Will Bioware bring playable races that doesn't look like colored humans?

[Dezzi]

Well, Erickson did quantify that discussion. Essentially, any species that Leia wouldn't kiss is out of the realm of possibilities for this game, but not BECAUSE of the romance option.

 

It all comes down to being able to relate to the character, and having one of those oddball species limits that. More specifically, the story is written from a human perspective. Assuming say, a wookie, is going to behave just like a human, is rather immersion breaking.

 

That's already been debunked as a thinly-veiled attempt to side-step the issue...

 

Toy Story, Wall-E, Land Before Time, Fievel Goes West, E.T., Free Willy, Flipper, and most cartoons all feature main characters that are non-humanoid, but audiences are perfectly able relate to them. Some of them went on to major acclaim and success despite featuring central characters who were non-humanoid (I'm looking at you Wall-E).

 

Why? Because people instinctively want to relate to things--they don't look for reasons not to relate to them. Take a rock and give it recognizable emotions, and people will relate to it. We don't relate to things because of their appearance, we relate to them because they exude human emotions.

 

There are plenty of people out there with extremely deforming disabilities like severe burns and amputations, but we still relate to them. This is because being a person (recognizable as having emotions and thoughts and sense of self) is more than just being a human (an animal body).

 

I know it's deep philosophical stuff, so maybe Mr. Erickson could use some time in a philosophy class...

Edited May 30, 2012 by Dezzi

[rickyard]

I'm talking about before Role-playing GAMES, which naturally leads to play-acting and so-on.

 

So whenever you want, this can't be compared to a role playing game (because it is a videogame) BUT

In your own words:

 

I argue that story is the most important thing in RPG's, wether its a video game or a tabletop

 

Now it IS a rpg, you like the story part, so it is a role playing game, but don't like the interaction part, so then it is not a role playing game.

 

True, a well defined story isn't the only way to give a sense of a narrative experience, but it's probably the best way. More specifically, that's the only way Bioware makes games.

 

That's why I complain, if you don't know how to make MMO's don't do them, keep on doing stories for other genres that need strong stories to have something ADDED to gameplay. I like stories in videogames, they add the needed depth, but every game has, BEFORE the story is added, a strong GAMEPLAY, that's why it is a game, not a movie. To add a great story to a Cod is a great idea, it adds depth, but in an MMO the DEPTH SHOULD BE THERE anyway. If ONLY the story gives depth, the rest of the gameplay and design is a failure (famous complaint that in swtor missions, no matter the story, the outcome is always kill X)

 

Heavy Rain is the oddball, in many ways. Most videogames, even other RPG's, do not give a great depth of options as to how the game ends or how the narrative moves.

 

So let's do the same, it is nice to do the same and not to have this options.

 

To imply that one game should do something because of what all the other games are doing is fallacy of mass appeal

Remember, Star Wars itself broke away from all of the normal conventions of cinema at the time.

 

Now is good not to do the same as others do.

 

Your changing world suits your needs.

 

Lets also keep in mind that while several games are trying to give players more customization, there are also just as many that are offering story into it. You'll be hard pressed to find a game that isn't a sim or a sports-game that doesn't have story in it.

 

Wasn't this the next evolution?? Now it IS different from others or the same as others today? don't understand.

 

On that same token, it isn't mandatory for a good story to be the species you want. It doesn't have to have the ending you want. The key to good storytelling is emotion and immersion, and in a videogame format, giving characters voice is key.

 

So in your own words, (just a couple lines before):

You'll be hard pressed to find a game that isn't a sim or a sports-game that doesn't have story in it

Of course games need stories because today there is enough techonology to offer an added thing to a GREAT gameplay, BUT NOBODY would say that i am buying a CoD game because the story is great (althought it IS), or the next Assassin's creed because the story is great (althought it IS TOO). Because having a great story is nice but doesn't allow the designers to be negligent in other aspects. You can say that story is the most important in titles like Heavy Rain, that YOU have clearly stated that ARE NOT MMO's When i see a racing videogame review I care about graphics and colisions and sense of speed, when the game is an adventure i care about story, such as UNCHARTED, (BUT GAMEPLAY is MOSTLY IMPORTANT TOO), when the game is an strategic wargame i care about diversity of units and historical accuracy, when the game is a shooter i care about gameplay, graphics, different weapons and online options and maps, and when the game is an MMO i care about differents classes, world development and customization. In all af them i want good stories, if it is possible, but other aspects are DEFINITIVE.

 

Your character does develop. The Seargent quickly ascends the ranks of the Republic Military. The former slave becomes a Sith Lord. The padawan becomes a Jedi Master.

You gain new abilities, you learn new talents, you gain new companions. Things do progress.

If you're looking at being unique, we've been over this at nauseum. Nothing that is mass-produced and mass consumed will allow the individual user to be different from the others.

