202 réponses à ce sujet

[cJohnOne]

If I killed Zevran I wouldn't really care about the character one way or the other. So bringing him back shouldn't have much of an impact on the player really.

[Fallstar]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think it's interesting because the game player is still an observer to the story, and I think if Varric were to pop up again with a different protagonist, people would in general go "Oh yeah it's Varric!" But at the same time, you won't necessarily be able to talk with him about his past adventures like you were Hawke which could be jarring.

This is a really interesting discussion, and it's where the choice to have a unique protagonist for each DA installment differs quite greatly from ME (probably not in its favour, I'd think). 

As in, Shepard can inexplicably and implausibly run into, say, Garrus again in ME3 and players go "YAAAY" because there's a whole history and connection there. The beauty of the consistent protagonist is that we see character growth through the prism of dialogue and interaction, through (for example) a certain turian's change from C-Sec renegade to Batman-esque vigilante to war-weary general. 

But when Hawke meets Alistair, there's no familiarity. We're a Ferelden refugee-turned-Champion meeting a monarch for the very first time, talking about matters of state and weighty geopolitics (and swooping). Players have all these questions (how is Ferelden recovering from the Blight, how is the Warden, how is Anora) that we're prevented from asking by the change in protagonist and perspective. We know, with meta-knowledge, so much about the character that the protagonist doesn't, which isn't something that comes up with Shepard. For Hawke, Alistair is an important figure, but there's a certain distance to the interaction. (Don't even get me started on Zevran's cameo)

I suppose the counter-argument to that is that a new protagonist can allow us to see a character in a whole new light, but I'd tend to think players would always carry their former impressions with them despite the 'reality' of later games. (Look at the dissonance people found with Anders' characterisation from DA:A to DA2 - I don't agree with their reasoning, but it's an opinion that pops up fairly often). 

Whilst they have mentioned that the DA series is about letting you see the world and major events of the Dragon Age, what you mention with Alistair is the main reason I think Bioware should have stuck with the Warden as protagonist. In that whole conversation, the only thing that made me smile and think back to Origins was the swooping reference. Again, that was me though, Hawke had no connection with any of it. Equally when you meet Zevran and Leliana; I basically wanted to ask Leliana what the hell she was doing, but Hawke had no reason to. Whilst the route they've chosen to do has its advantages I'm sure, I can't help but think that having a constant protagonist would have been the better way to go. 

And as for bringing back Morrigan, good luck explaining away the Warden's absence. 

Modifié par DuskWarden, 13 juin 2012 - 04:58 .

[ElitePinecone]

cJohnOne wrote...

If I killed Zevran I wouldn't really care about the character one way or the other. So bringing him back shouldn't have much of an impact on the player really.

Hm, what about the people who just dislike assassins trying to kill them? Or who didn't have a high enough approval to convince him to join the Warden at Taliesin's ambush?

(Zev was my Warden's LI so I don't fall into that group, but there'd surely be a fair number who just killed the character point-blank. Perhaps more who even did so *because* he was an LI for the Warden, anecdotally.)

I think contradicting a player choice as large as sparing or saving a companion would get some sort of a reaction.