That would be crap, because ME is awesome doing what it is doing. It's when you take DA:O and throw in MEs system that annoys me. It's rather like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I like DA:O because it's different to ME. If I wanted to play ME I would play ME (and in fact, I will certainly do so as ME is awesome and I cannot wait for ME3).
How about The Witcher and Alpha Protocol? They're fully voice acted and yet even the smallest decision can wildly change the player's journey.
Choices in the Witcher are also generally pretty binary, like "Help X or Dick Over Y" (this isn't true of every decision, but is generally a decent description). [/i].
Nope. Not in the slightest. At least, no more so than DA, which just had several ways of saying the same thing.
Also, the reason that that voiced is going to be better is that it actually allows for conversations, rather than just the other person monologuing, and the playing occaisionally interjecting. Conversations in DA lacked depth on the part of the player, all you could do was ask for them to recount their life's tale, and then give them a quest. The idea of 'if I imagine it myself then it's more immersive seems a little stupid when your character lacks a basic personality. ME2 and Witcher had main characters that actually seemed like real people, because of all the incidental things which they say. One thing that I really like about both games is that they both include small parts where you hang around with old friends reminiscing and getting drunk. It's the small characterising conversations like that that immerse me, rather than stony faced, emotionless puppets.
Choices in the Witcher are also generally pretty binary, like "Help X or Dick Over Y" (this isn't true of every decision, but is generally a decent description).
So like "End the Curse" or "Slaughter the Elves"?
Or "Save the mages" or "Slaughter all the mages"?
Or "Destroy the anvil" or "create mindless, soulless golems for your army"?
Or "Fight the zombies" or "leave the town to be overrun"?
All of that with a silent main character, too...almost as if that isn't the primary reason such things happen.
Blackjack on
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
"I'm right and you're wrong"? You could have at least thrown in a "I believe" in there. It's much more civil.
Okay let's make this simple:
Can you play a woman in AP?
If your answer is "No", then I'm right.
Can you play as a dwarf/elf in DA2?
If your answer is "No", then looks like I'm right again.
Can you play as anyone other than a specific named character in the Witcher/DA2/ME2/AP?
If your answer is "No", then it looks like I'm right again.
I mean, if you can't see how every case of having specific PC VA has imposed limits on the options of what the player can be, then I don't really know how I can put this argument. You are either being deliberately obtuse at this point or you're failing to realize that some people like having the ability to make their character actually theirs: Not be force fed one for the sake of VA in an RPG. Especially when the original game in the series didn't do that.
You're right, though, that Alpha Protocol only had one character, but what you did and said altered things a lot more than anything I ever did in Dragon Age: Origins.
And Alpha Protocol didn't let you play anywhere near as many different characters as DA:O. You're always one man with a relatively specific background. Always.
Do you see the point yet?
Edit: To me, an RPG begins at character generation and when you're removing options that I previously had - I am less than impressed. I don't care about playing an alien in ME because the game was never about that and always had a specific "thing". Complaining about that is like complaining water is wet or something. On the other hand, when the first game felt more like Baldurs Gate, stripping out all those aspects I actually liked and replacing them with something that is highly limiting in making my own character compared to the first game does not enthuse me.
Edit2: Blackjack, I can say that I felt most of the decisions in DA2 actually had some decent ability to resolve them differently with some standouts and some that weren't particularly good (The mage Tower is just awful in general). But it had some standouts, like Redcliffe castle for an example.
God damn, Aegeri, you don't have to be so rude. You're hurting my feelings and breaking my fragile heart.
And yes, I understand your point. You could play as more races in Dragon Age: Origins because the main character wasn't voiced. I could only play as one character in Alpha Protocol because he was voiced. I'm not arguing against that at all!
Even though I could play multiple races with different origin stories, it didn't alter the game drastically at all. It was only referenced slightly throughout the game, and eventually you'd meet a character or two you knew in the origin story. If Origins had a voiced main character and you could only play as one specific character, very little about how and what you could interact with would be different.
The scope you think Origins has over Dragon Age 2 is practically an illusion.
Honestly, I think Dragon Age 2 has the potential for a greater scope due to the narration structure and how events will unfold over ten years, and that's thanks to the writers. We'll just have to wait and see for that one, though.