 

I agree, the only think i writed in capitals was that i wanted it to be MY character, and to make it MINE i need to choose it and customize it. But devs think that the most important way of making it MINE is that he's not a wookie. Yes, definitely everyone knows that if you want a player to like a character, you have to prevent the player from having more options.

 

nearly all AAA MMO's being made are like this. Creating a "living" world is probably the most difficult thing you could do in an online enviornment.

 

Can't you see? whenever something is bad you say it is equally bad in other games (do I have to care? it's an excuse?) or if it is different, you say it is not bad because it is different and "dude, at least they tried". Things can be the same or different but this doesn't mean are GOOD or BAD. Dark forces was the same as DOOM, but it was good. And Star wars galaxies was very different to everything and you are saying it was bad.

 

Doing it in a game like Skyrim is compartivly easier because the game only has to worry about interaction from one variable, the end player.

 

And so it was very difficult to do it in galaxies, and althought you can argue they failed in other aspects, they did it perfectly in the environment and immersion feeling. Yes, they did it. And it didn't have to look "full" as Assassin's creed, (of course it is not an MMO, so you don't have to "draw" hundreds of real players) I don't need a feeling of a "filled" wordl, i want an INTERACTIVE world, a PERSISTENT world. Then why do we pay a server????????

 

Last I checked Monkey Island is not an MMO series. The fact that they brought it to this genre of gameplay is rather groundbreaking, wether you like it or not.

 

Again let's be different, it'll be enough, but...

 

I think trying to be completly different from WoW is a tall order, considering most MMO's use the same control/ability setup that WoW uses.

 

...doesn't matter if we copy the rest, we have been different in ONE aspect and that's enough.

 

Blizzard's design method is look at what other companies do and take the best pieces from each and put them together. By doing so, trying to do something that is completly different from Blizzard is nigh impossible.

 

Blizzard did the game before, so you can't say they copied because there is no other way to do things rather than adding a voice. If you can't make it different enough, don't do it, the original already exist. And swtor is about having the best from blizzard (if it is the gameplay i'd say the WORST), and adding stories, so the best from... sorry... the best from EVERY GAME TODAY in your own words:

 

You'll be hard pressed to find a game that isn't a sim or a sports-game that doesn't have story in it

 

 

No, I don't think adding voice and story has made people "blind". I do think though that its enough of a difference to most players to be worth playing.

 

Got to say perhaps i am not as most players, i know. but if you are suggesting than most players ONLY play this game because they like the story... well, then the game is ended about two weaks after beginning... and people play faster than stories and voices are done, so it'll be constantly finished... so waiting for new stories will be boring. I hope they add other thing rather than stories, (and so they are doing). in 1.3 there is no new content... why do it then? Some improvements? why? it is perfect, isn't it? As long as i hear a story i don't mind the repetitive gameplay, the lack of options, the bugs, the errors... nope, the story is nice, got enough for an AAA Videogame.

 

What other MMO has the story options that The Old Republic does? none, and that's enough to stand out in the market.

 

Sure some dev would have a heartache hearing that all that matters in this game is voice acting or story. Do you read the forums? you see what the rest of people is complaining about? You live in Taris or in Earth?

 

Oh yes, lets take ideas from one of the biggest critical and commercial flops that ever graced the MMO genre. Lets take ideas from a game that had to constantly try to reinvent itself to stay solvent...

If you want Galaxies, go play it.

 

I can't, but i assure you i would prefer to. Substitute contemplative story not related to gameplay for immersive sandbox that allows you to progress without a dev having to invent content? SURE

 

You're right, I probably would enjoy those games. I enjoy this game too, so I'm going to continue to play it and continue to ask that it stay the way it is.

 

Be careful, they may add anything (as it is an mmo) rather than another story and then you will not like the changes. Every person saying the game is nice this way is a "little offer" for the devs to not to have to improve.

 

If the game is so great, than go ahead and play that and save your breath.

 

Again I can't, but i swear it was much better than playing Grand Turismo. At least your car could be destroyed.

Edited May 30, 2012 by rickyard

[Comstrike]

That's already been debunked as a thinly-veiled attempt to side-step the issue...

 

Toy Story, Wall-E, Land Before Time, Fievel Goes West, E.T., Free Willy, Flipper, and most cartoons all feature main characters that are non-humanoid, but audiences are perfectly able relate to them. Some of them went on to major acclaim and success despite featuring central characters who were non-humanoid (I'm looking at you Wall-E).

 

Why? Because people instinctively want to relate to things--they don't look for reasons not to relate to them. Take a rock and give it recognizable emotions, and people will relate to it. We don't relate to things because of their appearance, we relate to them because they exude human emotions.

 

There are plenty of people out there with extremely deforming disabilities like severe burns and amputations, but we still relate to them. This is because being a person (recognizable as having emotions and thoughts and sense of self) is more than just being a human (an animal body).

 

I know it's deep philosophical stuff, so maybe Mr. Erickson could use some time in a philosophy class...

