110 réponses à ce sujet

[FKA_Servo]

While I completely agree that race selection can add a deeply satisfying dimension to roleplaying, I'm just not convinced that it would make much difference in ME.

The primary reason has to do with this:
 

If MEA is anything like ME2&3, it will feel a lot like a movie, where the writers decide exactly what the player will do throughout and design the whole thing to be experienced in a very specific way, with little (if any) room for emergent narrative.

Of course, since exploration will be a thing in MEA, I am somewhat hopeful that there might be more room for RP - but I suspect, in the end, I'll just have to accept the idea that ME offers a different form of entertainment than what I look for in an RPG.

 

I'm mostly speaking to the principle of the thing, here. I've never looked to ME for a robust RP experience, although I'm not opposed to it, and the ability to play as another council race would be a positive for that. The stuff I fell in love with from the first game mostly revolves around other things.

 

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer: the benefit is enormous.

An anti-Thalmor Bosmer is a very different character than an anti-Thalmor Imperial would be. And that addresses only one single, isolated part of Skyrim - there are quite a few factions, quite a lot of history and politics, and an environment ripe with character design considerations and role-play opportunities.

 

My post would probably have been better phrased as tangible benefits, as Killroy might define them. I'm obviously in line with you, here. But if for someone who's not willing to go any deeper than the surface, there's not much difference between any of the different races in TES. Not very much fun to be had either I'd add, if that's their only concern.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Just allow us to switch to party members during gameplay.

Problem somewhat fixed.

That would be a huge step forward. We should absolutely be able to do this.

[Technodragon95]

I am all for the chance to select race in the Mass Effect franchise. However, I want BioWare to focus on a good story first. If their story only works with a human protagonist, then I will accept that until we see the game.

 

After the game comes out? Well that is a different story.

[Sanunes]

After my experiences with choosing the races in Dragon Age: Inquisition I rather just have Humans as the only playable character.

[Cyonan]

TES is mediocrity defined so having pointless race selection is just part of the package. And if your argument hinges on an abstract idea that you can't even tie back to the game then it's a losing one. Race selection in DAI had no impact on the story, characters, gameplay or outcomes. The closest it ever comes to being relevant is in race-specific romances. Saying "yeah, but muh glorious headcanon!" doesn't change facts.

A few more pesky facts about race selection are that story and gameplay content had to be cut to accommodate it(according to multiple devs) and more time could have been spent fine tuning the CC if they hadn't added 3 additional races. 

 

And just FYI, I've never even played a human in Inquisition. I just recognize that it's an objectively pointless feature.

 

The point is to roleplay as another race since, you know, Dragon Age and TES are RPGs.

 

You can say that has no value to you and that you're not interested in it, and it wouldn't be an invalid opinion.

 

However to call that "objectively pointless" is doing nothing but telling me you don't know what the word "objectively" means. Even in talking about gameplay impact if my Elven Inquisitor has ever dodged a ranged attack as a result of the Elven passive, then that has objectively impacted the gameplay.

 

Maybe not in a major way or even in a way you care about, but saying it's an "objectively pointless feature" is itself an objectively wrong statement.

 

but it all begs the question: If you don't care about RPing, why are you playing RPGs?

[Killroy]

The point is to roleplay as another race since, you know, Dragon Age and TES are RPGs.

You can say that has no value to you and that you're not interested in it, and it wouldn't be an invalid opinion.

However to call that "objectively pointless" is doing nothing but telling me you don't know what the word "objectively" means. Even in talking about gameplay impact if my Elven Inquisitor has ever dodged a ranged attack as a result of the Elven passive, then that has objectively impacted the gameplay.

Maybe not in a major way or even in a way you care about, but saying it's an "objectively pointless feature" is itself an objectively wrong statement.

but it all begs the question: If you don't care about RPing, why are you playing RPGs?

 

Save the 'no true Scotsman' BS for someone else. I want tangible, impactful race selection. In DAI it is a purely aesthetic choice, just like TES. If all you want is to RP then why can't you simply RP a Salarian with a human avatar? You're already imagining content that ain't there so why not imagine a different race than the avatar on screen?

[sjsharp2011]

The point is to roleplay as another race since, you know, Dragon Age and TES are RPGs.

 

You can say that has no value to you and that you're not interested in it, and it wouldn't be an invalid opinion.

 

However to call that "objectively pointless" is doing nothing but telling me you don't know what the word "objectively" means. Even in talking about gameplay impact if my Elven Inquisitor has ever dodged a ranged attack as a result of the Elven passive, then that has objectively impacted the gameplay.