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Your argument was "Having a VA doesn't limit the roleplaying options in the game" you then name games with VA. So I asked "Why can't you then play X in this games?". This isn't being rude, this is just pointing out the gigantic gaping flaw in your argument. You can't say that specific VA doesn't cost the player roleplaying options and then ignore the elephant in the room that it has done in every example you can name. That was my original point and argument. It has thus far been completely supported by every single example of voiced main characters in the RPGs we can list.
Even though I could play multiple races with different origin stories, it didn't alter the game drastically at all.
You are missing the point, over and over and over and over again.
It is the fact these options are there for people who want them and enjoy them. A lot of people like playing the game as an Elf/Dwarf because they want to roleplay from that point of view. That DA doesn't do a brilliant job of actually making these options feel relevant at all times - though it actually does in some cases - is a flaw with the original game. Is the answer improving the writing to make these options feel relevant or is it to throw the baby out with the bathwater entirely?
The scope you think Origins has over Dragon Age 2 is practically an illusion.
Except in character options, which DA2 unquestionably loses to its original by means of removing them. This isn't even an opinion, it's a raw statement of fact there are less options for playing a unique character in DA2 than DA. The main character is named. They are always human. If you're stuck playing a specific class that would aggravate me even more (but I don't think they would go that far).
I don't know how often I can point out "I like being able to choose my race and decide my characters personality, voice and other minor things" for myself (which DA in no way puts any kind of limit on), before you'll get the idea that I really do find that a very important aspect of my RPGs. Important enough that it is immeasurably disappointing DA2 doesn't continue to do it.
I'm not a tenth as eloquent as Aegeri, but I will posit that it'd be impossible to have done "what can change the nature of a man" and the like if it was limited to a dialogue wheel
I don't think you're wrong, Aegeri, but I think we're both looking at the issue of voice acting in different scopes. You're looking at it in terms of the individual character, a more personal perspective. Voice acting does limit you here. Voice acting often forces you to play a very defined character. I'm looking at these games in terms of the overall structure/story and narration, though, and find that with or without voice acting, it doesn't really alter those that much. Am I really that wrong on that topic?
Being able to choose different races in games has largely only been a visual choice, with characters occasionally referencing what you are (or in some games, not at all).
I can understand why others enjoy that choice, and I'm not saying it should be taken away. I just personally don't care what I play as because that choice never really altered the overall story or presented me with different options outside of my character's look. People like to look to the past a lot in terms of the bigger scope of role-playing games, and we still played very specific characters. I could never play as a super mutant in Fallout or a floating skull in Planescape: Torment.
In terms of that bigger story, I just don't agree with blaming voice acting. This is why I'm not upset with voice acting in Dragon Age 2. Having a voiced, specific character almost seems to let the player do more in terms of interactions with the world. The developers don't have to focus on multiple characters. But again, you are right that it limits what you can play as. In a world full of multiple races, of dwarves and elves, it is fun to roleplay a tight-assed dwarf noble or a city elf who hates humans. But as I said, it's not a loss I lament too much because that roleplaying didn't affect my player's overall journey that much.
I think the real blame for less personal options or less game-changing options is not the voice acting but this need for handsome graphics and Hollywood cinematics. Those take an incredible amount of time and work. If we scaled those back, then it probably would be possible for both of us to get what we wanted even with voice acting.
This is the last post I'll make on the subject, but I hope you can agree with me, because I do agree with you. I just think we were looking at two different sections of role-playing games.
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
I'm not upset with it in DA2, in particular, just that having text-only dialogue has become this unspeakable evil thing, meaning that practically all single-A and up wRPGs are going to have it from now on, with the down scoping it implies. Especially since there are so few bioware style small scale developers compared to the largish number of jrpg ones, and even the good crop of european bethesda style companies doing things like two worlds and risen.
Really, the insistence on voicing incidental NPCs bugs me more than having the PC need to be voiced, since it leads to fewer incidental NPCs and thus empty city areas
Spoit on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
I can certainly agree with that Dashui, I am merely heavily emphasizing that for many people making their character and personalizing it is just as important as everything else (EG what they actually do in game). Taking these options away for added VA is not a good trade to many of them. I personally like both, but I don't like a franchise suddenly deciding its now pork instead of beef. I liked DA because it felt like BG and reminded me so much of it. Now they're stripping the aspects of the original game I really liked and I am not happy with the trade off.