 

I still think part of the problem is to great a focus on these single character stories. When Bioware said they were "finally" make an MMO with "story," I honestly thought it was just PR hype. But I thought at most it was just going to be a great background story, into which we insert our characters. However, it seems that "story based MMO" meant that they craft basically single-player RPG stories, and make us play through them. Our characters are not really ours, as much as different versions of the same thing. That was very much out of step with what I've learned to look for, expect, and enjoy about MMORPGs. I think a lot of people were more interested, and expecting, to see a lot of general content, and more ability to define in look, feel, who and what you are. Not simply be the same slave on Koribban, or the super Padawan on Tython.

[Sarfux]

So whenever you want, this can't be compared to a role playing game (because it is a videogame) BUT

In your own words:

 

I argue that story is the most important thing in RPG's, wether its a video game or a tabletop

 

Now it IS a rpg, you like the story part, so it is a role playing game, but don't like the interaction part, so then it is not a role playing game.

 

 

 

That's why I complain, if you don't know how to make MMO's don't do them, keep on doing stories for other genres that need strong stories to have something ADDED to gameplay. I like stories in videogames, they add the needed depth, but every game has, BEFORE the story is added, a strong GAMEPLAY, that's why it is a game, not a movie. To add a great story to a Cod is a great idea, it adds depth, but in an MMO the DEPTH SHOULD BE THERE anyway. If ONLY the story gives depth, the rest of the gameplay and design is a failure (famous complaint that in swtor missions, no matter the story, the outcome is always kill X)

 

 

 

So let's do the same, it is nice to do the same and not to have this options.

 

 

 

Now is good not to do the same as others do.

 

Your changing world suits your needs.

 

 

 

Wasn't this the next evolution?? Now it IS different from others or the same as others today? don't understand.

 

 

 

So in your own words, (just a couple lines before):

You'll be hard pressed to find a game that isn't a sim or a sports-game that doesn't have story in it

Of course games need stories because today there is enough techonology to offer an added thing to a GREAT gameplay, BUT NOBODY would say that i am buying a CoD game because the story is great (althought it IS), or the next Assassin's creed because the story is great (althought it IS TOO). Because having a great story is nice but doesn't allow the designers to be negligent in other aspects. You can say that story is the most important in titles like Heavy Rain, that YOU have clearly stated that ARE NOT MMO's When i see a racing videogame review I care about graphics and colisions and sense of speed, when the game is an adventure i care about story, such as UNCHARTED, (BUT GAMEPLAY is MOSTLY IMPORTANT TOO), when the game is an strategic wargame i care about diversity of units and historical accuracy, when the game is a shooter i care about gameplay, graphics, different weapons and online options and maps, and when the game is an MMO i care about differents classes, world development and customization. In all af them i want good stories, if it is possible, but other aspects are DEFINITIVE.

 

 

 

I agree, the only think i writed in capitals was that i wanted it to be MY character, and to make it MINE i need to choose it and customize it. But devs think that the most important way of making it MINE is that he's not a wookie. Yes, definitely everyone knows that if you want a player to like a character, you have to prevent the player from having more options.

 

 

 

Can't you see? whenever something is bad you say it is equally bad in other games (do I have to care? it's an excuse?) or if it is different, you say it is not bad because it is different and "dude, at least they tried". Things can be the same or different but this doesn't mean are GOOD or BAD. Dark forces was the same as DOOM, but it was good. And Star wars galaxies was very different to everything and you are saying it was bad.

 

 

 

And so it was very difficult to do it in galaxies, and althought you can argue they failed in other aspects, they did it perfectly in the environment and immersion feeling. Yes, they did it. And it didn't have to look "full" as Assassin's creed, (of course it is not an MMO, so you don't have to "draw" hundreds of real players) I don't need a feeling of a "filled" wordl, i want an INTERACTIVE world, a PERSISTENT world. Then why do we pay a server????????

 

 

 

Again let's be different, it'll be enough, but...

 

 

 

...doesn't matter if we copy the rest, we have been different in ONE aspect and that's enough.

 

 

 

Blizzard did the game before, so you can't say they copied because there is no other way to do things rather than adding a voice. If you can't make it different enough, don't do it, the original already exist. And swtor is about having the best from blizzard (if it is the gameplay i'd say the WORST), and adding stories, so the best from... sorry... the best from EVERY GAME TODAY in your own words:

 

You'll be hard pressed to find a game that isn't a sim or a sports-game that doesn't have story in it

 

 

 

 

Got to say perhaps i am not as most players, i know. but if you are suggesting than most players ONLY play this game because they like the story... well, then the game is ended about two weaks after beginning... and people play faster than stories and voices are done, so it'll be constantly finished... so waiting for new stories will be boring. I hope they add other thing rather than stories, (and so they are doing). in 1.3 there is no new content... why do it then? Some improvements? why? it is perfect, isn't it? As long as i hear a story i don't mind the repetitive gameplay, the lack of options, the bugs, the errors... nope, the story is nice, got enough for an AAA Videogame.

