264 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Could say the same for you. Jade Empire, while a phenomenal game, is one of the worst examples of replay value via character appearance, given that there is minimal content related to your appearance.

[AlanC9]

Well, yeah, but even minimal reactivity to appearance is more reactivity than zero reactivity to appearance.

 

I don't think the cost is worth paying, but I'll acknowledge that there's a slight possible benefit.

[Il Divo]

Sure, but I think it's also an estimate of how much reactivity you're getting vs. what you're giving up. In Jade Empire's case, I think I can count on one hand the number of times someone actually mentioned my character's dragon tattoo. In that scenario, I'd rather have the character creator, albeit requiring more zots to put in.

[Queen Skadi]

Could say the same for you. Jade Empire, while a phenomenal game, is one of the worst examples of replay value via character appearance, given that there is minimal content related to your appearance.

 

How much or how little reactivity Jade Empire had based on appearance is not the point, the mere fact that the limited number of appearance allowed for reactivity based on your character's appearance is still more than can be said of other Bioware games.

 

Are you saying that since the character backgrounds and origin stories add so little reactivity to the gameplay experience that they should be scrapped too? Lets just have a blank slate protagonist where the player gets to decide what their past is and how they look and who they care about? Is that what you are saying II Divo?

[Il Divo]

How much or how little reactivity Jade Empire had based on appearance is not the point, the mere fact that the limited number of appearance allowed for reactivity based on your character's appearance is still more than can be said of other Bioware games.

 

 

Actually, that would be the point.

 

Are you saying that since the character backgrounds and origin stories add so little reactivity to the gameplay experience that they should be scrapped too? Lets just have a blank slate protagonist where the player gets to decide what their past is and how they look and who they care about? Is that what you are saying II Divo?

 

​

No, I'm saying that in this instance, the sort of reactivity you're asking for is utterly meaningless for me, as demonstrated by Jade Empire. Having a character mention my dragon tattoo maybe 3-4 times via ambient dialogue in passing  doesn't really cancel out the character creator loss.

 

On the other hand, having the ability to actively bring up past experiences, such as character backgrounds and Origin stories, leaves a marked improvement in terms of my ability to roleplay/express who my character is. I can have a conversation about growing up in a noble family with the Trevalyans, as per DA:I. Regarding appearances, am I supposed to spend the entire game discussing with characters my PC's dragon tattoo? Is that an interesting character concept vs. DA:O's human noble origin? In what sense would that ever be applicable?

 

Appearance can be a meaningful character trait. Deus Ex: HR does this pretty well, as do many other games. But outside of those specialized instances, it tends to be a waste of time. So unless every PC is going to be sporting epic dragon tattoos, I can't say why (in most cases) people would discuss whether I have x, y, or z trait.

[Queen Skadi]

No, I'm saying that in this instance, the sort of reactivity you're asking for is utterly meaningless for me, as demonstrated by Jade Empire. Having a character mention my dragon tattoo maybe 3-4 times via ambient dialogue in passing  doesn't really cancel out the character creator loss.

 

On the other hand, having the ability to actively bring up past experiences, such as character backgrounds and Origin stories, leaves a marked improvement in terms of my ability to roleplay/express who my character is. I can have a conversation about growing up in a noble family with the Trevalyans, as per DA:I. Regarding appearances, am I supposed to spend the entire game discussing with characters my PC's dragon tattoo? Is that an interesting character concept vs. DA:O's human noble origin? In what sense would that ever be applicable?

 

Having a pre-defined background leaves a marked improvement in terms of your ability to roleplay/express who your character is? No it doesn't, it allows the game to tell you who your character is rather than allowing you to tell the game who your character is, it only serves as a disconnect between player and character as the characters (and even the player's character themselves) reference events and things that should be meaningful to the character but mean nothing to the player.

 

Of course you can select dialogue options that let your character talk about their family but you aren't really roleplaying but rathing watching Bioware's character spout exposition about a past that means nothing to the player, you the player know nothing about auntie Ethal and how she loves getting drunk at Trevalyan parties until after the player character talks about it with no input from the player, you arent roleplaying as someone who loves their auntie Ethal but rather watching somebody else's character state their love for their auntie Ethal.

