It's a roleplaying game. A single-player roleplaying game is the only place we can ever roleplay by ourselves.However, in SP, not sure I even want to RP that much.
I never liked the backstory given for KOTOR: I mean the computer on the wookie homeworld basically straight up tells you that your brain is wired a certain way.
I'm fine with a backstory, especially if you can pick from multible options like with Shepard. I find it much easier to immerse yourself in the charcter if you already know a little bit about her/him, instead of having a completely blank slate. I loved the fact that I could make my Shepard a war hero, instead of being an ex-gang member which I would have hated. So, backstory is okay, as long as it's well done and and different options are given.
More importantly, the Jedi gave you new memories, and they're the ones that inform your new personality.[/spoiler]
Which is ridiculous, it doesn't just hand wave the presence of a aspect of the damn force.
Seriously, a Sith Lord amnesia or no should have at least surface traits that resemble that social darwinist philosophy.I mean its akin to religion for a good reason, it impacts daily life regularly, a Sith thinks like a Sith regardless of whatever garbage the Jedi could cobble together, because you cannot destroy the old personality completely. Just look at redeemed Sith Lords, they struggle daily with the dark side, you can't just kill access to the dark side without stripping force connection. Which results in a whole nother can of worms but anyway.
You made the point of it not being 'canon' in material that the owners of Lucas Arts state isn't canon, so it seems to me that it like the rest of the EU would fall into the whole old lore anyway.
It's not limiting if they make it interesting to play, plus playing back stories will explain a whole lot that the main character is connected to the story and how he/she became the important person in the story's events. I understand that a blank character will have more freedom to play with and make your own stories, but you have no connection with the protagonist which it will be dull and unsayisfying. Don't give me wrong I'm all for freedom too but it plummets storytelling of how this character came to the story. Where does the character come from? How this character become involved? What does the character used to do before he/she became an important person of the story? I think having back stories and play them is not a bad idea though only if they put more to them.Too limiting. I complained about this when DAO was in development. While having multiple pre-written origins is better than having just one, playing a mysterious stranger (as in NWN, KotOR, and DAI) gives us much more freedom to define motives.
All roleplaying is headcanon. A blank slate character gives us more space to to do that.
It's a roleplaying game. A single-player roleplaying game is the only place we can ever roleplay by ourselves.
Roleplaying is all I want to do in these games. I don't care about the story or the challenge or the achievement. I just want to run the simulation to see what my character does.
In SP games like Mass Effect series, you can only pick two : good story, good characterization, good gameplay.
And its a limited first person narrative and first person shooter game which is very different to fully RP-able tabletop/strategy/MMO RPGs. Not all singleplayer RPG can give you a lot of freedom to roleplay your main character fully (Final Fantasy, Witcher). And Bioware isn't Bethesda. Plus, Bioware writers have repetitively said that they're moving away from traditional RPG writing and embracing cinematic RPG. So like it or not, anticipate the return of autodialogues.
I agree. I want our protagonist's backstory to be as ambiguous as possible so my character can actually be my character. I'd rather have them be completely blank or like the Inquisitor than characters like Hawke and Shepard.
Simply because I don't want to be someone's housewife, widow and crying mother for rest of game.
A point of correction. The female Sole Survivor wasn't a housewife before the bombs fell. She was a lawyer. That's why they got Codsworth to do the chores around the house and help care for Shaun.
You're right....... the entire character should be defined. There's no point in me roleplaying a synthetic realist in the first two games when my Shepard is going to start hugging sexbots and having toaster "friends" in the 3rd installment regardless, and it just makes my character look schizophrenic. Just make them a dirty transhumanist neo-hippie from the get go, so that I don't have to bother with useless choices that amount to nothing.
I would disagree. I didn't like in DA:I Inquisitor was just born moment it come from fade. Yes we have some bits and pieces. But it just flavour with no effect. DA:O was great and really liked Hawke having family. Same in ME it was nice Shepard dialogue with mother. Elder scrolls characters are boring, And bioware strengthen is characters I can't comprehend why bioware look to skyrim. Same with Fallout 4 it want to be more like bioware games and fail hard. 
You're right....... the entire character should be defined. There's no point in me roleplaying a synthetic realist in the first two games when my Shepard is going to start hugging sexbots and having toaster "friends" in the 3rd installment regardless, and it just makes my character look schizophrenic. Just make them a dirty transhumanist neo-hippie from the get go, so that I don't have to bother with useless choices that amount to nothing.
You think you have bad day. My spacer Shepard care 0 about earth is just other rock I want to save, my home is all galaxy.
You think you have bad day. My spacer Shepard care 0 about earth is just other rock I want to save, my home is all galaxy.
