same place and done something different. Meh. And I don't think it would be worth it. I wouldn't even advocate that. I just want to start with divergent origins and then have more meaningful returns to the origins- whether the area, the characters, the plot- and more of a sense that they matter while playing out the otherwise convergent main story.

 

In no way does Ostagar feel like a dead zone for me just because all the other origins funnel into it. Again: every other game made is like that from the get-go. So by that argument, every other game ever made is one giant dead zone. (They kinda are.) And DAO is therefore superior because it at least had some substantive divergence at some points- primarily at the start- as "disappointing" as it apparently is to lose the divergence at some point. I'm not quite so unappreciative of having had a unique origin experience in the first place that just because divergence gets reduced at some point I'm bummed. Just because they don't extend it further doesn't ruin anything. Sure, I wanted more divergence from DAO, but I liked greatly what I got and also liked immersion in the main story.

 

In fact, it's a great feeling having my completely new character with widely varied starting experiences from my other characters now being introduced to the same King Cailan- except with somewhat different dialog options reflecting their origin and how I played them. That's the point in the game when the divergence based on class or specialization or personality start weighing in more heavily- as well as the quality of the main plot- and why the game remains less forced along a narrower path as you'd been on in your origins (at least in DAO). It's no different from the experience of, say, joining the military: people have all sorts of origins and personal situations they're working out, and they bring that with them into the "service" to some degree, but once they join and are "in," now they have a job to do and they're locked into it... Later you get leave (hopefully), and that restores some divergence, and ultimately you get out of the military entirely (I'm just running with the analogy) and full divergence is restored. That's exactly what I want- just more of that- the in and out- but not quite so simple as "on leave." I mean, an origin story could involve some lifelong enemy who's been hunting you or something- so not exactly a vacation. Just something that returns to your origin where your personal story and where you've gone with it takes center stage again- and then weaves back to the main. In DAO you do get renewed divergence by origin again when you do the return experience, or get that Gauntlet encounter, or get the myriad little race-based encounters, or get to the end decision. In that way, weaving between the divergent origin experience and the main plot, they could actually even end the main plot well before you resolve your special origin plot, the game continuing until so. After all when you make the origin-specific request of Alistair or Anora at the end of DAO, the main plot is already done. Or they could have one origin end after the main plot, another origin before it. Lots to play with.

 

In any case, I like being reminded that whatever my character's personal struggle, now the big stuff is coming to bear- bigger than just me (even if I'm way more important in the main events than my character is presumably aware of). That's what Ostagar is to me. The point at which I join all my other DAO characters in facing the Blight. But having a chance to live my "pre-Warden" life, experience what it's about, and get to know the me before the Warden or the Herald or the Private as I'm off to basic training- that's friggin' awesome- so I'm not just a cog in the wheel. I mean, I kinda am ultimately, but with an origins experience now I don't feel like one- now I've already experienced that I'm more than that and have more in-game wheels turning in my character's life than the main plot itself. It's in my hands at that point whether I want to remember that fact. Starting with an empty slate, it's all in the devs' hands and you always have to keep making up what the hell you're even about. But, as I mentioned, that's how it more or less already is with every game other than DAO.

 

The thing that makes your arguments seem off-kilter or as if using backwards reasoning is that it's not as if the origins formula is everywhere, just plaguing the industry. Only DAO has ever really done it substantially, so it's... kinda rare- and special. And I'm not alone in having loved it in DAO. So you're arguing for keeping extinct a rare thing that brought people to the franchise in the first place... I say let that rare thing grow. Play any other game if you miss the usual way games are. Or just appreciate when DA4 exits divergence to become convergent since at that point it becomes quantitatively like every other rpg... The origins experience keeps it qualitatively different from every other rpg.

[Fredward]

I think it's just too expensive (in terms of money and time) to do, frankly. Playable origins is superior to origins you're told about but don't directly experience, it's also more expensive. A new environment, new voiced characters, models potentially, a suitable payload throughout the rest of the game. Multiply that by four. People want their cake and eat it too but I mean come on.

 

I don't know how much implementing different animations/armor for four races costs but if they scrapped races but gave you a varied playable origins for your single-race protag would you consider that fair?

[Bhryaen]

I agree with most of the points made against origins.  I do believe that they become largely irrelevant for vast portions of the game and I'm not fond of the idea of having relationships with other character established for me.  It was lucky that I happened to be so fond of the Couslands, but the mage origin gets more and more tedious each time I play it for that reason.  

 

Inquisition gave me enough of a background to work with and then allowed me to flesh out the specifics myself.  Even better, I don't have to play through an additional hour or so of prologue before the game really begins.  After so many time through them, most of the origins just feel like a chore to go through now, and I appreciate that Inquisition doesn't make me go through two prologues.