 

 

 

Sure some dev would have a heartache hearing that all that matters in this game is voice acting or story. Do you read the forums? you see what the rest of people is complaining about? You live in Taris or in Earth?

 

 

 

I can't, but i assure you i would prefer to. Substitute contemplative story not related to gameplay for immersive sandbox that allows you to progress without a dev having to invent content? SURE

 

 

 

Be careful, they may add anything (as it is an mmo) rather than another story and then you will not like the changes. Every person saying the game is nice this way is a "little offer" for the devs to not to have to improve.

 

 

 

Again I can't, but i swear it was much better than playing Grand Turismo. At least your car could be destroyed.

 

 

it seems like you DISlike the game more than like it and find all the negatives...why are you here then? *raises eyebrow*

[Sarfux]

dude..unless you want something like a floating brain or eyeballs..you are going to get humanoids...hehe that's what the galaxy is made up of mostly. alien humanoids

[Valk_Kan]

haha, we were talking about this all the way back in Beta. Not very "Star Wars" to have almost all playable characters as humanoid. I know there are a good amount of races out there that people would just LOVE to play as.

[Darth_Halford]

That's already been debunked as a thinly-veiled attempt to side-step the issue...

 

Toy Story, Wall-E, Land Before Time, Fievel Goes West, E.T., Free Willy, Flipper, and most cartoons all feature main characters that are non-humanoid, but audiences are perfectly able relate to them. Some of them went on to major acclaim and success despite featuring central characters who were non-humanoid (I'm looking at you Wall-E).

 

Why? Because people instinctively want to relate to things--they don't look for reasons not to relate to them. Take a rock and give it recognizable emotions, and people will relate to it. We don't relate to things because of their appearance, we relate to them because they exude human emotions.

 

There are plenty of people out there with extremely deforming disabilities like severe burns and amputations, but we still relate to them. This is because being a person (recognizable as having emotions and thoughts and sense of self) is more than just being a human (an animal body).

 

I know it's deep philosophical stuff, so maybe Mr. Erickson could use some time in a philosophy class...

 

There's also a big jump from being an observer (watching the movie) to being the actor (playing the game): suddenly relating to the character is alot more vital.

 

It should also be noted that in all of those cases, the non-humanoid characters are given a great deal of humanity, especially the cartoons. They don't portray dinosaurs, mice, or toys, as they truly are, for Flipper/Free Willy, the animals are trained and filmed to display "human" emotion so that the viewer has the feeling that they understand the creature. They are all reflections of self, just like the player characters in The Old Republic.

[Ngamok]

They had a poll via Twitter and a forum thread here that asked people which species they'd like to see next. So whatever the popular choice is, we'll see.

[wutru]

I am mostly amazed, as i have seen a PCGame interview where our God James Ohlen tells us that they were looking for any possibility to do ANY roleplaying game that involved story, imcluding a Game of Thrones mmo. They only minded about this aspect, to sell to any company their great idea of doing an mmo with story, so they of course didn't give ANY importance to the setting. In his own words:

 

In those early stages, a compelling narrative was more important than the setting. “When we were first were deciding on what kind of game we were going to build, I really wanted to do a story-based massively multiplayer game because hey, it hadn’t been done before,” Ohlen said. “I thought: hey, good way to innovate – that’s what Bioware stands for and that’s what we’re good at.”

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/12/21/star-wars-the-old-republic-could-have-been-a-game-of-thrones-mmo/

 

That's the result, a videogame that could PERFECTLY fit in ANY environment, galaxy, fantasy realm or whatever. They bought star wars as if they could have bought Ghostbusters, nevermind if the idea FITS the universe you are working in, it was just a matter of ADAPTING the MMO to what they wanted to do, create stories, not character design or balancing or any of the considerations than ANY company could look for when doing a product SO different from the ones they are used to do. So imo that's why there are no aliens, or starships, or anything that you could find in Game Of Thrones environment, they don't care, just want to write stories. NO word about other aspects in interview. By the way, i can ALSO invent everyday a story about someone that needs your help and so you have to kill X... I would have liked to see how they could have pretended to write stories about game of thrones and don't look like children inventing tales in comparison to George R.R. Martin.

 

Thank goodness they didn't ruin Game of Thrones or Lotr IP. Oh wait, those two were already ruined by other devs. sigh.

[Darth_Halford]

That's why I complain, if you don't know how to make MMO's don't do them, keep on doing stories for other genres that need strong stories to have something ADDED to gameplay. I like stories in videogames, they add the needed depth, but every game has, BEFORE the story is added, a strong GAMEPLAY, that's why it is a game, not a movie. To add a great story to a Cod is a great idea, it adds depth, but in an MMO the DEPTH SHOULD BE THERE anyway. If ONLY the story gives depth, the rest of the gameplay and design is a failure (famous complaint that in swtor missions, no matter the story, the outcome is always kill X)

I'm starting to get the impression that Galaxies is the only MMO you ever played before this.