As it turned out, I liked the origin stories in DAO. They mostly were blank slates, just with different starting points.It's not limiting if they make it interesting to play, plus playing back stories will explain a whole lot that the main character is connected to the story and how he/she became the important person in the story's events.
I have tons of connection to the protagonist, because I defined everything about him. The dull and unsatisfying protagonist is the one I'm not allowed to control, like Shepard or Hawke.I understand that a blank character will have more freedom to play with and make your own stories, but you have no connection with the protagonist which it will be dull and unsayisfying.
I agree that back stories are vital, but they're betterif the player gets to write them.Don't give me wrong I'm all for freedom too but it plummets storytelling of how this character came to the story. Where does the character come from? How this character become involved? What does the character used to do before he/she became an important person of the story? I think having back stories and play them is not a bad idea though only if they put more to them.
I care only about the roleplaying. Where does that fall?In SP games like Mass Effect series, you can only pick two : good story, good characterization, good gameplay.
But then Inquisition happened.And its a limited first person narrative and first person shooter game which is very different to fully RP-able tabletop/strategy/MMO RPGs. Not all singleplayer RPG can give you a lot of freedom to roleplay your main character fully (Final Fantasy, Witcher). And Bioware isn't Bethesda. Plus, Bioware writers have repetitively said that they're moving away from traditional RPG writing and embracing cinematic RPG. So like it or not, anticipate the return of autodialogues.
I agree. I want our protagonist's backstory to be as ambiguous as possible so my character can actually be my character. I'd rather have them be completely blank or like the Inquisitor than characters like Hawke and Shepard.
A point of correction. The female Sole Survivor wasn't a housewife before the bomb fell. She was a lawyer. That's why they got Codsworth to do the chores around the house and help care for Shaun.
Doesn't change other two that are way bigger turn off for me....last one especially.
I hope they refine the original mass effect approach where there were a handful of backgrounds/histories, that hopefully they will then touch upon in the game. Outside of that there should be a degree of flexibility for the player to imbue the character with their own character elements
Yeah I think ME had the right idea -- some important general information but not too many details.
I was able to take the three Background and Service options and from there come up with several unique character concepts.
In fact leave it as bland as Bruce Wayne's personality. That is how our character's backstory should be none-existent.
Here is why. I replayed FO4 and tried to play as female for change because I'm female myself and of course I'm going to relate to female more...however once more I chose male. Why? Simply because I don't want to be someone's housewife, widow and crying mother for rest of game....in fact I have same problem as male, it just ruins every headcanon I might have had!
"Ummm...you could RP?" Yes but it is almost impossible. How. Lets say I want to RP character that is gay, yes I could get story in my head how he/she only got married and got kid for appearances and ~yada yada~ once vault is over I'm free...or should be to do whatever the heck I want and make story I want. However again impossible. Everything about you goes being father/mother to some brat you don't give a damn about and your entire story revolves about that. So impossible to close your eyes and "lets pretend" I never was married and had kid in game because of it.
In another words I hate everything about FO4 protagonist's backstory and how much it is forced on you trough entire game. How every headcanon you had can go straight to hell. It would have been better if wife/husband were some kind of relatives and whoever we don't play...then the brat is theirs (headcanon could be their husband/wife died during war or something and now you are helping them out), it would be way better because it wouldn't screw anyone's headcanon for their character in here!
This is why I don't want anything like this to be for ME:A character. In fact nothing even like what we had in previous ME games. No special backstory about them. No family. No nothing. Just give us player with basic info(their last name, that they are serving/commanding -something), in another words gives us everything that is present about character and leave their past blank as possible...in another words just leave their "special past" to us.
I would have used Dragon Age Inquisition as the example but the point is made regardless. That being said, I don't think there is any evidence yet that Andromeda will restrict role play options like Fallout 4 did. I expect the character will to be very similar to Shepard honestly.
I care only about the roleplaying. Where does that fall?
The story doesn't matter. I count the NWN OC as one of BioWare's very best games, but no one likes the story in that.
Combat (which is what I think you mean when you say "gameplay") needs not to be tedious (as it was in ME2 and DA2), but beyond that it's not very important.
It's vital the combat not be based on twitch-based, but luckily BioWare has only ever made one RPG with real action combat, and that was Jade Empire.
But then Inquisition happened.
Cinematics add nothing to these games.
Inquisition best example why cinematics mater allot. DA:I no cinematic dialogue was so bad step down from DA:O and 2.
I see it as a huge step forward.Inquisition best example why cinematics mater allot. DA:I no cinematic dialogue was so bad step down from DA:O and 2.
I was set to disagree with you, OP, but damn, FO4 is such a frigging disaster. I honestly played it for 30 minutes before quitting because, like you, I couldn't get into my character. They essentially FORCED me to be bisexual, to have had a loving relationship with a woman, and to care deeply for a stupid baby. That was WAAAAY too much "character backstory" as you put it.