 

To me in a video game saddling the player character with a past and trying to inform the player on how they should feel about certain events and characters in the world by establishing past relationships and whatnot is a far greater sin than denying them access to a character creator, while I prefer games that allow me to control how my character looks I would much rather protagonist have a pre-defined appearance rather than have the game try to inform me on how my character should be feeling about certain events or people.

 

Appearance can be a meaningful character trait. Deus Ex: HR does this pretty well

 

Really? I thought Human Revolution dropped the ball in this regard. Thought it was incredibly lazy how they just gave Adam all his augmentations at the start and used the lame excuse that they had to be unlocked before they became functional, would have loved to see Adam's visual appearance change based on what upgrades and augmentations the player chooses to install.

[KaiserShep]

How so? How does the character creation process as it is in current Bioware games add replay value? How does the game change when you create a character with red hair as opposed to black hair?

 

As it is the system I propose would actually add replay value as opposed to eliminating them as having fewer but more unique appearances would allow for more reactivity in each playthrough depending on what appearance you choose, if we use the same amount of options as Jade Empire that is 6 unique playthroughs right there based on appearance alone!

 

Think about your arguments before you post them.

 

Greater levels of personalization in terms of character appearance can actually go a long way. The game's content may not change with each custom look you create, but that's never really been that important. But with regards to specific dialogue for appearance, how much dialogue/reactivity are we really talking here? The character's not going to look so remarkable that NPC's are going to constantly make mention of it, so is it worth getting rid of a proper character creator just for a couple of throwaway lines noting the color of the PC's hair or eyes? I don't really see how that's worth the bother, nor do I see that really offsetting the loss of a feature people enjoy. 

[Il Divo]

 

Really? I thought Human Revolution dropped the ball in this regard. Thought it was incredibly lazy how they just gave Adam all his augmentations at the start and used the lame excuse that they had to be unlocked before they became functional, would have loved to see Adam's visual appearance change based on what upgrades and augmentations the player chooses to install.

 

 

Human Revolution featured a protagonist who had a visual trait that said pretty clearly "I'm different". And not just in the poking fun sense that Jade Empire does: "Oh hey look, they mentioned I have a dragon tattoo....once". The entire point of the game is how these augmentations altered how Adam viewed himself and how others viewed him, which was related to how you were able to choose dialogue.

 

Regardless, in most cases, his appearance wouldn't have changed at all. It's not like the Icarus Landing Suit has a giant sign on it that says "I can fall from any height and survive". In general, the important point was that Adam was visibly augmented, which affected his interactions with everyone around him. How often would characters say "hey you have a jump augmentation" or "hey, your arms are augmented" even if the game did want to show how visibly different his augs made him?

 

Having a pre-defined background leaves a marked improvement in terms of your ability to roleplay/express who your character is? No it doesn't, it allows the game to tell you who your character is rather than allowing you to tell the game who your character is, it only serves as a disconnect between player and character as the characters (and even the player's character themselves) reference events and things that should be meaningful to the character but mean nothing to the player. 

 

 

 You never get to tell the game who your character is, with the blank slate. At best, you get to create a character who somehow never talks about his experiences, which is fine with a couple role-playing concepts. "the lone wanderer", etc.

 

Now if you want to actively express any kind of opinion? Your background decides where you come from and how your experiences shaped you. Within that context, the game does give you some options to affect how you see yourself given that background. If we want to talk about character disconnect, I'd probably start with the blank slate protagonist and how I can't express any of those ideas via dialogue, at which point I may as well be using a Word Document to role-play.

 

Of course you can select dialogue options that let your character talk about their family but you aren't really roleplaying but rathing watching Bioware's character spout exposition about a past that means nothing to the player, you the player know nothing about auntie Ethal and how she loves getting drunk at Trevalyan parties until after the player character talks about it with no input from the player, you arent roleplaying as someone who loves their auntie Ethal but rather watching somebody else's character state their love for their auntie Ethal.