It also really harms its case because I have zero interest in Hawk and aren't enthused about him in the least from what I've read.
Edit: Alternatively Spoit, all the incidental NPCs sound the same and are utterly bored (Oblivion comes to mind as the worst offender ever). One thing that gets me about Fallout: NV is that someone will yell at me then speak with an entirely different accent. Like they didn't even bother lining up what their neutral ambient voice was compared to their conversation with the PC voice acting. It becomes immensely unsettling after a while.
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited November 2010
Seeing as I really don't want to read through walls of text and honestly since I've pretty much have seen this argument enough times to know what is being said.
The effect of the choices have little to do with whether voice acting is or isn't present in a game.
What has more of an impact is simply that being able to make scenarios that will be effective across every possible spectrum(or in the least a very large number of spectrums) is a great deal of work and with the technology we have at this time it just isn't possible nor will it be possible for a long time.
Honestly, what a mute character does(for some people) is make their character much more of a blank slate so they can impress more of themselves upon that character...that isn't to say that works for everyone though. Like me personally, I'll pretty much do it the same whether the person talks or not.
That being said, it doesn't affect how the person fits in the world...at all really.
The number one thing that convinced me that Bethesda are marketing geniuses was their ability to get people to equate any negative criticisms as automatically being unreasonable NMA level fanboyism
NMA is just a genuinely negavtive place to be. Not liking something is one thing. Ranting about it for years is another.
The number one thing that convinced me that Bethesda are marketing geniuses was their ability to get people to equate any negative criticisms as automatically being unreasonable NMA level fanboyism
NMA is just a genuinely negavtive place to be. Not liking something is one thing. Ranting about it for years is another.
Yeah, I don't think that Bethesda's marketing did that so much as NMA's outspoken horribleness just conditioned people to ignore Fallout-related complaints.
Darlan on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited November 2010
Honestly...I just think as far as FO3/NV goes...they just really...really need a better engine. I'm tired of my character being ugly and gimp.
The number one thing that convinced me that Bethesda are marketing geniuses was their ability to get people to equate any negative criticisms as automatically being unreasonable NMA level fanboyism
NMA is just a genuinely negavtive place to be. Not liking something is one thing. Ranting about it for years is another.
Yeah, I don't think that Bethesda's marketing did that so much as NMA's outspoken horribleness just conditioned people to ignore Fallout-related complaints.
I'm just saying, even having been a long time fan of the FO games, I hadn't even heard of NMA until attention was brought with Bethesda having bought the license
Wait, so a refugee from a war triggered by a reawakened god fighting his/her way up from victim to king while contending with the the corrupt church and the game of thrones between the various powers is uninteresting?
Well, time to burn all my books and get some real entertainment!
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
Just to make things clear, ME before it came out had me on board with playing as Shepard from the start. Bioware made all the right comparisons and really built up the kind of mental image of who Shepard was. I mean they made comparisons to 24 and being a bit like "Jack Bauer" in space as a comparison of the renegade character. That got my interest and I played the game like that and whoa, I really COULD be a tool in space who was a ruthless asshole.
Hawk? Completely and utterly banal and boring from what I understand. There isn't a clear image of who this douchebag is and why I should care I'm forced to play him.
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited November 2010
Well...and this is just me...but maybe we should wait until we have information about the game. Honestly, all I've seen so far is a few trailers and some screenshots.
It's coming out in like...maybe 6 months. I'm pretty sure we'll start getting a barrage of it when January hits.
Dragkonias on
0
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
December, January, Feburary. March 8. A little under 4 months.
For DAO, we had a hell of a lot of footage from, I think DragonCon was the earliest? Either way, they weren't going out of their way to censor any gameplay footage and a handful of screens.
No one is forcing you to play anyone or anything. Hawke is Hawke, and whining will not make him/her into Revan/The Exile/Shepard/Nameless One/The Courier.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
Ah pre-release defenders are always the best. Especially when it's entirely legitimate complaints about a game that has changed things since the first one in ways a lot of people don't like.
But that is true, it's very unlikely I will be buying DA2 (but that's because I just don't like the sound of it in general) but I'm going to make sure that Bioware knows why I didn't.
