Dragon age 3 you will once again be playing as a human
- Thread starter disgruntledgamer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They can't... they're already on thin ice and that ice is quickly cracking, this is their last chance, they screw this up and they're done.Daystar Clarion said:
...I'm really hoping they don't, I actually rather like Bioware.
Opening comments passed without contest as per request, I won't argue a topic that the other party doesn't want to discuss.kingcom said:
Yes, you're right about how people form arguments, the reason why I write in a manner that dismisses arguments made purely on knee-jerk reactions, prejudice and hyperbole is because this is not okay. An opinion not backed up by facts, research and analysis is not as credible as one that is and should not be treated as such. I'll be the first to admit that I fall into the trap of thinking 'Oh no! Someone is wrong on the internet!' but if someone's opinion is expounded by making statements that are objectively false, understanding why they've come to that conclusion may be helpful in correcting them but it certainly doesn't legitimise it.
I've seen that video before, I remember at the time thinking that some of the points were well made, others were garbage including the point about narrative cohesion breaking down. (the producer doesn't even justify the statement, he just superimposes text and audio to the extent that it sounds like he's making an argument to support the statement but it's just unintelligible noise - and he does this right after dismissing the use of the critical method to refute his argument out of hand) I've redacted a large section here elaborating on the issue which I will post on request, but knowing how heated discussions about the Mass Effect 3 ending can get and how tired of the topic the forum is I'd rather not elaborate unless I must.
Back to 'Dragon Age II': Your justification for the viewpoint that the narrative fails to explain itself is that a lot of people are complaining about it. Based on your statements about the formation of an argument doesn't that make this irrelevant? By your own statements, the complaints may not be based on anything to do with the narrative cohesion. What seems most likely based on your other points is that the text requires a degree of work to be understood, and that people who were not invested in the characters weren't willing to put that work in.
I would argue that the introduction isn't an attempt to get the player to connect with the character, that starts to happen with the arrival at Kirkwall, it's instead an attempt to engage the player through the game-play. More combat happens in the first 10 minutes than in the entire subsequent hour. This is a problem if the player finds the combat lacking in depth, challenge, or any number of other criticisms I've heard levelled at this game any of which are largely subjective and matters of personal taste which doesn't make them flawed but does make them useless for supporting objective statements about the game's quality - which is all I ever set out to refute.
I haven't played a mage in DA2, but from your recount it does sound like it introduces problems. Bethany provides some fairly vital exposition on Hawke's motivations for the Deep Roads expedition - it is desperation as you suggested - and I'd assumed Carver did the same on a mage play-through. Apparently not. As I understand it, Flemeth's appearance was to patch over an apparent contradiction that occurred in the first game which gave the player the option to seemingly kill her and this needed to be written around. (although the same care wasn't given to Leliana which makes this a little doubtful)
For the Qu'nari, they're trying to occupy the city, which it's been strongly implied Hawke is starting to feel some sense of attachment to. Hawk gets to play the hero because everyone else is trying and not doing too well. Depending on what side quests have been done, Hawke may also have won the respect of the Arishok prior to this, making the resolution through single combat more believable, though this point isn't essential.
Concerning the Templars working with a mage, yes, that does appear uncharacteristic no denying it; I can only guess that Meredith was planning to use one of her enemies against the other so she only has to deal with one of them herself. (She considers Hawke her enemy regardless of whether Hawke is a mage or not, the lyrium has made her quite paranoid - in fact in the endings that I've seen the Chantry seeker states that she blames Meredith for the conflict) This does rely on the assumption that she's still capable of rational thought at this point, doubtful.
Lastly - illusion of choice. This observation was made as a response to a specific comment which I had read to imply that the origin stories opened up concrete options further down the line concerning the narrative's direction. I should however have phrased it in a manner that did not imply a general value judgement. As long as the illusion is convincing it is indeed equal to actually being given choice.
I will concede that a mage play-through possibly doesn't make sense because I don't have any personal experience from which to refute it, I will have to do it myself and see if I can keep track of it. Thank you for raising these issues and humouring my wall of text, it has given me quite a lot to think about.