 

 

This goes for all role-playing backgrounds, blank slate included. "You didn't experience it" so it must mean nothing. Of course, this is still a pretty good defense in favor of Origin stories, which DA:O allowed or simply providing you with a halfway decent description of what your background was like, which Bioware games (try to) do. Or even doing a better job with the a paraphrase system.

 

On the other hand too, I recall quite a few moments where I got to describe in DA:I how I felt regarding my background. As a brief example, I got to describe for Josephine how I felt regarding my family and how I saw myself as a wanderer.  

 

To me in a video game saddling the player character with a past and trying to inform the player on how they should feel about certain events and characters in the world by establishing past relationships and whatnot is a far greater sin than denying them access to a character creator, while I prefer games that allow me to control how my character looks I would much rather protagonist have a pre-defined appearance rather than have the game try to inform me on how my character should be feeling about certain events or people.

 

 

Then what is the goal of this thread? Bioware games have enough difficulty expressing different backgrounds as it is. Scrapping a character creator so people can mention dragon tattoos twice in passing seems a pretty bad decision, from a design stand point.

 

To say nothing of the fact that, you're not always forced to decide how you feel about certain events. ME1, while nowhere near my favorite Bioware game with backgrounds, gave you several instances where you got to express different stand points regarding Torfan, as an example. It's far better than the reactivity Jade Empire gives us regarding appearances.

[RepHope]

Please no. ME3 showed how bad that would be.

[Queen Skadi]

Human Revolution featured a protagonist who had a visual trait that said pretty clearly "I'm different". And not just in the poking fun sense that Jade Empire does: "Oh hey look, they mentioned I have a dragon tattoo....once". The entire point of the game is how these augmentations altered how Adam viewed himself and how others viewed him, which was related to how you were able to choose dialogue.

 

Regardless, in most cases, his appearance wouldn't have changed at all. It's not like the Icarus Landing Suit has a giant sign on it that says "I can fall from any height and survive". In general, the important pointing was that Adam was visibly augmented, which affected his interactions with everyone around him. How often would characters say "hey you have a jump augmentation" or "hey, your arms are augmented" even if the game did show how visibly different his augs made him?

 

Oh there is plenty they could have done, I think you are having trouble imagining what it would be like due to Jensen's appearance from the outset being that of a heavily augmented person rather than achieving that appearance gradually over the course of the game over being forced to upgrade in order to overcome the obstacles, of course the developers could have reactivity in conversation depending on what augs you have but personally I just would have liked to see it as it would have been a nice touch

 

You never get to tell the game who your character is, with the blank slate. At best, you get to create a character who somehow never talks about his experiences, which is fine with a couple role-playing concepts. "the lone wanderer", etc.

 

Now you want to actively express any kind of opinion? Your background decides where you come from and how your experiences shaped you. Within that context, the game does give you some options to affect how you see yourself given that background. If we want to talk about character disconnect, I'd probably start with the blank slate protagonist and how I can't express any of those ideas via dialogue, at which point I may as well be using a Word Document to role-play.

 

Of course you get to tell the game who your character is with a blank slate character, of course you never get to tell the game what your character's background is or who their family is and the game will never react to these aspects of your character but you can tell the game who your character is by how they act in the game, how they respond to events that actually happen in the game as opposed to the events that happen before the game begins, you tell the game who your character is by deciding who your character cares about and how they feel about the things they learn as they learn them, the defining moments of a characters life should not be the events that happen before the game even begins but rather the events of the game itself and how the character reacts to them.

 

Unless the background of the character is absolutely vital to the plot it is best to leave it as vague as possible, let the player decide who their character is instead of having the game inform the player who their character is. 

 

This goes for all role-playing backgrounds, blank slate included. "You didn't experience it" so it must mean nothing. Of course, this is still a pretty good defense in favor of Origin stories, which DA:O allowed or simply providing you with a halfway decent description of what your background was like, which Bioware games do. Or even doing a better job with the a paraphrase system.