Ah, pre-release bitchers are the best. Because there is nothing sweeter then bitching about something one has no idea about.
Except that I know everything I dislike and "Here, don't have options you enjoyed from the first game" is right on top of the list? I mean, some things aren't knowable yet like what they've done to the combat. But some things are pretty obvious "Yes/No" choices here.
You don't need to do so when its something as simple as "Does the game do this" or "Does the game not do this". I mean this is a pretty binary thing here because it either does or doesn't do it. Same with the dialogue. It either does or doesn't use an ME/AP like dialogue system. I have a good idea what these features are like from other games, I do not need to play DA2 to have a general idea of their faults and why I prefer how DA does things.
Meh. In any WRPG, you're pretty much constrained to one of three roles anyway: malicious self-serving bastard, neutral agent who's just in it for survival/the money, and pious goody-two shoes.
Most the time I you just end up being a virtual sociopath, saying exactly what I think the NPCs want me to say so that I get the party affinity bonuses, swank gear, and achievements. If I want to be "evil" I make sure to choose the "evil" big decisions, and if I want to be "good" I choose the opposite. (Though part of what made DA1 so refreshing was that these decisions, at least, weren't always very clear cut.)
When I play these games I don't ever have the illusion that I'm "role playing" my character -- at best I'm guiding a virtual action figure of my own design through a choose-your-own-adventure that's been dumbed down in the interests of letting me be "whoever I want."
I actually like it when WRPG developers opt for pre-fabricated PCs with developed characters and identities over giving me a semi-mute, player-designed empty vessel -- makes the story more interesting and the choices more relevant, in my opinion. But maybe that's just me...
Ah pre-release defenders are always the best. Especially when it's entirely legitimate complaints about a game that has changed things since the first one in ways a lot of people don't like.
But that is true, it's very unlikely I will be buying DA2 (but that's because I just don't like the sound of it in general) but I'm going to make sure that Bioware knows why I didn't.
Really, the one change that's making it not a day 1 thing is the $10 price hike
Should've preordered before that happened. 8-)
Nah, for real, that is pretty shitty of them to do. Especially when they made the collector edition (or whatever they're calling it) the only one you can get.
Yeah short of rave 'best game' ever reviews there is no way I'm getting DA2 at release.
Rami on
Steam / Xbox Live: WSDX NNID: W-S-D-X 3DS FC: 2637-9461-8549
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
If Bioware flies to my house and writes me a mod that lets me shoot Carth in the face 5 minutes into KotoR I may consider getting it. That would be a fair exchange. It will probably end up ridiculous Aus/NZ price if it is being made $10 more expensive US as well.
Posts
Nope. Not in the slightest. At least, no more so than DA, which just had several ways of saying the same thing.
Also, the reason that that voiced is going to be better is that it actually allows for conversations, rather than just the other person monologuing, and the playing occaisionally interjecting. Conversations in DA lacked depth on the part of the player, all you could do was ask for them to recount their life's tale, and then give them a quest. The idea of 'if I imagine it myself then it's more immersive seems a little stupid when your character lacks a basic personality. ME2 and Witcher had main characters that actually seemed like real people, because of all the incidental things which they say. One thing that I really like about both games is that they both include small parts where you hang around with old friends reminiscing and getting drunk. It's the small characterising conversations like that that immerse me, rather than stony faced, emotionless puppets.
Steam // Secret Satan
Or "Save the mages" or "Slaughter all the mages"?
Or "Destroy the anvil" or "create mindless, soulless golems for your army"?
Or "Fight the zombies" or "leave the town to be overrun"?
All of that with a silent main character, too...almost as if that isn't the primary reason such things happen.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Okay let's make this simple:
Can you play a woman in AP?
If your answer is "No", then I'm right.
Can you play as a dwarf/elf in DA2?
If your answer is "No", then looks like I'm right again.
Can you play as anyone other than a specific named character in the Witcher/DA2/ME2/AP?
If your answer is "No", then it looks like I'm right again.
I mean, if you can't see how every case of having specific PC VA has imposed limits on the options of what the player can be, then I don't really know how I can put this argument. You are either being deliberately obtuse at this point or you're failing to realize that some people like having the ability to make their character actually theirs: Not be force fed one for the sake of VA in an RPG. Especially when the original game in the series didn't do that.