There's a difference between "gameplay that is deep" and "gameplay that I enjoy".

The gameplay is there, I think. Sure, it may not be the most new or exciting mechanics involved, but it's solid and does try interesting things (First game with a ranged tank, as an example)

 

 

 

So in your own words, (just a couple lines before):

You'll be hard pressed to find a game that isn't a sim or a sports-game that doesn't have story in it

Of course games need stories because today there is enough techonology to offer an added thing to a GREAT gameplay, BUT NOBODY would say that i am buying a CoD game because the story is great (althought it IS), or the next Assassin's creed because the story is great (althought it IS TOO). Because having a great story is nice but doesn't allow the designers to be negligent in other aspects. You can say that story is the most important in titles like Heavy Rain, that YOU have clearly stated that ARE NOT MMO's When i see a racing videogame review I care about graphics and colisions and sense of speed, when the game is an adventure i care about story, such as UNCHARTED, (BUT GAMEPLAY is MOSTLY IMPORTANT TOO), when the game is an strategic wargame i care about diversity of units and historical accuracy, when the game is a shooter i care about gameplay, graphics, different weapons and online options and maps, and when the game is an MMO i care about differents classes, world development and customization. In all af them i want good stories, if it is possible, but other aspects are DEFINITIVE.

So you knew what you cared about in an MMO, you knew this game had none of it, you bought it anyways, and than have the audacity to complain...

 

 

I agree, the only think i writed in capitals was that i wanted it to be MY character, and to make it MINE i need to choose it and customize it. But devs think that the most important way of making it MINE is that he's not a wookie. Yes, definitely everyone knows that if you want a player to like a character, you have to prevent the player from having more options.

We've been over this mate. There is no way in a mass-consumed product to be unique in any fashion. I don't know why you still hold onto this fantasy that "Just maybe, If I could only have a wookie, than just maybe I can be special...I could be a contender, instead of a nobody which is what I am"

 

 

 

Can't you see? whenever something is bad you say it is equally bad in other games (do I have to care? it's an excuse?) or if it is different, you say it is not bad because it is different and "dude, at least they tried". Things can be the same or different but this doesn't mean are GOOD or BAD. Dark forces was the same as DOOM, but it was good. And Star wars galaxies was very different to everything and you are saying it was bad.

Yes, but Galaxies wasn't bad because it was different. Galaxies was bad because of how poorly it was viewed by critics and the general gaming public.

Sure, it may have had a small cult-like following among its subscriber-base, but the majority of gamers (even other MMO players) looked at it akin to some sort of cross-eyed curiosity.

 

 

 

And so it was very difficult to do it in galaxies, and althought you can argue they failed in other aspects, they did it perfectly in the environment and immersion feeling. Yes, they did it. And it didn't have to look "full" as Assassin's creed, (of course it is not an MMO, so you don't have to "draw" hundreds of real players) I don't need a feeling of a "filled" wordl, i want an INTERACTIVE world, a PERSISTENT world. Then why do we pay a server????????

To do the thing that is truly key in an MMO, which is not to interact with a dynamic and persistent world, there are single player games that do that, but to interact with other players in the same environment at the same time in a world that is always "on" and always moving.

 

...doesn't matter if we copy the rest, we have been different in ONE aspect and that's enough.

if the aspect is big enough, yes that is true.

 

 

You'll be hard pressed to find a game that isn't a sim or a sports-game that doesn't have story in it

True, WoW and other MMO's have "story" in it, in that that there's a text-block describing the quest that someone wants you to do and off you go. There is no real narrative to anything, just a sprinkling of self-contained missions in a given area.

 

Got to say perhaps i am not as most players, i know. but if you are suggesting than most players ONLY play this game because they like the story... well, then the game is ended about two weaks after beginning... and people play faster than stories and voices are done, so it'll be constantly finished... so waiting for new stories will be boring. I hope they add other thing rather than stories, (and so they are doing). in 1.3 there is no new content... why do it then? Some improvements? why? it is perfect, isn't it? As long as i hear a story i don't mind the repetitive gameplay, the lack of options, the bugs, the errors... nope, the story is nice, got enough for an AAA Videogame.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all, and I don't see how you possibly thought that I did. What I am saying, and have already said, is that Story has always been the first and foremost priority in any game that Bioware has ever made, and that bringing "The Bioware story" to the MMO environment will be enough to seperate itself from the rest of the genre and help it compete against the other big name games.