 

On the other hand too, I recall quite a few moments where I got to describe in DA:I how I felt regarding my background. As a brief example, I got to describe for Josephine how I felt regarding my family and how I saw myself as a wanderer. 

 

Not really, sure the game gives you information on your background in attempt to inform you on who your character is rather than allowing you to decide for yourself but the fact that the player never experiences it makes it meaningless to the player which only serves as a disconnect between player and character as the game tries to imply that these events should mean something to the character despite the fact you never get to experience them.

 

Asking the player how their character feels about a past they never experienced to me feels kind of pointless as it has nothing to do with the game and is quite frankly meaningless to the player, it is like when Wynne asks a mage warden if they miss the circle, the player honestly does not spend enough time their to care, it is a rather insignificant portion of the game where they inform you that you have a friend named Jowan who is unlikable to the point where you wonder why anyone let alone your character would want to be his friend and are expected to feel betrayed when you find out he is a blood mage, Jowan means nothing to me so why do I care?

[KaiserShep]

Asking the player how their character feels about a past they never experienced to me feels kind of pointless as it has nothing to do with the game and is quite frankly meaningless to the player, it is like when Wynne asks a mage warden if they miss the circle, the player honestly does not spend enough time their to care, it is a rather insignificant portion of the game where they inform you that you have a friend named Jowan who is unlikable to the point where you wonder why anyone let alone your character would want to be his friend and are expected to feel betrayed when you find out he is a blood mage, Jowan means nothing to me so why do I care?

 

 

Yeah well, that seems more a knock against the background in general, which is why I don't particularly like it, besides not liking the mage gameplay of Origins. I thought the human noble's reactivity here and there worked out pretty well though. Like, for instance, at the Temple of Sacred Ashes, when the guardian asks the Warden about the death of his/her parents at Highever, you have a number of responses for that, one of which being "I failed them" and then reacting to seeing Bryce Cousland's face again, though the latter only showing Bryce and never Eleanor is a bit of a negative. 

[Gothfather]

They already HAVE preset looks for a character. Have you not see the fraking preset character in ME1-3? It is the same as the promotional posters. Did no one see the preset appearances in DA:I they are fraking called preset. Preset doesn't mean unalterable.

 

The more I see OPs threads the more I think this person is a troll.

[Queen Skadi]

Yeah well, that seems more a knock against the background in general, which is why I don't particularly like it, besides not liking the mage gameplay of Origins. I thought the human noble's reactivity here and there worked out pretty well though. Like, for instance, at the Temple of Sacred Ashes, when the guardian asks the Warden about the death of his/her parents at Highever, you have a number of responses for that, one of which being "I failed them" and then reacting to seeing Bryce Cousland's face again, though the latter only showing Bryce and never Eleanor is a bit of a negative. 

 

I could level the same criticism at the human noble origin as well (well I could level the same criticism at all of them but lets just stick to noble for now), while not as unlikable as Jowan you are still given little reason to care about the parents and siblings but it is heavily implied your character should care about them, however how can you care about somebody you only meet once and they die in the next scene?

 

I also found it annoying how certain characters would inform you of certain events in your past as if they should mean something to your character despite them having nothing to do with anything. Guy comes up and goes "Hey remember that time you gave me a hearty thrashing at that tournement and went on to win because you are so cool and awesome?" and I am all like no, should I remember that? What relevance does it have to the story other than to remind me that this is not my character? Where was the option when talking to the Guardian at the temple of sacred ashes to say "Who? My characters parents? Oh I could not give a flying toss about those guys"?

[zestalyn]

If you mean have a pre-set Asian protagonist like Jade Empire, then I am alllllllll game for it for selfish reasons lol. But on a serious note- no, I don't know why so many people are suggesting Bioware ditch all of these gameplay trademarks like romance and custom heroes in hopes of creating a "better" game, as if forgetting it's supposed to be their brand of RPG's, and that Bioware consists of talented people with alot of potential for improvement and innovation. Personally I still have alot of faith in them.