And Alpha Protocol didn't let you play anywhere near as many different characters as DA:O. You're always one man with a relatively specific background. Always.
Do you see the point yet?
Edit: To me, an RPG begins at character generation and when you're removing options that I previously had - I am less than impressed. I don't care about playing an alien in ME because the game was never about that and always had a specific "thing". Complaining about that is like complaining water is wet or something. On the other hand, when the first game felt more like Baldurs Gate, stripping out all those aspects I actually liked and replacing them with something that is highly limiting in making my own character compared to the first game does not enthuse me.
Edit2: Blackjack, I can say that I felt most of the decisions in DA2 actually had some decent ability to resolve them differently with some standouts and some that weren't particularly good (The mage Tower is just awful in general). But it had some standouts, like Redcliffe castle for an example.
And yes, I understand your point. You could play as more races in Dragon Age: Origins because the main character wasn't voiced. I could only play as one character in Alpha Protocol because he was voiced. I'm not arguing against that at all!
Even though I could play multiple races with different origin stories, it didn't alter the game drastically at all. It was only referenced slightly throughout the game, and eventually you'd meet a character or two you knew in the origin story. If Origins had a voiced main character and you could only play as one specific character, very little about how and what you could interact with would be different.
The scope you think Origins has over Dragon Age 2 is practically an illusion.
Honestly, I think Dragon Age 2 has the potential for a greater scope due to the narration structure and how events will unfold over ten years, and that's thanks to the writers. We'll just have to wait and see for that one, though.
Your argument was "Having a VA doesn't limit the roleplaying options in the game" you then name games with VA. So I asked "Why can't you then play X in this games?". This isn't being rude, this is just pointing out the gigantic gaping flaw in your argument. You can't say that specific VA doesn't cost the player roleplaying options and then ignore the elephant in the room that it has done in every example you can name. That was my original point and argument. It has thus far been completely supported by every single example of voiced main characters in the RPGs we can list.
You are missing the point, over and over and over and over again.
It is the fact these options are there for people who want them and enjoy them. A lot of people like playing the game as an Elf/Dwarf because they want to roleplay from that point of view. That DA doesn't do a brilliant job of actually making these options feel relevant at all times - though it actually does in some cases - is a flaw with the original game. Is the answer improving the writing to make these options feel relevant or is it to throw the baby out with the bathwater entirely?
Except in character options, which DA2 unquestionably loses to its original by means of removing them. This isn't even an opinion, it's a raw statement of fact there are less options for playing a unique character in DA2 than DA. The main character is named. They are always human. If you're stuck playing a specific class that would aggravate me even more (but I don't think they would go that far).
I don't know how often I can point out "I like being able to choose my race and decide my characters personality, voice and other minor things" for myself (which DA in no way puts any kind of limit on), before you'll get the idea that I really do find that a very important aspect of my RPGs. Important enough that it is immeasurably disappointing DA2 doesn't continue to do it.
Being able to choose different races in games has largely only been a visual choice, with characters occasionally referencing what you are (or in some games, not at all).
I can understand why others enjoy that choice, and I'm not saying it should be taken away. I just personally don't care what I play as because that choice never really altered the overall story or presented me with different options outside of my character's look. People like to look to the past a lot in terms of the bigger scope of role-playing games, and we still played very specific characters. I could never play as a super mutant in Fallout or a floating skull in Planescape: Torment.
In terms of that bigger story, I just don't agree with blaming voice acting. This is why I'm not upset with voice acting in Dragon Age 2. Having a voiced, specific character almost seems to let the player do more in terms of interactions with the world. The developers don't have to focus on multiple characters. But again, you are right that it limits what you can play as. In a world full of multiple races, of dwarves and elves, it is fun to roleplay a tight-assed dwarf noble or a city elf who hates humans. But as I said, it's not a loss I lament too much because that roleplaying didn't affect my player's overall journey that much.
I think the real blame for less personal options or less game-changing options is not the voice acting but this need for handsome graphics and Hollywood cinematics. Those take an incredible amount of time and work. If we scaled those back, then it probably would be possible for both of us to get what we wanted even with voice acting.
This is the last post I'll make on the subject, but I hope you can agree with me, because I do agree with you. I just think we were looking at two different sections of role-playing games.