[rickyard]

it seems like you DISlike the game more than like it and find all the negatives...why are you here then? *raises eyebrow*

 

Don't worry, next month I won't be in the game, but as i already paid, got the right to say what i have found disapointing in the videogame. What i wonder is... what are YOU doing? Defending the videogame? i suposed there are devs for this, players that are happy don't have nothing to complain, so i don't understand. I got something to complain, so i come here, and explain it. I'd like to have aliens that were not just coloured humans. You still want aliens that are coloured humans, YOU GOT IT... what's the problem with me asking for MORE OPTIONS?

 

if it wasn't for people that complain, you wouldn't have a LFG tool in next update, and if the devs have thought it is a good idea and develope it is because in fact, the complainers were RIGHT. The same can be said about having sprint since level 1. People like you, that constantly find excuses to say "everything is ok" please don't touch it are not good for improvement. And an MMO NEEDS constant improvement. I know they are not going to design EXACTLY what I want but if they want to do something new to the game and listen to complainers, perhaps finally they decide to include something that a ot of people talk about. if i say that i'd like my character to own pink pandas sure everyone would laugh and say i am trolling, but i think that what we suggest ( a lot of people suggest) things that would be nice.

[Hawr]

rickyard above have a point in some arguments.

 

It should be great play with species even that we already have see in the game such togruta, kel dor, etc. But they dont even have fixed all the problems of the origianl lauching species.....imagine how possibly will be problems with headgears with togrutas, for instance. The DV barely could solve problem with the tiny tentacles in the Sith PB headgears....imagine the huge horns.........

[Sarfux]

Don't worry, next month I won't be in the game, but as i already paid, got the right to say what i have found disapointing in the videogame. What i wonder is... what are YOU doing? Defending the videogame? i suposed there are devs for this, players that are happy don't have nothing to complain, so i don't understand. I got something to complain, so i come here, and explain it. I'd like to have aliens that were not just coloured humans. You still want aliens that are coloured humans, YOU GOT IT... what's the problem with me asking for MORE OPTIONS?

 

if it wasn't for people that complain, you wouldn't have a LFG tool in next update, and if the devs have thought it is a good idea and develope it is because in fact, the complainers were RIGHT. The same can be said about having sprint since level 1. People like you, that constantly find excuses to say "everything is ok" please don't touch it are not good for improvement. And an MMO NEEDS constant improvement. I know they are not going to design EXACTLY what I want but if they want to do something new to the game and listen to complainers, perhaps finally they decide to include something that a ot of people talk about. if i say that i'd like my character to own pink pandas sure everyone would laugh and say i am trolling, but i think that what we suggest ( a lot of people suggest) things that would be nice.

immaturity at it's highest...

 

staying at a thing you HATE ...JUST to try and prove ...something

[Limedust]

immaturity at it's highest...

 

staying at a thing you HATE ...JUST to try and prove ...something

 

Learn to read.

[Dezzi]

There's also a big jump from being an observer (watching the movie) to being the actor (playing the game): suddenly relating to the character is alot more vital.

 

It should also be noted that in all of those cases, the non-humanoid characters are given a great deal of humanity, especially the cartoons. They don't portray dinosaurs, mice, or toys, as they truly are, for Flipper/Free Willy, the animals are trained and filmed to display "human" emotion so that the viewer has the feeling that they understand the creature. They are all reflections of self, just like the player characters in The Old Republic.

 

Are you saying the more alien characters in Star Wars don't portray human emotions? I can't think of any that don't. Even Salacious Crumb was distinctly "human."

 

Remember, there's a difference between being a person and being a human. Persons are characterized as having emotions, thoughts, dreams, opinions, consciousness of self, etc. A human is just an animal body. Without getting too deep into the debate (personal identity and animalism), here's a couple of questions to consider:

 

Are all humans persons?

 

Can animals other than humans be persons?

 

I'm of the mind that no, not all humans are persons (vegetative states and comas) and that yes, animals other than humans can be persons. My pets are an important part of my family with very distinct personalities; they're persons in my book.

 

What's the point of all this? It demonstrates that the characters in Star Wars--humanoid and non-humanoid alike--can be relatable. My earlier post posits that people don't need or rely on a characters appearance when trying to relate to them. By ascribing recognizably-human traits to anything (a rock, a blade of grass, a tree, the moon...), people can find something to relate to.

 

It's a patently false argument by Mr. Erickson to say that people can't relate to non-humanoid characters when it's been so prolifically demonstrated that people do relate to them--including in video games. Yoshi? GLaDOS? HK-47?

Edited May 31, 2012 by Dezzi

[Darth_Halford]

Are you saying the more alien characters in Star Wars don't portray human emotions? I can't think of any that don't. Even Salacious Crumb was distinctly "human."

certain things are probably left up to the imagination. Having no outside refrence (EU), I have no relatable positions to most of the aliens that appear. Can you relate to any of the aliens in the cantina scene? I can't.

In some cases its even worse once you delve into the EU. Ithorians are super-pacifist tree-huggers that rather live on herd ships rather than "destroy" their home planet?

Not only do I not have anything to relate to that mindset, there is no way that any of those behavior and culture norms fit inside the class stories that are currently present.