And where is this number coming from? I know a lot of people who play other races, especially the 2ed time through.Jove said:
I'm calling BS on this Bioware has made their reputation on RPGs with choices that matter, a reputation I might add that gets damaged with each new game. It's also what made the Witcher 2 so good.Anthraxus said:
Just to be clear I'm not calling BS on you I'm pretty sure they probably made the statement, the statement however is complete %^&%$, not out of the ordinary for EA tho.
BioWare has been fairly upfront when they are just deciding something because thats what they want to do. They have no real reason to lie about how many people play as other races, so i seriously doubt they are just using it as an excuse.disgruntledgamer said:
It's real easy to think that most people play the way we do, but i have found out time and time again that it is a pretty big mistake.
BioWare has accurate metrics, and they wouldn't be making up excuses when they haven't been shy about saying "well this is our game and this is how we are making it, so tough" in the past.
DA had three races - douchebag, douchebag with green skin, and douchebag with pointy ears.
While it would be nice if they expanded on the races (like adding some more.. and having a shred of difference in them) over the last game and maybe this one, I just don't see the point. They're not going to re-introduce them again. Besides, if there's not a gnome race that is 2 foot tall, and can still have sex-scenes with normal-heighted people, I don't care (y'know.... because that's actually experimentative, and not just EA driving Bioware into the ground).
While it would be nice if they expanded on the races (like adding some more.. and having a shred of difference in them) over the last game and maybe this one, I just don't see the point. They're not going to re-introduce them again. Besides, if there's not a gnome race that is 2 foot tall, and can still have sex-scenes with normal-heighted people, I don't care (y'know.... because that's actually experimentative, and not just EA driving Bioware into the ground).
As I recall, you got to pick your own background story in DA: O, so your argument of that being ripped off of ME rather than sticking to the format of DA: O is just wrong.disgruntledgamer said:
Sooooo what's the point of this thread again? Other than stating something both pointless and wrong?
What was the main point of this thread. Form what I can gather the title is one decision by developers than never ceases to annoy me, then the body starts with the mention of another option that is also in ME, and then quickly moves on to the phenomenon of coral EA bleaching.
So I'm going to adress the title. How can developers make such detailed and interesting species other than humans not capitalise on the work they've already done. Other races are so much more interesting just by virtue of not being human, not to mention the amount of detail that these particular non-humans have in culture. Wouldn't take much to have a contrived different species PC and a few different dialogue bits here and there, and actually, people go nuts for that s***.
So I'm going to adress the title. How can developers make such detailed and interesting species other than humans not capitalise on the work they've already done. Other races are so much more interesting just by virtue of not being human, not to mention the amount of detail that these particular non-humans have in culture. Wouldn't take much to have a contrived different species PC and a few different dialogue bits here and there, and actually, people go nuts for that s***.
Metagaming aside, I really enjoyed playing as a Elf, if only because I like playing as the underdog. I liked the nuanced and slight variations in the conversations with some characters, and how the game explored some of the sociological implications of having what is basically a second class citizen in a position of power.hazabaza1 said:
It is kind of a shame, not because I think DA3 will be an objectively bad game because of this, but because it doesn't really resemble the DA:O game I knew and loved. The choices in race were a draw not necessarily because they provided me with more game play choices (though to anyone who says that they all played the same after the intro I have to ask... did we play the same thing?)but because they let me see the very interesting world the Devs had created through all available lenses.
It let me see first hand how badly the elves were treated, as opposed to just telling me "Oh and by the way no one likes elves. You should care about this for some reason." It let me see both sides of the mage and chantry issue. It gave me an inside look at dwarf culture and how they had to live under the oppressive shadow of the darkspawn every day of their lives, as opposed to the rest of the world who only have to deal with it when there's a blight happening. To me it was the perfect example of 'show don't tell' and it was part of what helped me become immersed in the world.
