No, tabletop is, and that is the standard to which these games should aspire.
When it comes to narrative freedom and reactivity I would generally agree with you (though I doubt we will see a game with the level of reactivity of a human mind any time soon) but why do I get the feeling you are not just talking about acknowledging player choice?
But we can. I did.
I highly doubt that, the game does not really support many options that allow for a cowardly approach, apart from abandoning Redcliffe the game does not give you many options for playing the coward.
The only way to truly play a coward in Origin's would be to ignore everything the game tells you and willfully refuse to do any quests that move the plot forward but at that point you would not really be playing the game but rather the game that exists entirely in your head.
But we can. I did. He was my favourite Warden.
Yes, some allowances need to be made, but that isn't one of them.
I mean a Warden teat goes "Screw this!" and heads for Orlais. TO do that, you'd have to turn the game off at Lothering.
cRPGs should aspire to be as reactive as possible. But I do understand that there are limits to what can be done.
I mean a Warden teat goes "Screw this!" and heads for Orlais. TO do that, you'd have to turn the game off at Lothering.
cRPGs should aspire to be as reactive as possible. But I do understand that there are limits to what can be done.
After seeing how good the character creator was in DAI I was hoping they'd have something of equal standing or better in Andromeda. Pre-sets are a nice option for people who don't like creating characters but would be a step back if that was all there was in the game.
Aww nawwww it would not be just the one character or gender, you would have 3 options per gender kind of like Jade Empire only less racist towards anyone who isn't asian.
IIRC Jade Empire had 7 presets (six in game) and one bonus preset. 3 female and 4 male.
'You would have 3 options per gender kind of like Jade Empire only less racist towards anyone who isn't asian'. What? How does that make the game racist? I never played it (sadly) but isn't it set in China, hundreds of years ago?
No. It goes directly aganist the standard of customization they have built in the MA and DA franchises. Can you imagine the outcry?
If it's a guy: Misogyny!!
If it's a girl: Bioware alientating their majority fanbase who are male!
If they are white: Racist! White washing! Get with the times!
If they are not white: PC culture to the max! Bioware are SJWs!
Those are just the main ones. People would litteratly complain about everything no matter how the character looked.
Sounds pretty fun.
I'd love to see a predefined character if that meant more quality.
Sounds pretty fun.
I'd love to see a predefined character if that meant more quality.
Even if it's better "quality" (obviously going to be subjective), I think it would be at the expense of some broader accessibility. Besides, Shepard and Hawke in particular are essentially pre-defined, and the fact that they're customizable isn't at all detrimental. You can have a strongly pre-defined character and retain total character customization.
I hardly remember Jade Empire (it's the only Bioware game I played but never finished), but at this time, I'd be very disappointed if Bioware moved to a single static PC (or a small pool of static PCs), at least for their big games. Thankfully, I really don't see them going that direction.
Hmmm, my gut reaction is to say no, but I have played a great many games with pre defined characters that I really loved, and at heart I am an adventure gamer, such that in many replays of ME I just play on casual or whatever, because it's about the story for me.
Still, part of the great fun is making a character that is appealing to you. I spent a lot of time on Saturday making my ME3 femshep, and I was never bored, sometimes frustrated but trying mod after mod until I got the one I settled on. I adored Jade Empire, but I also adore character customization, and I think ME is more popular for having had that level of customization.
I'm fine with having preset appearances available, especially if Bioware scanned someone's face into the game like the male Shepard preset. In the ME series and DA2 I sucked at making faces, so I just stuck with the defaults and I was happy with that. With DA:O and DA:I I made a few minor changes to a preset I liked (never the facial structure, just things like hair and eyebrows, eye color, scars and tattoos, etc.) and that worked out fairly well.
Given that the whole point of choosing between multiple characters was to make up for the fact that any form of CC back then was extremely primitive, I think they should just go with a proper CC if they want to let us customize our character.
The obvious solution to the disconnect that comes from having an incredibly ugly character would of course be to not make characters that look like they need to be purged in fire. Most of the more hilarious examples aren't even possible without tinkering with the game files anyway.
I would not be against having a single defined character like The Witcher does, but I imagine for BioWare that would get all sorts of complaints. They've already made themselves into the "We want to include everybody" developer.
Not that it's necessarily a terrible thing but that's just what they've gotten themselves into, so I imagine they're kind of stuck with it now.
Sounds pretty fun.
I'd love to see a predefined character if that meant more quality.
I doubt this would improve the quality, though. Being able to change the character's appearance doesn't affect the writing. If Shepard was just Sheploo, he'd be saying and doing the exact same things. People might just call him John, but that would be the extent of the improvement, nothing more.
its mass effect andromeda. so they should build on how it was done in the mass effect series previous. not how it was done in jade empires.
to the op: yep ugly protagonist that you play as would def break my immersion. so don't create an ugly custom face, and then complain about it.
1. I never said every aug has to have a noticeable effect on the character's appearance, please point out where I said every aug has to have a noticeable visual component? At this point it seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing looking for whatever small nitpick you can throw at the idea no matter how irrelevant it is to the conversation. That said I am sure there would be plenty of augmentations that would have a noticeable visual component.