Really, the insistence on voicing incidental NPCs bugs me more than having the PC need to be voiced, since it leads to fewer incidental NPCs and thus empty city areas
It also really harms its case because I have zero interest in Hawk and aren't enthused about him in the least from what I've read.
Edit: Alternatively Spoit, all the incidental NPCs sound the same and are utterly bored (Oblivion comes to mind as the worst offender ever). One thing that gets me about Fallout: NV is that someone will yell at me then speak with an entirely different accent. Like they didn't even bother lining up what their neutral ambient voice was compared to their conversation with the PC voice acting. It becomes immensely unsettling after a while.
The effect of the choices have little to do with whether voice acting is or isn't present in a game.
What has more of an impact is simply that being able to make scenarios that will be effective across every possible spectrum(or in the least a very large number of spectrums) is a great deal of work and with the technology we have at this time it just isn't possible nor will it be possible for a long time.
Honestly, what a mute character does(for some people) is make their character much more of a blank slate so they can impress more of themselves upon that character...that isn't to say that works for everyone though. Like me personally, I'll pretty much do it the same whether the person talks or not.
That being said, it doesn't affect how the person fits in the world...at all really.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
NMA is just a genuinely negavtive place to be. Not liking something is one thing. Ranting about it for years is another.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
This will not make a difference to my opinion, because with boobs/without boobs it's still the same uninteresting sounding character.
True,
CAN I GET YOU A LADDER SO YOU CAN GET OFF MY BACK?
I only wish the PC in Dragon Age was mute.
I'm just saying, even having been a long time fan of the FO games, I hadn't even heard of NMA until attention was brought with Bethesda having bought the license
Well, time to burn all my books and get some real entertainment!
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Hawk? Completely and utterly banal and boring from what I understand. There isn't a clear image of who this douchebag is and why I should care I'm forced to play him.
It's coming out in like...maybe 6 months. I'm pretty sure we'll start getting a barrage of it when January hits.
haters
LET'S GET OUR ENTROPIC DEATH ON HOOOOOOOOOO
For DAO, we had a hell of a lot of footage from, I think DragonCon was the earliest? Either way, they weren't going out of their way to censor any gameplay footage and a handful of screens.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Yeah, that's just wrong because they totally actually are doing so.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
But that is true, it's very unlikely I will be buying DA2 (but that's because I just don't like the sound of it in general) but I'm going to make sure that Bioware knows why I didn't.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Except that I know everything I dislike and "Here, don't have options you enjoyed from the first game" is right on top of the list? I mean, some things aren't knowable yet like what they've done to the combat. But some things are pretty obvious "Yes/No" choices here.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
You don't need to do so when its something as simple as "Does the game do this" or "Does the game not do this". I mean this is a pretty binary thing here because it either does or doesn't do it. Same with the dialogue. It either does or doesn't use an ME/AP like dialogue system. I have a good idea what these features are like from other games, I do not need to play DA2 to have a general idea of their faults and why I prefer how DA does things.
Most the time I you just end up being a virtual sociopath, saying exactly what I think the NPCs want me to say so that I get the party affinity bonuses, swank gear, and achievements. If I want to be "evil" I make sure to choose the "evil" big decisions, and if I want to be "good" I choose the opposite. (Though part of what made DA1 so refreshing was that these decisions, at least, weren't always very clear cut.)
When I play these games I don't ever have the illusion that I'm "role playing" my character -- at best I'm guiding a virtual action figure of my own design through a choose-your-own-adventure that's been dumbed down in the interests of letting me be "whoever I want."
I actually like it when WRPG developers opt for pre-fabricated PCs with developed characters and identities over giving me a semi-mute, player-designed empty vessel -- makes the story more interesting and the choices more relevant, in my opinion. But maybe that's just me...
there has been one game
one game
hardly a tradition
XBL: Torn Hoodie
@hoodiethirteen
It literally is that easy.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
For me it's the cheaper better Ultimate Edition after just 1 year.
Not funny how I bought DA O on release and one year later had to get it again for the Ultimate Edition.
Nah, for real, that is pretty shitty of them to do. Especially when they made the collector edition (or whatever they're calling it) the only one you can get.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
DA: Ultimate (including Awakenings): £24
It's really saying something when it would be cheaper to buy the entire game again than just the DLC on it's own.