 

Remember, there's a difference between being a person and being a human. Persons are characterized as having emotions, thoughts, dreams, opinions, consciousness of self, etc. A human is just an animal body. Without getting too deep into the debate (personal identity and animalism), here's a couple of questions to consider:

 

Are all humans persons?

 

Can animals other than humans be persons?

 

I'm of the mind that no, not all humans are persons (vegetative states and comas) and that yes, animals other than humans can be persons. My pets are an important part of my family with very distinct personalities; they're persons in my book.

I tend to be the opinion that law is a good view on the culture and morality of a group. That I'm aware of, no country views animals as a person. I as well don't think that animals count as a person, mostly because most do not have the awareness of self. A person will look in the mirror and recognize that it's a reflection of them. Most animals look at the mirror and think it's another animal.

 

What's the point of all this? It demonstrates that the characters in Star Wars--humanoid and non-humanoid alike--can be relatable. My earlier post posits that people don't need or rely on a characters appearance when trying to relate to them. By ascribing recognizably-human traits to anything (a rock, a blade of grass, a tree, the moon...), people can find something to relate to.

I may imagine that I can relate to a Russian Boatwsain's Mate because we're both Navy men, but can I really? In all probability, no. Language barrier, conscript v. voluntarily. Deckhand v. Intelligence Specialist, etc.

My overall point: there are alot of people I can't relate to just being on the same planet: do we really want to factor an entire galaxy into the mix?

 

It's a patently false argument by Mr. Erickson to say that people can't relate to non-humanoid characters when it's been so prolifically demonstrated that people do relate to them--including in video games. Yoshi? GLaDOS? HK-47?

I think there's a difference between enjoying a character and relating to them. The last game I played that had Yoshi in it as central to the game was Yoshi's story on the N64. I don't remember relating to the dino's any more than I could relate to a stray cat, but I remember enjoying the game because of how they acted and sounded. It was the last game to hit the "cute" nerves on an adoscelant boy before quickly descending into heavy metal and action-oriented games.GlaDOS, while admittedly a good character, I never had any sympathetic or relating feelings. I was being toyed with the entire time by this artificial monstrosity who took joy and delight in watching me play her little mind-games while also trying to kill me. I don't know if you ever tried to set one of your pets on fire or something as a kid, but that's the only way I can imagine relating to that evil, maniacal, mechanical nightmare.

HK-47 is probably the most relatable but for all the wrong reasons. He's pure sadistic "id", taking great delight in killing anyone who may have possibly slighted against him, his master, and even random innocents (2% Chance the miniature organic is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted...That may be wishful thinking on my part Master). HK-47, and droids in general, hit the unfortunate snag in that that they can be easily reprogrammed to become a new person (if you never saw it in-game, look up the HK-47 pacifist chip).

[Izorii]

Seems that a lot of posts are off topic. However I am hoping that Bioware will introduce non coloured humans as playable. I doubt we will see anything that does not have a human body but there are so many options avaliable and so many people have wanted them.

 

For people who dont think they can releate to an alien, or think alien / human fade to black scenes are disgusting just dont play an alien. As for the graphics my Jedi Knight cleary has a very bad idea on romance because he has failed to actual kill Keria once he just sticks his head within a foot of hers.

[Darth_Halford]

For people who dont think they can releate to an alien, or think alien / human fade to black scenes are disgusting just dont play an alien.

 

Unfortunatly it doesn't work that simply. You think Bioware's going to put up a warning any time you choose a non-human that says "Note: you cannot romance with this character?". That's nonsense and we both know it.

 

Like it or hate it, all players and characters have to have the opportunity for the same experiences, because somebody somewhere is going to want that. Down the road, there will inevitably be an Ithorian Sith Warrior who wants to be able to romance his companions.

[Darth_Victus]

Regardless of what species they make playable next, some are always going to say its still a human with this or that.

 

Personally, I am thinking Cathar will be playable soon.

[Holden_Dissent]

I want a little blue elephant guy. So I can play the piano

[Bluerodian]

Unfortunatly it doesn't work that simply. You think Bioware's going to put up a warning any time you choose a non-human that says "Note: you cannot romance with this character?". That's nonsense and we both know it.

 

Like it or hate it, all players and characters have to have the opportunity for the same experiences, because somebody somewhere is going to want that. Down the road, there will inevitably be an Ithorian Sith Warrior who wants to be able to romance his companions.

 

And there's a problem here somewhere? Think outside the box. When playing this game, don't look at yourself as "Human number 6 billion from some place like New Jersey". Look at yourself as an individual within the Star Wars universe and think in that manner. Those weird alien species become considerably less weird when you consider that they have been coexisting in the republic for thousands of years. Also accept that, like humans, aliens varied in demeanor and outlook. An Ithorian Sith Warrior, while rare, would not be unheard of.