[DuskWanderer]

I doubt it. Character customization is almost a staple of Western RPGs, and I doubt they'll change it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'll be annoyed if the character has a pre-written background or a fixed surname. So naturally any further restrictions would not get my support.

[KaiserShep]

They already HAVE preset looks for a character. Have you not see the fraking preset character in ME1-3? It is the same as the promotional posters. Did no one see the preset appearances in DA:I they are fraking called preset. Preset doesn't mean unalterable.

The more I see OPs threads the more I think this person is a troll.

I think the point is that the presets would be the only options, and these have specific dialogue attached. Of course, nothing precludes having both this and a proper CC that simply locks out said dialogue. I don't agree with this design, but I don't think the OP is a troll.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Good heavens, you've gone to the point of re-writing history to pretend that there was only one gender choice in...

 

Yeah... that think you start writing before you remind yourself that you're responding to a troll thread. 8/

[Il Divo]

 

Oh there is plenty they could have done, I think you are having trouble imagining what it would be like due to Jensen's appearance from the outset being that of a heavily augmented person rather than achieving that appearance gradually over the course of the game over being forced to upgrade in order to overcome the obstacles, of course the developers could have reactivity in conversation depending on what augs you have but personally I just would have liked to see it as it would have been a nice touch​

 

 

Sure, they could have had developers "react" in conversation to our individual augs, and in most cases it would have been as weak as the Jade Empire dragon tattoo comments. It would have been a token reference to let the player know "hey, we remember you made that choice".

 

The context of Human Revolution is that Jensen was so injured in the attack that it was impossible to avoid heavy augmentations. He lost quite a few parts of his body, as I recall. In the context of HR's setting, no one cares whether Jensen has 1 robot arm, or 2. The point of the game is how people in general feel about augmentations as a general rule and whether they can accept such a society.

 

 

Of course you get to tell the game who your character is with a blank slate character, of course you never get to tell the game what your character's background is or who their family is and the game will never react to these aspects of your character but you can tell the game who your character is by how they act in the game, how they respond to events that actually happen in the game as opposed to the events that happen before the game begins, you tell the game who your character is by deciding who your character cares about and how they feel about the things they learn as they learn them, the defining moments of a characters life should not be the events that happen before the game even begins but rather the events of the game itself and how the character reacts to them.

 

Unless the background of the character is absolutely vital to the plot it is best to leave it as vague as possible, let the player decide who their character is instead of having the game inform the player who their character is. 

 

 

 

Did you have a family? Can't talk about it. Did you have a tragic history? Can't talk about it. Were you rich at one point? Can't talk about it. Is your character trying to seek redemption for his past? Can't talk about it. The blank slate character functions by removing any opportunity to have any sort of mention to these events at all, ever. The idea that you never mention your prior experiences, ever, in conversation is more than a little ridiculous. This is why I consider the argument so untenable, since you're comparing it in regards to Jade Empire's appearance reactivity: as a general rule, do we spend more time discussing our physical appearance in conversations, or our experiences? I'd say the answer is pretty clear.
 

 

Not really, sure the game gives you information on your background in attempt to inform you on who your character is rather than allowing you to decide for yourself but the fact that the player never experiences it makes it meaningless to the player which only serves as a disconnect between player and character as the game tries to imply that these events should mean something to the character despite the fact you never get to experience them.

 

 

Then I suppose the blank slate backgrounds are completely meaningless since we didn't experience them.

 

Asking the player how their character feels about a past they never experienced to me feels kind of pointless as it has nothing to do with the game and is quite frankly meaningless to the player, it is like when Wynne asks a mage warden if they miss the circle, the player honestly does not spend enough time their to care, it is a rather insignificant portion of the game where they inform you that you have a friend named Jowan who is unlikable to the point where you wonder why anyone let alone your character would want to be his friend and are expected to feel betrayed when you find out he is a blood mage, Jowan means nothing to me so why do I care?

 

 

I'd argue this is something of an anti-roleplaying response. "It's meaningless to the player". Role-playing is about creating a character and setting him lose in the world. Chances to identify who your character is and how events shaped you are typically regarded as desirable.

