I would argue that what games should be should vary from game to game based on what the developer wants to do.
We have enough games and developers that we can have some games which try to emulate tabletop, some which want to be a device for storytelling, and plenty other things.
It seems stupid to limit ourselves to one style when there is no objectively best way of doing things.
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.
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.
I am sorry did I not make myself clear enough? The idea that Bioware should abandon the character creator in support of pre-defined appearanced is a farce on my part to demonstrate how stupid the pre-defined backgrounds are, the idea you would take freedom away from the player to define their own character just so the player can watch their character spout exposition about their drunken aunt is just as stupid (if not even more stupid) as taking away the player's ability to design their character's appearance in order for NPCs to comment on their appearance.
But that being said even though Jade Empire did not have much reactivity when it comes to appearance it does not mean that there can't be more reactivity based on a character's appearance, take for instance Vampire, the Masquerade: Bloodlines, you had 7 playable clans each with their own visual distinctions, while most of the playable clans looked human enough to be able to interact with normal humans and show their face in public the Nosferatu looked like hideous monsters, not only did their visual appearance effect how other characters reacted to them it also had a profound effect on the gameplay, you could not show your face in the street or talk to normal humans otherwise you would have Vampire hunters come after you and you had to travel via the sewer in order to avoid detection.
Visual appearance can have as big or as little effect as you want it to, you seem to be viewing things in a very narrow spectrum but you need to open your mind to the bigger picture.
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.
Thing is I don't get anything from a pre-defined background so the cost for role-playing freedom I pay is nothing, on the other hand not only to I get nothing from being able to have my character recite lines about a backstory that means nothing to me and nothing within the context of the game but I also lose that roleplaying freedom to define my own character so it is a lose lose.
I honestly don't recall Shepard's background having a huge influence on the Thane romance (pretty sure it did not) but even if it did it must have been so inconsequential that it was not worth remembering which brings up the point why bother with it in the first place?
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 guess that is the difference between me and you then, I prefer characters who act and are defined by their actions and don't look back, you seem to prefer character who bore everyone with long monologues about the glory days or some sappy sob story from their past and does not get anything done.
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.
Yes there are always exceptions to the rule and Planescape: Torment is one game where a protagonist with a defined backstory works in the context of a video game, there are several reasons for this.
1. The character has amnesia, this puts both the player and the character on the same page when it comes to knowing about the character's past, both are in the same frame of mind and both learn the information as it is revealed to them, it is a journey of discovery that is shared by both the character and the player.
2. the backstory actually has relevance to the plot, unraveling the mystery of this Nameless One character and learning of his past is what the plot is all about.
3. the game does not imply that the character should feel a certain way about events and characters revealed in the game, it is always up to the player how the Nameless One feels about the events that have transpired and what type of person the current incarnation of the Nameless One is. Whether you feel bad about what previous incarnations did or whether you don't care and feel your incarnation would do the same thing in the same situation, it is completely up 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.
Just because a character does not focus on the past does not mean they are oblivious to their environment, the exact obvious, by shifting focus away from inconsequential events in the character's past it allows the developers to focus on making events and characters in their present more relevant, just because they don't reference events in their past does not mean they can't express ideas, thoughts and opinions, in fact by not forcing a background on the character it allows the player more freedom to define what those ideas, thoughts and opinions mean to their character thus giving them more relevance to the player.
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.
Oh come on Divo is this what it has come down to? At this point you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, seriously there is no point behind that post other than some feeble attempt to argue without really know what your argument is, seriously what are you arguing? That it is impossible to comment on appearance without referencing a past event? Obviously everyone but you can see that is false, the comment "nice dress" relies on nothing more than the fact that somebody has a nice dress, seriously what is your problem?
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 am sorry Divo but you are clutching at straws, while it is true over the span of a year that your average person will reference a past experience at least once in a conversation it is not absolutely vital to their functioning as a human being that they absolutely must reference a past experience in a conversation, that is just ridiculous, pretty sure even a mute person who can't speak at all will still find some way to function as a human being even without being able to speak let alone reference past events in conversation.
Even if it was not possible to function as a human without spurting out a past event in conversation video games arent 100% accurate to real life. Pretty sure food and water are far more vital to functioning as a human but video game protagonists seem to function fine despite not having to eat.