 

Maybe not in a major way or even in a way you care about, but saying it's an "objectively pointless feature" is itself an objectively wrong statement.

 

but it all begs the question: If you don't care about RPing, why are you playing RPGs?

Agreed I enjoy both series for what they are but I also think that both sreies need to stick to what they do best in a way too, within their respective universes. Which to me is what ME as a whole is trying to do and why we're going to be human again because a lot of sci fi and this seems to be the way Bioware has approached it as well is seen from a human perspective not from what or how another race sees things. This way of doing it works well in the most popular TV shows and at least for me and I would imagine most others ME as well. Dragon Age on the other hand isn't  and never has been which is why they have put race/species selection in the games as it's moer about different people from all walks of life coming together to solve a crisis rather than one preson or group seeing things from a particular perspectve. Thereby allowing the player a greater option and freedom of the kind of character they want to be in each playthrough. To put it simply it's all down to the type  of story they want to tell.

[FKA_Servo]

Save the 'no true Scotsman' BS for someone else. I want tangible, impactful race selection. In DAI it is a purely aesthetic choice, just like TES. If all you want is to RP then why can't you simply RP a Salarian with a human avatar? You're already imagining content that ain't there so why not imagine a different race than the avatar on screen?

 

Because that would be stupid, and it's irrelevant in context in any case. Maybe save the ridiculous straw men for someone else.

[Killroy]

Because that would be stupid, and it's irrelevant in context in any case. Maybe save the ridiculous straw men for someone else.

 

Oh, I see. Pretending the game has content it doesn't actually have is just standard RPing, but pretending your character is a different race is stupid. Makes total sense. 

[The_Nightman_Cometh]

                                                                   Daytona.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the main character should race daytona.

[FKA_Servo]

Oh, I see. Pretending the game has content it doesn't actually have is just standard RPing, but pretending your character is a different race is stupid. Makes total sense. 

 

I could headcanon a foosball game as the battle of five armies, but that would be stupid too.

 

In the case of DAI, I'm not imagining the presence or absence of any "content." I'm simply approaching my PC in a way that works within the rules of the game. Pretending a human character is a salarian is not the same thing, and I think you probably realize that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

While I completely agree that race selection can add a deeply satisfying dimension to roleplaying, I'm just not convinced that it would make much difference in ME.

The primary reason has to do with this:


If MEA is anything like ME2&3, it will feel a lot like a movie, where the writers decide exactly what the player will do throughout and design the whole thing to be experienced in a very specific way, with little (if any) room for emergent narrative.

Right, but if they need to write for multiple races, they can't write as tight a narrative. So either they'll write a looser narrative (a good thing), or they'll write a tight narrative badly and then overreact to thr backlash (this could lead anywhere).

It seems worth the risk (to me - perhaps not to them).

[Pasquale1234]

Oh, I see. Pretending the game has content it doesn't actually have is just standard RPing, but pretending your character is a different race is stupid. Makes total sense. 

I'm not entirely sure what you consider game content to be, but I suspect it includes only those things you see play out on screen.

But here's the thing: in every choice you make - whether it's via a dialogue wheel, mission loadout screen, or selecting skill enhancements for level-up - there is some sort of thought / decision-making process involved that isn't shown on-screen.

In fact, we see people debate these things endlessly in these very forums. The in-game decisions they make, and the reasons for those decisions. All of that is part and parcel of the playthrough, creating a unique narrative from the perspective of that character. And all of it is headcanon, content added by the player.

[AlanC9]

Oh, I see. Pretending the game has content it doesn't actually have is just standard RPing, but pretending your character is a different race is stupid. Makes total sense.

Wait a second. Who was pretending the game had content it didn't have?

[Cyonan]

Save the 'no true Scotsman' BS for someone else. I want tangible, impactful race selection. In DAI it is a purely aesthetic choice, just like TES. If all you want is to RP then why can't you simply RP a Salarian with a human avatar? You're already imagining content that ain't there so why not imagine a different race than the avatar on screen?

 

It's not a "no true Scotsman" argument. That would only be the case if I were implying you weren't a "Real RPG player", but instead I asked why you're playing a genre you clearly have no interest in one of the main selling points of.

 

There is tangible benefits to race selection. Humans get an extra ability point, Elves get 25% ranged defense, Dwarves get 25% magic defense, and Qunari get 10% physical damage reduction. In TES the races all have their own starting skill levels as well as some passive/active abilities.