And just like "most of the points made against origins" by a vocal minority in this thread, yours suffers the same flaws in reasoning with the same corrections to be offered (and ignored, it seems):

 

1. That origins may or may not have become "largely irrelevant" in DAO (they didn't nearly as much as origins-detractors seem to wish to portray it) doesn't mean they have to in DA4, so that concern is irrelevant.

2. That origins were very relevant at any point- but particularly at the game start- still has merit. Nothing is ruined by giving the player that unique experience, just delayed.

3. Relationships of some sort are going to be pre-established regardless because you're not inventing DA4, the devs are. There will always be wiggle room, and there will always be characters toward the beginning of the game that you're orchestrated to have some sort of relationship with whether you like it or them or not. Head-canon is limited by one thing only: your own imagination. There is not a dev in the world that can "flesh out the specifics" so thoroughly that you can't invent ones they didn't think of... and DA's dev's aren't even trying to do that... and they didn't do that in DAO.

4. The origins are not a prologue. The origins experience is part of the game experience itself. They simply vary according to your choice among them, and then how you choose to play them. Prologue is like when you have to do the tutorial section first. Immersion in the game lore is, well, playing the game. There are different paths into a forest. If you choose one path instead of another, you still enter the forest...

 

The use of the term "luck" to describe your enjoyment of DAO through at least one origin (you are yet another human-only player, it seems- not surprising), is purely amusing. It means you liked your path into DAO. Congratulations, DAO devs, you did it again! Now give me more! The mage origin gets more tedious each time you play it... How am I supposed to take that serious? You replay it! Even I only played a mage only once, but it interested you to go repeatedly... What are you complaining about? Not getting your money's worth? You want an empty start with no Cousland pre-story to live? (You just said you like it, but self-contradiction is OK here.) No human mage pre-story to repeat because it's so unplayable- you know, before you repeat the main story? Good, try every other game than DAO. Except you didn't... cuz DAO was cool.

[Bhryaen]

I think it's just too expensive (in terms of money and time) to do, frankly. Playable origins is superior to origins you're told about but don't directly experience, it's also more expensive. A new environment, new voiced characters, models potentially, a suitable payload throughout the rest of the game. Multiply that by four. People want their cake and eat it too but I mean come on.

 

I don't know how much implementing different animations/armor for four races costs but if they scrapped races but gave you a varied playable origins for your single-race protag would you consider that fair?

The question you ask is a Sophie's Choice that I see no reason to attempt to answer. Unless or until the devs bring me onto their team and apprise me of everything they're facing in producing DA4- i.e., so that I know the actual limitations being faced- and that will be... next week, I think... and I suppose also just after I spend years in at least one department of game development (writing, game engine, graphic art, voice performance management) and thus have the professional experience I'd need to assess the situation- then and only then will I (or you or anyone else not in those shoes) be able to know exactly what sort of Sophie's Choice- if any- will be faced by reintroducing origins. But lemme give guessing a hankering:

 

1. They already successfully had multiple origins starts replete with return experiences and numerous origin-specific content in DAO. To a far lesser extent but certainly somewhat, they've added origin-specific content to DAI. It's not just a dream of mine I'm trying to sell to the devs. It's their own successful venture I'm arguing for them to return to and develop.

2. During DAO they were struggling with a nascent gameworld they were only just coming to grips with and had far less resources to work with. I heard an interview with Gaider where he described how... erm... backward the Bioware offices were when he first went to work on DAO. Today they've had years of exploring their own gameworld and are veterans at it with many of their ideas for it already mapped out, and they have EA making funds available and, as a larger company, have the most state-of-the-art game developmnet tools at their disposal. These are not spring chickens.

3. There is no reinvention of the wheel required here. Origins is already the DA devs' baby. You know: DA:Origins. And they not only could add multiple origins to DAI, they did. They do that in this franchise. So for some reason I don't feel I'm asking anything unusual... And many of the same people who made DAO are still in the workshop... Ultimately all I'm saying is, "I like what you do, keep it up!," just with an emphasis on what I like best.

4. These are people who already had years of experience by the time DAO was initiated. Today they've had several years more experience. That's experience with all the skills required to produce multiple origins- most especially regarding coordinating the various creative teams to work together to produce high-functioning roleplay with a large volume of variables. I'm not asking this of, say, Witcher or Skyrim devs (whose games bore me.) I'm asking it of the professionals at it...