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.
That seems to me to be avoiding the core feature of roleplaying games: the roleplaying.
Moreover, older CRPGs didn't really try to tell a story in the way you describe, because we got to create our character (often multiple characters) from scratch.
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.
Even if it's better "quality" (obviously going to be subjective)
I'd say they're neutral. I don’t think the animations provide any material benefit.Not really, things like more precise modelling and animations are objectively better.
It improves modelling, animation, consistency, allows many scenarios that would be unreasonable to implement without a fixed character, more voice acting, a much deeper backstory and much less generic scenarios (since they wouldn't have to create two or more opstions for many situations, on top of other choices). Not really, things like more precise modelling and animations are objectively better.
I'd say they're neutral. I don’t think the animations provide any material benefit.
They're just wasted zots.
Yet quite a few listed pet peeves about DAI are animation related. Watching my huge ass Qunari suddenly become shorter than Dorian is one of the reasons I stopped playing him. Sure there are some issues with the Human/Dorian animations as well, but the quality isn't as poor as the other races. It just makes BW look lazy for not taking the time to make different animations for the different races.
And this is just poor quality all around.
Yet quite a few listed pet peeves about DAI are animation related. Watching my huge ass Qunari suddenly become shorter than Dorian is one of the reasons I stopped playing him. Sure there are some issues with the Human/Dorian animations as well, but the quality isn't as poor as the other races. It just makes BW look lazy for not taking the time to make different animations for the different races.
And this is just poor quality all around.
I think dwarves should have gotten the option to punch Solas in the groin. That would've been hysterical. It's clear to me however that the races are essentially an afterthought here. While I think that the elf, the female in particular, ultimately pays off well enough in spite of this, overall it's fairly watered down and a small part of the reason why I only play a human.
In any case, I don't think we'll have too much to worry about for ME:A, given the lack of race options. I'm kind of glad they stuck to human only, because I just don't see that working out that well if they didn't.
I think dwarves should have gotten the option to punch Solas in the groin. That would've been hysterical.
A groin punch would have been epic! 
Yet quite a few listed pet peeves about DAI are animation related. Watching my huge ass Qunari suddenly become shorter than Dorian is one of the reasons I stopped playing him. Sure there are some issues with the Human/Dorian animations as well, but the quality isn't as poor as the other races. It just makes BW look lazy for not taking the time to make different animations for the different races.
And this is just poor quality all around.
This just shows that the cinematics make the game worse (by revealing deficiencies in the game's representation of the world, deficiencies which are always going to be there to some degree), not that the animations need to be improved. Both the cinematics and the animations provide us no benefit. The animations are only a problem because of the cinematics.
Small point. Animations are only effected if the character creator allows you to change the size and shape of your pathfinder or whatever they will be called. Shepard you could not change, I kind of expectt he same in MEA. But maybe they will allow you to change the size and shape of the PC and these issues ill happen. Though I agree with Silvas on this and the core problem is having cinematics in themselves.
This just shows that the cinematics make the game worse (by revealing deficiencies in the game's representation of the world, deficiencies which are always going to be there to some degree), not that the animations need to be improved. Both the cinematics and the animations provide us no benefit. The animations are only a problem because of the cinematics.
Cinematics don't make a game worse, it's being lazy and/or rushing in content that make a game worse. This is why playing a race other than human in DAI is so pointless, all but the female elf. The rest of the races should have been scraped and saved for the next game since they were never meant to be there. The cinematic and animations provide me with benefits. It aids in telling the story, gives me a break from constant gameplay (combat, running around), and makes the experience more immersive. If animations are so pointless then I suppose we could just slide our PC around because animations such as walking and running provides no benefit to the player.
Cinematics don't make a game worse, it's being lazy and/or rushing in content that make a game worse. This is why playing a race other than human in DAI is so pointless, all but the female elf. The rest of the races should have been scraped and saved for the next game since they were never meant to be there. The cinematic and animations provide me with benefits. It aids in telling the story, gives me a break from constant gameplay (combat, running around), and makes the experience more immersive. If animations are so pointless then I suppose we could just slide our PC around because animations such as walking and running provides no benefit to the player.