Then I'll hammer in on the really important bits:
Adam, right off the start, is augmented to the point where it's obvious he's extensively machine. In other words: your change in appearance has diminishing returns.
2. It does not matter if these augmentations are never mentioned by NPCs in the world the important thing is I think it would be nice to see some sort of visual change that reflects choices made by the player. Adam is already visibly augmented to the point it is obvious that he is extensively machine because that was the design decision made by the developers, they could have just as easily had Jensen change over time as he is forced to get more and more augmentations over the course of the game (of course this would require a little more work) but instead they took the lazy route and just said "oh all your augmentations are installed from the beginning only you cant use em all yet because you need to use praxis points to unlock them for some reason".
oN
I don't think you're on firm footing to talk about lazy routes, considering you're defending a feature where "reactivity" is maybe 3-4 npc's making half-joke response about dragon tattoos, at the expense of a character creator. Of course, if you want to offer to pay for all those extra fun examples reactivity, all the more power to you. But that should probably factor into your calculations before calling the devs lazy.
And sure, more reactivity is always nice, except when it's not. Case in point: the Dark Brotherhood references in Skyrim. More than likely, that is what your scenario is going to get end with, in particular because most visual features in Bioware games aren't unique enough to have extended conversations about, beyond the most basic race/gender options. Hence why I emphasized much the same with Human Revolution, where being augmented is enough to place you in a completely different category of person.
And I am constantly pointing out to you that the reactivity you get from pre-defined backgrounds is even more pointless and irrelevant to the player. Do you honestly not see the parallels here? At least the hail Sithis comments reflect a choice made by the player and at least comments based on visual appearance are relevant to the player as they can actually see their character's visual appearance, comments about past experiences that the player never gets to experience and does not know about until they are brought up have no relevance to the player at all and only serve as a reminded that it is not their character that they are playing.
Putting aside of course that you actively get to choose, play through, and comment on those backgrounds, particularly in regards to DA:O. Explain in detail, how a pre-generated Origin, which you got to choose and actively experience, is irrelevant to the player when you are defending a concept where your backstory cannot be expressed in any meaningful sense. Like I said above, your character concept is down there with DA:O's coward role-playing concept.
The Hail Sithis comment also should never have even happened in the first place, given the context of what the Dark Brotherhood is all about. More accurately, it's the game attempting to break the 4th wall, which ideally should be minimized.
And I should point out how problematic it is that every character still wants to jump your character's bones despite looking like this
And the path of least resistance is....not to make a ridiculous looking character. That issue is solvable rather easily. On the other end of the spectrum, we also have a Bioware that loves letting you bond with companion characters, to the point where it's a key bit of advertising. In the context of your no pre-defined backgrounds, that becomes a bit difficult though when the PC was for all intents and purposes born the day the adventure started.
The fact that other characters can't comment on your appearance is a concession that must be made to allow character creation, the fact that your character can't comment on specific events in their past that happen before the game begins is a concession that must be made to allow the player more freedom in defining who their character is.
It looks like you're going for the analogy, excluding one giant hole in this point.
Let's go back to the thought experiments using your analogy. We make 2 characters, mostly the same in every respect, except one has black hair and the other has brown hair. They make all the same choices/dialogue options and everything plays out the same.
Now, we make 2 characters, exact same appearance, but with radically different backgrounds. One of them, a Femshep, lost her father when she was very little to an assassin, but still somehow finds herself romancing Thane. The other, has had a completely normal backstory, but both are forced to have the exact same responses, despite radically different circumstances.
If that's the "price you're paying" for role-playing freedom, it doesn't sound like you're getting a great deal. That's where your arguments fall apart. The analogy only works if you treat those two quantities as maintaining equal importance in terms of believable interactions, hence why I keep pointing out to you how much more difficult it would be to live your life without referencing 20+ years of experience than it would be to avoid comment on people's appearance. If the game never draws attention to the fact that you made a character with black vs. brown hair, while that may show a "lack of reactivity", it's no worse a concept than what we could achieve in day to day life. Now try that with your character concept and let's see how far that goes.
Maybe you'll come back and say "but look how ridiculous I made that character!" and that's where I'd again point out that this is easily circumvented by not making characters that you concede are utterly ridiculous. I can't think of many character concepts where no one says a single thing about his past, ever. None that I'd be interested in playing, anyway.
I am pretty sure even if somebody is not willing to talk about a tragic event in their past that happened long ago it would not be much of an issue for them to talk about the things that happened the day before if they weren't traumatic, hell perhaps your character suffered a head injury that prevents him from recalling events that happen more than 2 days ago? If not being able to reference your character's past is such a problem for you I am sure there are plenty of ways you could headcanon why he isn't able to reference that past.
No, you're falling into the same trap, just with a different backstory now. If that's my character's backstory, I should be able to tell people "hey, I can't remember my past, what the hell happened?" or express some interest/effort in understanding what happened with my background. Which coincidentally Planescape: Torment pulls off pretty well.