 

As for romance, so what? As I said, they would be varied in demeanor and outlook. Again given that these species have been coexisting for thousands of years, inter-species romance is bound to happen sooner or later, and does happen in other areas of lore, (Corran Horn having some good times with a Selonian friend of his, Gavin Darklighter in a long-term relationship with a Bothan).

 

Now as for playing as one of these species, again...where's the problem? Mentally speaking, they are not that different from humans. The same basic drives and motivations with only cultural differences such as a Trandoshan's need to gather Jagganath points or a Rodian's emphasis on clan warfare, things that already have similar examples in past human culture.

 

That said, I do personally believe Bioware is overthinking these various species. They would not need a highly customized story, but rather just a dialog line here or there within the existing stories.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Bluerodian

[Darth_Halford]

And there's a problem here somewhere? Think outside the box. When playing this game, don't look at yourself as "Human number 6 billion from some place like New Jersey". Look at yourself as an individual within the Star Wars universe and think in that manner. Those weird alien species become considerably less weird when you consider that they have been coexisting in the republic for thousands of years. Also accept that, like humans, aliens varied in demeanor and outlook. An Ithorian Sith Warrior, while rare, would not be unheard of.

While true, I think it would be a lie to think that all species treat all the other species the same. I know I don't think of or treat everyone I meet in a day the same way, and (like it or not) alot of that is based on first appearances and nothing more.

Is a trandoshan going to follow around a Wookie Jedi Consular? Incredibly unlikely considering they see the wookies as ideal targets for slaves.

Are Cathar going to be bounty hunters or associate with Mandalorians? even less likely considering that's how they lost their home.

 

 

Now as for playing as one of these species, again...where's the problem? Mentally speaking, they are not that different from humans. The same basic drives and motivations with only cultural differences such as a Trandoshan's need to gather Jagganath points or a Rodian's emphasis on clan warfare, things that already have similar examples in past human culture.

True, but many do conflict with the core stories of the classes. Ithorians being super-pacifists aren't going to be part of any story without a great deal of explination. Kel Dor, being prime stewards of the law and order, are not going to be Smugglers. Zeltrons, being highly hedonistic, are not the kind to be easily accepting of the ways in the Jedi Order.

Etc etc.

 

That said, I do personally believe Bioware is overthinking these various species. They would not need a highly customized story, but rather just a dialog line here or there within the existing stories.

I think it would need to be more than "here or there". I would hope so, at least. If I pick something different, I want to feel like that difference effects something more than the occasional talk.

[Bluerodian]

While true, I think it would be a lie to think that all species treat all the other species the same. I know I don't think of or treat everyone I meet in a day the same way, and (like it or not) alot of that is based on first appearances and nothing more.

Is a trandoshan going to follow around a Wookie Jedi Consular? Incredibly unlikely considering they see the wookies as ideal targets for slaves.

Are Cathar going to be bounty hunters or associate with Mandalorians? even less likely considering that's how they lost their home.

 

 

True, but many do conflict with the core stories of the classes. Ithorians being super-pacifists aren't going to be part of any story without a great deal of explination. Kel Dor, being prime stewards of the law and order, are not going to be Smugglers. Zeltrons, being highly hedonistic, are not the kind to be easily accepting of the ways in the Jedi Order.

Etc etc.

 

 

I think it would need to be more than "here or there". I would hope so, at least. If I pick something different, I want to feel like that difference effects something more than the occasional talk.

 

As I said before. These species are as varied as any human. Just because most of the Kel-Dor are really in to law and order or Ithorians are pacifists doesn't mean all of them are. For every rule, there is an exception and what are the main characters in TOR if not exceptional?

 

Even under the right circumstances, a Wookie could have a Doshan companion.

[Darth_Halford]

As I said before. These species are as varied as any human. Just because most of the Kel-Dor are really in to law and order or Ithorians are pacifists doesn't mean all of them are. For every rule, there is an exception and what are the main characters in TOR if not exceptional?

 

Even under the right circumstances, a Wookie could have a Doshan companion.

 

Can it really be an exception to the rule when there's so many?

 

Let's assume even distribution of all species/classes. 25% of all characters are bounty hunters, and of those, another 20% are Ithorian (if given the option)

 

Given a million players with only one character, that makes 50,000 Ithorian Bounty Hunters. That sounds less like an exception and more like a norm to me.

[Bluerodian]

Can it really be an exception to the rule when there's so many?

 

Let's assume even distribution of all species/classes. 25% of all characters are bounty hunters, and of those, another 20% are Ithorian (if given the option)

 

Given a million players with only one character, that makes 50,000 Ithorian Bounty Hunters. That sounds less like an exception and more like a norm to me.

 

Just like every BH is winner of the great hunt and every Sith Warrior is a member of the Dark Council?

 

From a logistical point you are right, but from a story point it makes about as much sense as the above I already stated. Exceptions have already been made for classes. Might as well make them for species as well.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Bluerodian