 

So... can they do miracles? Hmmm. I'll say... no. Wait, ye-, no. But what exactly is possible and what's not, I'm not able to honestly say, so, you know, I don't. Given also the reasons above I don't feel I'm being unreasonable, nor am I asking for the moon. I just state what I'd like, and especially given the appeal of origins, I know I'm not speaking for myself alone. Even people who naysay origins now... enjoyed them then... and, because of origins yesterday, are fans today- witting or otherwise- of the franchise.

 

Since I've already answered these points earlier in the thread, I'll just add something new. If they'd limit all side content to something relevant to at least one origin- having no extraneous content to create that means nothing special to at least one origin- that would already not only cut resource loss going to something that isn't enhancing the gameplay, but make content creation that much more focused and necessarily enriching. Of course, it will still be more or less irrelevant to the other origins depending on the nature of it (as dwarves in general may still get something special from it), but the player would know through replays just which of those other origins it meant the most to.

 

Just one suggestion I'll make... that and one I mentioned in passing earlier: instead of inventing a whole new set of recruitable companions who we meet but who disappear because they're origin-start NPCs, requiring new resources for each new stage, let each origin be accompanied by a single one of the main companions at game start, but then make all companions available once the main campaign takes over (or whenever). This would not only reserve resources but make one's relationship with each companion that much closer (more enjoyable). They could have any kind of relationship with the player- including rivalry- but just be a special part of the origin experience. With qunari now and 2 origins each race, that would be 8 total origins. With 9 companions that makes only one extra companion that every origin encounters the same- which I'm sure would fit nicely into the main campaign.

 

And a third suggestion would be to not create origins just to suit the diversity of Thedas' gameworld- i.e., with even a hint of gimmick to them. Create them to accentuate the narrative of whatever the main plot is. Keep everything focused and there will be less lost to extraneousness. DAO was great- had you going to Orzammar for the main plot, but also had you experiencing origin-exclusive content as a dwarf. Excellent idea- very rewarding and economical. Just need more of that...

[Fredward]

I think everyone would prefer playable origins. They immerse the player in the setting gradually, they set a tone, they're fun, they've been done (with an unvoiced protagonist) and done partially with a voiced one. So why NOT include them? Well that's the question innit? And we don't know the answer. Maybe you ARE asking for the moon. Maybe you're asking for a little bit extra at the beginning that will detract from somewhere else. I don't think anyone ever complained about playable origins so their absence implies cost that was deemed not worth it.

[Bhryaen]

I think everyone would prefer playable origins. They immerse the player in the setting gradually, they set a tone, they're fun, they've been done (with an unvoiced protagonist) and done partially with a voiced one. So why NOT include them? Well that's the question innit? And we don't know the answer. Maybe you ARE asking for the moon. Maybe you're asking for a little bit extra at the beginning that will detract from somewhere else. I don't think anyone ever complained about playable origins so their absence implies cost that was deemed not worth it.

Not everyone would prefer playable origins, alas. I do recognize this. Just as not everyone enjoys non-playable origins. People are- as they always have been and always will be- different. But, of course, I agree with you- and many others- and still others simply don't appreciate what they've lost and would probably love it if it were done despite their expressed disinterest. I've mused in another thread that they could actually make one origin that's pretty bland- typically human- just to appeal to those that prefer bland origins. Nothing really wrong with that. It's arguably what they did with the Couslands, and loads of folks loved their Couslands. That I didn't doesn't mean they were wrong. I know this...

 

But the devs' investment in one aspect of a game over another doesn't imply anything necessarily. It may be a consideration far different than cost: simply that the devs enjoyed developing one game mechanic over another. In DAI they had an entirely new game engine to implement and get used to (and even switched it yet again mid-development), so there was that. They got very rich in their content in the main story and numerous companion and NPC interactions- so that was something they were interested in. They invested heavily there- love what they've done with it. They could've done more of that by focusing on origins, but they delved into overlarge areas that they invested far less resources into making meaningful beyond the fun (or labor in others' views) of exploring them and getting nice (not sarcasm, they're great) vistas and scenery. Again, we really don't know what went on during DAI development. If I'm asking for the moon- and I seriously doubt it because I'm not an unreasonable fellow- it will come out in them not doing it because they're unable. Or it may not happen because they just don't want to, so my suggestions are irrelevant. I'm urging them to do it nonetheless...

[DWareFan]

Actually, I don't want them telling me what my PC is.  My dwarf would have never been a criminal.  I hate that and she sits still in Haven.  My elf inquisitor knew nothing about elven history, deleted.  My noble inquisitor is the only one that I can properly head canon, brothers are templars, family supports the chantry etc. 

 

The good thing about DAO was that you were given options and after you picked, you were allowed to play through it which was really great. Hawke is fleeing with her family, which is good but really, you lose one sibling 2 minutes into the game. 

 

So give me a PC that has no history and let me make it up as the game progresses.