 

As I said you can claim that you don't think those have a big enough impact, but to claim they have no impact at all or that it's a "purely aesthetic choice" is simply incorrect.

 

As long as we're being delusional, maybe you can pretend the race selection isn't there and the CC is better for it. That makes about as much sense as you telling me to "pretend my Human is Salarian".

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's not a "no true Scotsman" argument. That would only be the case if I were implying you weren't a "Real RPG player", but instead I asked why you're playing a genre you clearly have no interest in one of the main selling points of.

There is tangible benefits to race selection. Humans get an extra ability point, Elves get 25% ranged defense, Dwarves get 25% magic defense, and Qunari get 10% physical damage reduction. In TES the races all have their own starting skill levels as well as some passive/active abilities.

As I said you can claim that you don't think those have a big enough impact, but to claim they have no impact at all or that it's a "purely aesthetic choice" is simply incorrect.

In fact, in early CRPGs the statistical differences were the only differences.

And they matter.

While I do value the ability to headcanom my character's background, and I think race selection helps with that (in a variety of ways), the statistical differences are a big part of how I choose which race to play.

[Malanek]

 

 

There is tangible benefits to race selection. Humans get an extra ability point, Elves get 25% ranged defense, Dwarves get 25% magic defense, and Qunari get 10% physical damage reduction. In TES the races all have their own starting skill levels as well as some passive/active abilities.

 

As I said you can claim that you don't think those have a big enough impact, but to claim they have no impact at all or that it's a "purely aesthetic choice" is simply incorrect.

 

As long as we're being delusional, maybe you can pretend the race selection isn't there and the CC is better for it. That makes about as much sense as you telling me to "pretend my Human is Salarian".

 

Almost more important in all those DA:I stats was that Qunari wore face paint instead of helmets. As I understand it, it reduced their armor or something but it increased their base damage which added up to a significant amount in terms of certain abilities.

 

But ME3 MPer was at another level entirely. The different base passives, the dodges, melee attacks etc added a huge amount to gameplay. ME3 MPer was a huge success and given the basic game modes, it was almost entirely successful due to the staggering variety of gameplay offered by the different kits. Being able to play as different races was a huge part of that.

[Cyonan]

In fact, in early CRPGs the statistical differences were the only differences.

And they matter.

While I do value the ability to headcanom my character's background, and I think race selection helps with that (in a variety of ways), the statistical differences are a big part of how I choose which race to play.

 

I'd say they're one of the biggest things that matter because those differences reflect the race and can help to shape the character. On top of that, I do think it's important for dialogue to reflect the race selection when it makes sense as well. In Dragon Age there is supposed to be rampant racism against Elves, but that is almost never reflected in-game against an Elven Inquisitor.

 

I also enjoyed what Arcanum does where armour is set to a certain size which naturally makes it race restricted. As an Elf I can't wear small armour because it's designed for Dwarves and Gnomes to use. Inquisition does this a little bit as well, but Arcanum is the better example of it.

 

Actually, Arcanum is just a brilliant example of RPing in a game in general. Combat is clunky as hell, but some top tier design otherwise.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd say they're one of the biggest things that matter because those differences reflect the race and can help to shape the character. On top of that, I do think it's important for dialogue to reflect the race selection when it makes sense as well. In Dragon Age there is supposed to be rampant racism against Elves, but that is almost never reflected in-game against an Elven Inquisitor.

This is true. DAO handled the racism a bit better, but allowed the Warden little chance to respond to it. An elf who views humans as oppressors is very poorly served by DAO's dialogue options.

I also enjoyed what Arcanum does where armour is set to a certain size which naturally makes it race restricted. As an Elf I can't wear small armour because it's designed for Dwarves and Gnomes to use. Inquisition does this a little bit as well, but Arcanum is the better example of it.

That's a great rule. BG didn't use it, but that rule is in AD&D.

Actually, Arcanum is just a brilliant example of RPing in a game in general. Combat is clunky as hell, but some top tier design otherwise.

It's an all-time great CRPG, I think.

Did you ever play Temple of Elemental Evil? What did you think of the combat in that?

[Andrew Lucas]

Killroy's position is not a universally held position. I would argue that race customization in DAI adds gameplay content all by itself. It added two playthroughs for me. Some paths through the story benefit greatly from playing as an elf or a dwarf. All the game needs to do is acknowledge and not contradict you.

In any case, I was just curious to know if you had an actual opinion rattling around in there to support that little contribution, or if you were just another edgelord derping on about "resource allocation" and forgetting or ignoring why many people play games like this in the first place. Since it looks like my answer is "derp" - carry on, I suppose.