 

Putting that aside, it's still not clear what benefit your approach gives us. A background we can't ever talk about in any capacity? That has about as much value as a background which you never experienced.

[Rhidor]

How so? How does the character creation process as it is in current Bioware games add replay value? How does the game change when you create a character with red hair as opposed to black hair?

 

As it is the system I propose would actually add replay value as opposed to eliminating them as having fewer but more unique appearances would allow for more reactivity in each playthrough depending on what appearance you choose, if we use the same amount of options as Jade Empire that is 6 unique playthroughs right there based on appearance alone!

 

Think about your arguments before you post them.

 

It doesn't change anything gameplay-wise, sure. But it's for roleplaying purposes. For me, that adds a lot to a game, as that character would truly be mine, not just someone who's story I'm playing.

 

Do you truly believe a set appearance would add so much to the game? One- or two mentions of "Hey, you have white hair" for example make a game for you? I'd rather not have that and have more freedom in the creation process.

[Xetykins]

If the protagonist has no long history of existing lore like TW3, I don't think why they should implement this. It just becomes restricting more than anything.

[Queen Skadi]

Sure, they could have had developers "react" in conversation to our individual augs, and in most cases it would have been as weak as the Jade Empire dragon tattoo comments. It would have been a token reference to let the player know "hey, we remember you made that choice".

 

The context of Human Revolution is that Jensen was so injured in the attack that it was impossible to avoid heavy augmentations. He lost quite a few parts of his body, as I recall. In the context of HR's setting, no one cares whether Jensen has 1 robot arm, or 2. The point of the game is how people in general feel about augmentations as a general rule and whether they can accept such a society.

 

Actually I believe if you actually read the emails and pay attention to the game you will find that Sariff actually went overboard with the augs forcing the surgeons to install many unnecessary augmentations without Jensen's approval, but that is beside the point of the thread.

 

Even if NPC did not comment so much (or even at all) on what augmentations you choose to install it still would have been nice to see your augmentations have a visible change on Jensen's appearance, you can argue about how much value it would bring to the game but I think it would have been a nice touch.

 

Did you have a family? Can't talk about it. Did you have a tragic history? Can't talk about it. Were you rich at one point? Can't talk about it. Is your character trying to seek redemption for his past? Can't talk about it. The blank slate character functions by removing any opportunity to have any sort of mention to these events at all, ever. The idea that you never mention your prior experiences, ever, in conversation is more than a little ridiculous. This is why I consider the argument so untenable, since you're comparing it in regards to Jade Empire's appearance reactivity: as a general rule, do we spend more time discussing our physical appearance in conversations, or our experiences? I'd say the answer is pretty clear.

 

 

Then I suppose the blank slate backgrounds are completely meaningless since we didn't experience them.

 

 

I'd argue this is something of an anti-roleplaying response. "It's meaningless to the player". Role-playing is about creating a character and setting him lose in the world. Chances to identify who your character is and how events shaped you are typically regarded as desirable.

 

Putting that aside, it's still not clear what benefit your approach gives us. A background we can't ever talk about in any capacity? That has about as much value as a background which you never experienced.

 

 

You keep coming back to the past as if it is the only way to define a character, why is it that the most important and defining events of a characters life have to happen before the game even begins? Shouldn't the most important and defining events of the character's life happen during the game itself? What happened before the game even begins should be largely irrelevant, trying to avenge a family you never knew does not make for a great roleplaying experience. A roleplaying game should be about defining your character over the course of the game, not have the game blatantly tell you that all the defining events of your character's life happened before the game begins and that it isn't really your character.

 

Mention the events that actually happen in the game and how they effect your character instead of the events that happen before the game that you have no recollection or control over.

[In Exile]

Sure, but I think it's also an estimate of how much reactivity you're getting vs. what you're giving up. In Jade Empire's case, I think I can count on one hand the number of times someone actually mentioned my character's dragon tattoo. In that scenario, I'd rather have the character creator, albeit requiring more zots to put in.