I don't think DA3 will be a bad game... hopefully. But it just feels like a lot of the things I loved about the first game have been gradually dropped from the franchise. The grey wardens have taken a backseat, the darkspawn (one of the few videogame enemies who really truly terrify me in concept if nothing else) have had a reduced role. And the conflict between the chantry and the templars feels like it's been boiled down to 'wah religion is evil mages are oppressed for no reason' with some shoehorned attempts to go 'oh but mages are dangerous I guess' so they can still claim moral ambiguity. The whole Anders debacle springs to mind.
I guess the tl;dr read is that the franchise doesn't feel like it's ever going to be the game I fell in love with initially and it kind of makes me sad. Especially since, given the love DA:O received when it was released I have no idea why they felt the need to overhaul the game's core aesthetics like this.
It let me see first hand how badly the elves were treated, as opposed to just telling me "Oh and by the way no one likes elves. You should care about this for some reason." It let me see both sides of the mage and chantry issue. It gave me an inside look at dwarf culture and how they had to live under the oppressive shadow of the darkspawn every day of their lives, as opposed to the rest of the world who only have to deal with it when there's a blight happening. To me it was the perfect example of 'show don't tell' and it was part of what helped me become immersed in the world.
I don't think DA3 will be a bad game... hopefully. But it just feels like a lot of the things I loved about the first game have been gradually dropped from the franchise. The grey wardens have taken a backseat, the darkspawn (one of the few videogame enemies who really truly terrify me in concept if nothing else) have had a reduced role. And the conflict between the chantry and the templars feels like it's been boiled down to 'wah religion is evil mages are oppressed for no reason' with some shoehorned attempts to go 'oh but mages are dangerous I guess' so they can still claim moral ambiguity. The whole Anders debacle springs to mind.
I guess the tl;dr read is that the franchise doesn't feel like it's ever going to be the game I fell in love with initially and it kind of makes me sad. Especially since, given the love DA:O received when it was released I have no idea why they felt the need to overhaul the game's core aesthetics like this.
Really how did that work out for them with ME 3 multiplayer? Oh that's right it's all but dead.Jove said:
That statement might be true if it was the Bioware of old which it's not anymore. And sure they have a reason to lie about it they want to cut it out and that's their excuse.AntiChri5 said:
Yup, more "positive news". I guess this more of a personal squabble, but I HATE voiced protagonists in RPGs that have dialogue choices. Why they had to go the Mass Effect route is beyond me.Legion said:
My issue is not that I dislike voices, I dislike that having voices restricts dialogue, and leads to my most hated feature of Mass Effect 2, 3 and DA2:alphamalet said:
Auto-dialogue.
These games are made so that we create our own character and have our own story. Having that character say things without us choosing to completely undermines that. Especially when the game tries to force emotion onto the player and has the voiced protagonists express the emotion/thought without player input.
Hopefully Bioware will finally understand this, and stop trying to enforce their own behaviours onto what are supposed to be our characters.
Exactly! It's like they think it is a good idea to sacrifice immersion for the sake of making the game cinematic.Legion said:
ME3's multiplayer is far from dead, and many long time Mass Effect fans consider it the best part of the game, to their eternal surprise.disgruntledgamer said:
They don't need an excuse. I have seen, many many times on the BioWare forums BioWare employees outright saying "This is the way we are doing it because this is the way we want to do it. If you don't like that then tough, this isn't the game for you." Why would they need an excuse?
Less EA and more just sensible responding to stats and adjusting their development and game design to account for how players play.disgruntledgamer said:
I'll have to dig up the page (hard to find for some reason), but a couple months after the release of DA:O, they released a breakdown of stats gathered from the game, races and classes played, % completed, etc. There's a reason achievements are so common place you know, it's not just to give you OCD to be a completionist to keep playing the game, but also a way for devs to track players and their actions, and as a result, modify for later games. Since, you know, only listening to just forum posts are squeaky wheel situations.
Anyway, while replay for choices are still in - after all it's a hallmark if the studio's game design - the issue is justifying something like the whole dwarven commoner and noble origin when only 10% of the player base bothered to play them. So the idea was to remove the races but expand on the choices within the game play itself or something (however well that worked out for DA2, I haven't played it so I won't comment).