I think when it comes to defining things like sexuality and family, the chance for failure is high. That was one of DA2's failing, imo, though I loved the game: we were supposed to feel bad about the death of a character whom we had barely known for five minutes (Bethany/Carver). They did manage to avoid that in DA:I, but then the alternative is that we had NO backstory and were walking blank slates, and god knows the dull voice acting didn't help (not the fault of the voice actors; they were surely directed that way).
I never had the problem with Shepard; I felt his/her background was just fine. Not too much, not too little. No relationships foisted upon me that I was forced to pretend to care about, no set sexuality.
I was set to disagree with you, OP, but damn, FO4 is such a frigging disaster. I honestly played it for 30 minutes before quitting because, like you, I couldn't get into my character. They essentially FORCED me to be bisexual, to have had a loving relationship with a woman, and to care deeply for a stupid baby. That was WAAAAY too much "character backstory" as you put it.
I think when it comes to defining things like sexuality and family, the chance for failure is high. That was one of DA2's failing, imo, though I loved the game: we were supposed to feel bad about the death of a character whom we had barely known for five minutes (Bethany/Carver). They did manage to avoid that in DA:I, but then the alternative is that we had NO backstory and were walking blank slates, and god knows the dull voice acting didn't help (not the fault of the voice actors; they were surely directed that way).
I never had the problem with Shepard; I felt his/her background was just fine. Not too much, not too little. No relationships foisted upon me that I was forced to pretend to care about, no set sexuality.
I do find it interesting that they didn't see the contradiction it was going to create for gay people who played the game or for straight people who wanted to role play a gay character. It seems really short sighted and very unlike Bethesda given their history.
I like defined origin stories. I'd just rather they give the player character a wide range of different possible reactions to those origins.
I agree about FO4. The way the intro is written creates a framework that only a particular type of character fits into.
I was set to disagree with you, OP, but damn, FO4 is such a frigging disaster. I honestly played it for 30 minutes before quitting because, like you, I couldn't get into my character. They essentially FORCED me to be bisexual, to have had a loving relationship with a woman, and to care deeply for a stupid baby. That was WAAAAY too much "character backstory" as you put it.
That's incredibly whiny but that said you have a point.
Still just put a very whining fashion.
'Oh no I was forced to be a bisexual...the horror...the horror, oh my goodness you have no idea of the horror'
I honestly laughed, I'll be honest. 
I do find it interesting that they didn't see the contradiction it was going to create for gay people who played the game or for straight people who wanted to role play a gay character. It seems really short sighted and very unlike Bethesda given their history.
I don't see a contradiction, they are merely moving into another phasing of character creation. This time you are more then the blank slate of FO-NV with only minimal back story, now you get actually a fair amount, with investments, convictions, morals and all that goodness. Whether or not it works, or was implemented well is besides the point, its a character design that they tried out. I mean its in the same vein as numerous other set PC's throughout various franchises. I mean goodness it was a Beth FO were you expecting a gem or something?
That will have to wait until Obsidian makes the next one.
I do find it interesting that they didn't see the contradiction it was going to create for gay people who played the game or for straight people who wanted to role play a gay character. It seems really short sighted and very unlike Bethesda given their history.
It was the first Fallout game I'd purchased just because I'd heard you could chose your PC's sexuality (I can't say I was overly interested in the environment/style... more of a fantasy / sci-fi lover). Before that had only played Skyrim (which I LOVE). So yeah, really bizarre.
I don't see a contradiction, they are merely moving into another phasing of character creation. This time you are more then the blank slate of FO-NV with only minimal back story, now you get actually a fair amount, with investments, convictions, morals and all that goodness. Whether or not it works, or was implemented well is besides the point, its a character design that they tried out. I mean its in the same vein as numerous other set PC's throughout various franchises. I mean goodness it was a Beth FO were you expecting a gem or something?
That will have to wait until Obsidian makes the next one.
It doesn't matter if you see it or not, the contradiction is there. Please explain to me how to role play a gay character in Fallout 4's opening scene without resorting to "in the closet" headcanon or some **** like that.
It doesn't matter if you see it or not, the contradiction is there. Please explain to me how to role play a gay character in Fallout 4's opening scene without resorting to "in the closet" headcanon.
Don't roleplay a gay character? That'd be my advice to you, it obviously wasn't designed for the mold aka no contradiction. You'd be superimposing what you think the character should be. Completely different thing. Like I said, valid point, just not a contradiction. Me saying it isn't a contradiction doesn't mean I agree with it by the way, but hey like I said Beth FO.
They also introduced a dialogue wheel ewww.
Retour en haut