 

Not to mention that something like that could be coded even with a CC - a 1/0 for whether there is a dragon tattoo. 

[In Exile]

You keep coming back to the past as if it is the only way to define a character, why is it that the most important and defining events of a characters life have to happen before the game even begins? Shouldn't the most important and defining events of the character's life happen during the game itself? What happened before the game even begins should be largely irrelevant, trying to avenge a family you never knew does not make for a great roleplaying experience. A roleplaying game should be about defining your character over the course of the game, not have the game blatantly tell you that all the defining events of your character's life happened before the game begins and that it isn't really your character.

 

Mention the events that actually happen in the game and how they effect your character instead of the events that happen before the game that you have no recollection or control over.

 

We come back to the "past" because, as an empirical matter, people talk about it a lot. But it's the same with the "present" in a blank-slate game. You don't get to talk about your ongoing motivation to do things, or reflect on why you did anything during hte course of the game. The beloved blank slate games, like Skyrim, don't even let you comment on on-going motivation. 

 

But more to the point, human beings don't spring up fully formed out of the aether. The fact that I grew up in, say, England in a wealthy family while playing semi-professional rugby and studying classical philosophy is quite a different background from growing up in rural China, and being a clasically trained pianist. You can't not talk about your background, or have people react to that background in a menaingful way. To have the game treat these two people identically means, essentially, that you've created a game where your choices - "you" - are totally an irrelevant widget in the plot. There's just the "Protagonist", and every bit of fantasy you invent about that character is shuffled off to the side as irrelevant because it can't feature. 

 

And with "blank slate" games, that usually also extends to the on-going part of the game. 

[Il Divo]

Actually I believe if you actually read the emails and pay attention to the game you will find that Sariff actually went overboard with the augs forcing the surgeons to install many unnecessary augmentations without Jensen's approval, but that is beside the point of the thread.

 

No, Sarif's lawyers/doctors go out of their way to point out that, while he may have gone overboard with the augmentations (he removes a couple of extra limbs), that Adam's injuries were severe enough to require noticeable augmentations. They note that he had at least one whole limb missing, as I recall. That's more than enough to stand out in a crowd, amongst other things.

 

But you're right, that is besides the point of the thread. The key point was that, regardless of your desire for people to comment on your augmentations, Human Revolution is an example of a game where appearance has actual meaning, beyond a superficial sense, given the general premise of Pro-Humanity Front vs. Augmentations. More so than your dragon tattoos.

 

Even if NPC did not comment so much (or even at all) on what augmentations you choose to install it still would have been nice to see your augmentations have a visible change on Jensen's appearance, you can argue about how much value it would bring to the game but I think it would have been a nice touch.

 

 

Sure. I'm always a fan of more reactivity, if it's well-implemented. KotOR tries something similar with Dark Side decisions making you increasingly demonic looking. Of course, even there, it's more of a token reference and has little value. In the context of HR, the value of having a character say "oh wow the Icarus Landing System!" is pretty minimal overall, quite like the dragon tattoos. Except in this case, we'd be sacrificing the character creator to get it.

 

 

You keep coming back to the past as if it is the only way to define a character, why is it that the most important and defining events of a characters life have to happen before the game even begins? Shouldn't the most important and defining events of the character's life happen during the game itself? What happened before the game even begins should be largely irrelevant, trying to avenge a family you never knew does not make for a great roleplaying experience. A roleplaying game should be about defining your character over the course of the game, not have the game blatantly tell you that all the defining events of your character's life happened before the game begins and that it isn't really your character.

 

 

Let's try a thought experiment. Go through an entire day without mentioning a single experience that happened prior to this conversation, starting now. Actually, go through about 20 years, to put you in line with the age of a Bioware character, with that approach and see how things end up. That's what a PC would be like, if we took your approach. Not to wax philosophical, but "we are the sum of our experiences" and all that fun stuff.

 

What you're actually advocating for is a game where the PC has no history prior to the opening credits, which is pretty weak as role-playing concepts go. Your character has a history and these aspects influence who he is in the present sense.