The other races provide me with benefit. Playing a dwarf is a lot of fun in DAI, I find, because of how implausible it is that the Herald of Andraste and the person who can open the Fade would be a dwarf.
Roleplaying immerses me. Cinematics do not. I derive no benefit from the cinematics. I wish conversations happened in the regular game interface.
I think the problem with Inquisition is that it felt like it was trying to do too much at once in certain areas, which may seem like a weird complaint.
What I mean is that they had 4 voice actors for the main character, the option to play as 4 different races with both male/female, and 12 total companions with a bunch of romances all while trying to acknowledge the choices not only that you make in the game but have made during the last 2 games.
It's more than even The Witcher 3 was trying to do where you had a single main character and less companions, none of which were actually with you for ~90% of the game and then they are they don't tend to follow you around commenting on every single quest you're doing like BioWare companions do.
So it's not a big surprise that Inquisition wasn't able to deliver on things like better reaction to your character not being of a very specific race/gender setup, including on the animation front of it all.
Although that Solas punch is just hilariously bad. Please tell me that's not actually how it looks in-game.
Although that Solas punch is just hilariously bad. Please tell me that's not actually how it looks in-game.
Pretense is kind of the whole point of all this.
Small point. Animations are only effected if the character creator allows you to change the size and shape of your pathfinder or whatever they will be called.
I was talking about facial animation.
I think there's room for both good animation and a customizable face. The former hasn't been Bio's strength though. Even characters that have fixed appearances, and on top of that, unique models that don't exist in the CC can have issues. Overall though, I don't think that they're horrible. I think that ME3 largely improved upon the animation compared to ME1/2, despite the quirks (like eye tracking issues and so forth). That creepy ass smile was gone at least.
Character customization is what drew me to BioWare games. Sure, I stayed for the stories, but these stories meant more to me when the character was one I created. If I was playing default Shepard (be it male or female) throughout the Mass Effect games, I would not have been nearly as attached to the character as I am now.
Without the personal element, BioWare games would feel no different from other gaming companies. I'm not emotionally invested in what happens to Batman, Nathan Drake, or Geralt. But I was heavily invested in the well-being of my Shepard, Warden, Hawke, and Inquisitor. I will never be distraught over preset characters like I was for my Shepard at the end of ME3 or when my Inquisitor cried in pain in Trespasser.
The potential for players to become connected to their characters (and the NPCs) in such a visceral sense is what BioWare is good at, and taking away Character Customization may only cheapen that invest to the world and its characters.
I'd prefer presets the way they were in other ME games. I hate their character creators, and I just want to get on with the game. Not spend hours dressing up a doll. Even with much better tech, their CCs still suck (DAI case in point). If someone else likes it, more power to them.. but give me something decent to just skip it.
I would argue that what games should be should vary from game to game based on what the developer wants to do.
We have enough games and developers that we can have some games which try to emulate tabletop, some which want to be a device for storytelling, and plenty other things.
It seems stupid to limit ourselves to one style when there is no objectively best way of doing things.
Agreed. No reason to have a "recipe" for all Western RPGs. Gaming is already so goddamn homogenous as it is
Absolutely no.. The character creator is fundamental in a ME game.. period!! Plus not to mention just giving us pre-made forced protagonists would open the door for all the easily offended whiners and their nonsense (which they always find something to be offended by either way, but still)... 
Creating my character is one of my favorite parts of Bioware games and I can take control of how my character looks and with the convo wheel, how they respond to banter... Taking this away cheapens the franchise all together..No.. just no.. Pls don't brutalize perfection...
Absolutely no.. The character creator is fundamental in a ME game.. period!! Plus not to mention just giving us pre-made forced protagonists would open the door for all the easily offended whiners and their nonsense (which they always find something to be offended by either way, but still)...
Overreacting a bit here aren't we? "The character creator is fundamental in a ME game"? Honestly it feels like something that was begrudgingly added at the last minute, with the limited options given I am not sure why they even bothered, "would you like the short hair or the shorter hair? Full Beard? What the **** is that?", sure female characters have a slightly more unique selection of hairstyles but even then apart from a few of them most of them still look pretty much the same.
Pretty sure the Mass Effect experience would not have been effected much by the loss of the character creator.
Retour en haut