I am not sure why you think referencing the past is such a vital part of a roleplaying game? There are plenty of people who get along fine without boring everyone else about their life story at every given opportunity so I don't see why it is must that the main character should be able to bore other characters with their life story especially given how little relevance it has to the player?
Maybe your character has unresolved parent issues, just like most other Bioware characters? Maybe it's a way to develop a closer relationship with your companions/romance options since, you know, people tend to talk about themselves with people they're close to. Maybe, just maybe, it makes a character feel more alive than simply functioning as a doll, oblivious to his environment. Expressing different ideas and emotions through dialogue and actions tends to be kinda important for role-playing, believe it or not. I appreciate that you're trying to brush this under the rug with "Pfft, your life story is boring!". But that's what's odd about this: a character backstory doesn't have to be boring. But with your approach to game design, it's guaranteed to be irrelevant.
Oh honey you don't have a point, while it is true noticing whether somebody has had a haircut or whether somebody has lost weight is dependent on noticing they look different from how they did in the past (these were meant to be real life examples not in game examples) there are plenty of ways someone can reference somebodies appearance without referencing the past, the dress example for instance does not require referencing a past event, all it requires is noticing that somebody is wearing a nice dress in the present.
Since you're having a bit of difficulty with this too, I'll draw attention to it:
Oh that dress is absolutely stunning, where did you get it"
Note the implication of "where did you get it", in which case the person would have to confirm whether they did get a dress. Putting aside the humor that you did happen to choose exclusively examples which reference a past event, you are in the most limited sense possible correct that it is possible to comment on appearances in the present tense. It doesn't make your argument any less non-sensical in terms of your comparing it to your ability to reference a character history.
As for getting through life without referencing decades of experience are you talking about referencing that experience in conversation or applying that experience to solve a problem? If you are applying experience to solve a problem then it is something that can easily be headcanoned as those experiences exist purely in your head, I really don't see why it is impossible to get through a conversation without referencing past events like an aunt getting drunk at a party.
No, you're attempting to revamp the thought experiment. It's possible to get through a single conversation without talking about a past event in any capacity. But that's the thought experiment on easy mode. The context of the thought experiment was to do this for an extended period of time, like a whole year. Let's see what sort of effect that would have on your ability to function in your daily life, not to mention how it would affect relationships with those around you. The point was to keep the example in the same style of what your blank slate PC involves: decades of life suddenly not existing, besides in your character's head. That would be a pretty small sample of what it's like to follow through with your role-playing concept.
I'm actually not talking about acknowledging player choice at all. I think unlimited reactivity is the thing we need to sacrifice to accommodate the limitations of the medium.When it comes to narrative freedom and reactivity I would generally agree with you (though I doubt we will see a game with the level of reactivity of a human mind any time soon) but why do I get the feeling you are not just talking about acknowledging player choice?
What you describe would involve standing up to your companions. That's not very cowardly.I highly doubt that, the game does not really support many options that allow for a cowardly approach, apart from abandoning Redcliffe the game does not give you many options for playing the coward.
The only way to truly play a coward in Origin's would be to ignore everything the game tells you and willfully refuse to do any quests that move the plot forward but at that point you would not really be playing the game but rather the game that exists entirely in your head.
But that's what you'd do. The scope of the game is limited. That doesn't mean your character can't do those things, just that the game won't model those outcomes.I mean a Warden teat goes "Screw this!" and heads for Orlais. TO do that, you'd have to turn the game off at Lothering.
What you describe would involve standing up to your companions. That's not very cowardly.
My coward Warden went where he was told, always let others make decisions for him (he would have defended Redcliffe - and probably died doing it - if Sten and Morrigan hadn't been there to tell him to abandon it), and stayed entirely out of combat. He never even learned combat skills. He was a Rogue, but used a shield to maximize his defence.
And he died long before he reached the Archdemon. Sten killed him in Haven.
Lol, I think I like your coward Warden.
I'm actually not talking about acknowledging player choice at all. I think unlimited reactivity is the thing we need to sacrifice to accommodate the limitations of the medium.
But I think it's the only thing we need to sacrifice. Everything else a tabletop RPG can do can be done in a CRPG.
Doesn't mean you should, for instance if i make a pizza i could put anything i want on it like a bicycle tire and some glue or another pizza. Focus is the word.
I created him in response to a challenge made to me on the ME2 boards. It was asserted that people could never really play as themselves, because actual gamers would run away if anyone came at them with a sword.Lol, I think I like your coward Warden.
I think that should be our starting point, though. We should try to emulate tabletop roleplaying, and once we have that down we can experiment with adding new features.Doesn't mean you should, for instance if i make a pizza i could put anything i want on it like a bicycle tire and some glue or another pizza. Focus is the word.
I think that should be our starting point, though. We should try to emulate tabletop roleplaying, and once we have that down we can experiment with adding new features.
I don't agree, i think games should be a device for storytelling that sets a frame for players to react to what the world brings to them, almost like being an actor or listening to good music. A world is set up you have a role and you can choose how to act in that role.
Retour en haut
