Scott Ryder 'BroRyder' (Official Thread)

I don't see the Dwarf situation as the same thing is happening. Renegade and Paragon are two very distinct personality types, and I would agree with you if I was forced into a gender who had one of the personalities I wanted to play. But that's not what's happening in this game. Scott and Sara have personalities, but as stated again and again, it will most likely just change the dialogue slightly. You want to play a "Paragon" Scott? Go ahead. Want to play a "Paragon" Sara? That's also possible. Bioware won't restrict THAT huge of a choice.

Honestly, I'm trying hard to understand your points here, but I just don't get it. From what I can gather, you want to play a blank slate character with total control over them? I'm not sure if it's just me, but that sounds a lot more like a Sandbox character, rather than an RPG character. Every RPG character has always had some set of parameters that we could not change, yet it doesn't bother many people.

And I agree with @daveliam. I suppose this change will not satisfy everyone, as you have made it clear, but it does make others happy. I'm sorry that this ruins your enjoyment of the game, but nothing is perfect, and Bioware cannot satisfy everyone.

Then you didn't answer my question. I wanted to know how this new style of theirs is objectively better for roleplaying. 
Your example is a false equivalent, since a game can have both those kinds of characters and yet cannot have both kinds of protagonist styles.

I know, I was merely using that as an example since that is what daveliam used as an example. That said, we are forced into having to play a certain sex if we want a certain personality or certain options. Bioware has stated this in their interview, and even when asked to clarify the devs said that while you'll still have many options, enough will be predetermined for each character so that they feel like different people. 

Yes, I want my character to be my character and not have things restricted just because I choose to play as someone who has a penis instead of a vagina and visa versa. No, I'm still wanting a RPG character. To give an example of a protagonist style I wish they had copied, literally Bioware's last protagonist the Inquisitor. 

I appreciate the sympathy you show at least. More often then not I'm told to pretty much shut up and get over it. 

It's not a vaguely worded announcement. It is an answer to an interview that was reinforced via Twitter when asked about it.
They are not two different PCs. Only one is ever a PC in any given playthrough, and as such that one should have the options of both. If they want them to be different as NPCs, that is fine and that would increase roleplaying and replayability(especially if the PC had all the options) but they extended this to the PC sibling as well. 

Actually you are 100% wrong.  You don't want them to be different PCs.  But they are.  It's how the devs have discussed it.  And that's why you are upset.  You can play as Scott OR as Sara.  They both already have predefined personalities and they react differently to situations.  They are different PCs.

Also, before you get snippy with me, you might want to go back and re-read what I wrote originally.  The word I used was "replayability".  You quoted me and asked me specifically what I thought about a different concept.

No, I am not. Bioware has as you pointed out said you play as Scott or Sarah, not Scott and Sarah. That means in any given playthrough, only one is a PC and the other is a NPC. If they say you play as Scott and Sarah, then both are PCs. PC = Player Character, as in a character the Player controls. NPC = Non-Player Character, as in a character the player doesn't control. 

Fair enough, I made a mistake there. I still disagree that this increases replayability any more than it increases roleplaying. 

What makes it objectively worse? I could come up with something, but at this point I'd just repeat what I said earlier, with you saying what you said earlier in an attempt to refute me. I doubt we'll come to an agreement about how both game becomes better or worse objectively over this.

I can see why you like the Inquisitor the best, however, there are things about them we still can't control. We can control some parts about their backstory, yes, but not all. I want to play a human rogue, but why must I be a NOBLE human rogue? Why can't I be a simple commoner? Why must my rogue be from the Free Marches? Why not Orlais? If I wanted to play a human mags, why must I be a simple member of the Circle? Why can't I be an apostate? 

Even the Inquisitor isn't exempt from being "restricted," in a sense. Yet we are still able to control most aspects about them. It never bothered me that I couldn't be any of those things, and I sill enjoyed role playing my Inquisitor the way I liked it, despite what was imposed on me.

Can Scott be your player character?  Can Sara be your player character?  If the answer is yes, then they are both PCs.  On any given playthrough, only one of them is the PC, but in MEA, both of them are a PC.

Using your logic, I can then say that Josephine isn't a LI because in my playthroughs she's an NPC.  So therefore, she's not an LI.  Sure, she's an option, but I never picked her so she's not an LI.  The same way that a Sara that you didn't pick isn't a PC according your logic.

That seems to be how you interpret what they said.  However, I've come to understand that you have a sort of niche view of how things out to be.  I say this because I don't see it expressed by many others, at least not on this forum.  If this forum is an indicator of that being true, you must realize that BioWare is going to cater to the larger majority more than a very small minority.  I wouldn't care for what you want and that seems to be true of many.  As I said previously, we have different concepts of what RP means and even if what you want is possible.  You love the Inquisitor but I found him very bland.  I don't want a blank slate character.

From Wikipedia:

"A role-playing game is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines."

If I'm interpreting the above correctly, I take on the role of a pre-defined character and respond using a structured decision-making process.  Sounds like what we're getting.

The first thing I see is "sort of".  That means it's generally the same but with variations for personality.

Any word if default Scott is customizable? We couldn't tweak default male and female Shepard. I like the way default Scott is I just want to give him a tan and darker hair to put on a more Hispanic look(like myself).

I believe they said that the default faces for the Ryder family are customizable, yes. 

I only wonder if they'll have wonky presets for Sis/Bro and Dad based on the preset you chose to modify (or use) for your Ryder or if they'll let you use the CC for each family member (that one, I doubt though). In DA2, I thought that 'having your family's appearance change to better match your choices' was a nice/neat idea until I accidentally got a Hawke I was happy with, but poor Bethany.   To prevent that, I'd like to see little preview thumbnails this time around as a kind of 'Heads up, moron! Don't use this face unless you're fine with your fam looking like this.'

Also excited for a possibly tweakable default. Always a little disappointing when there's just that one thing you'd like to adjust on that default face but it's all unique and untouchable.