You're so bitter. Just accept it. Like everyone has been saying it, all those races were pretty much pointless and added absolutely nothing to the experience besides giving these elf obsessed people something to praise.

It wasn't relevant. Undercooked, and waste of time for something that didn't really pay off in the end.

[Sanunes]

I have been thinking about this a little more and I think if BioWare didn't try and sell the important aspect of their games is the story and I expect a good story from them I might be more open to having playable races.  The problem is when they try and introduce additional races to the game the most important thing in the game doesn't change.  So if I was more concerned about statistics or cosmetic parts of the game I could see it working fine on how BioWare does it.  The problem is trying to incorporate multiple races seems to dilute the story elements so they can fit in the customization players want.

 

Using the Dragon Age: Origins example imagine what the game would have been like if all the dialogue was set just for us playing an Elf, a mage, or even an Elven mage.  I think that would have changed the experience a lot more dramatically then just having a single main story mission and NPCs that all react to the player in nearly identical ways.  Even with Mass Effect since we have such an assortment of player abilities and weapons in story elements of the game we are switched to basic items and not using powers because they have to make that content fit everyone that gets to that point of the game.  Now if we all were playing Shepard Biotic power house and we always would have one rank in Warp I would definitely see more moments in the game that made use of the power because it has become a known factor.

 

The one thing that I was looking forward to Dragon Age: Inquisition that was removed when they announced the ability to play other races was the backstory element, for that to me seemed to be a good middle ground for they could have in a few extra lines of dialogue for the protagonist and the people they were talking to, but they didn't have to dramatically alter a lot of how the game would react to you.  I hope this is an idea that doesn't get abandoned and implemented so we could see what they could do with a feature like that.

 

Now can some of this be overcome with the new game engine and console hardware? Maybe, since they did report having memory issues with Mass Effect 3 (see the removal of the holstered animation).  The thing is you never know what kind of restrictions they might have from other elements they are adding to the game to give us other features we have been asking for.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Using the Dragon Age: Origins example imagine what the game would have been like if all the dialogue was set just for us playing an Elf, a mage, or even an Elven mage. I think that would have changed the experience a lot more dramatically then just having a single main story mission and NPCs that all react to the player in nearly identical ways.

But would that change have been perceptible? We would have had nothing against which to measure it.

Personally, I very strongly value the ability to go back and replay the game with a different (ideally very different) character. Having a rigidly defined background interferes with that.

[Dr. rotinaj]

If the game acknowledges it then it's not headcanon.

And if that's what you need, then you're limited to the sorts of character designs that the developers foresaw or intended, and that's a far narrower set than I would like.

If your problem is that the game plays as if you were supposed to be someone in particular, then the solution is not to explicitly require that - it is to remove that sense of requirement.

If you don't want to say "our chantry", don't pick the dialogue options that say that.

If you can't tell which dialogue options say that, that's a paraphrase issue that needs to be fixed.

 

I'm not saying that the game should acknowledge my headcanon. I'm saying that I shouldn't have to imagine things that should be in the game.

[Dr. rotinaj]

Hold it. In context, "our Chantry" is a statement of geography, not a statement of belief. They are discussing the difference between the two branches of the Chantry, and an Adaar simply did grow up in lands where the Orlesian branch holds sway. I can talk about "our churches" when discussing the difference between U.S. and European religion with my German relatives (typically in a political context). Doesn't make me any kind of believer.

But this is just a misreading of the fundamental theme of the game. It doesn't matter that your Inquisitor is non-human, yes, but that's a particular case of a general principle. Nothing about your Inquisitor matters to the people of Thedas; it's all projection.

 

Yeah Dalish would have been a better example. "Our Chantry" implies a connection or membership to the society that the Chantry belongs. A connection that only a human would really have.

 

The fact the inquisitor's race doesn't matter to the people of thedas doesn't make it ok for my dwarf to have very little dwarven content.

[Sanunes]

But would that change have been perceptible? We would have had nothing against which to measure it.

Personally, I very strongly value the ability to go back and replay the game with a different (ideally very different) character. Having a rigidly defined background interferes with that.

 

I think there has been a slight miscommunication for I am just referring to how much more detail we could have with the world interacting with us if the protagonist was more fixed since they would then know we all would be an elf or a mage for example.  So we would be more treated according to what the lore of the game is.

 

I am not advocating that they should make the game fixed, but about how much detail can be lost the more options we have so the game starts feeling bland and our choice of race means nothing to the game aside from a different skin.