114 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

Great post OP.

I also feel that that Hawke was, according to the ads, supposed to rise to power. That is the other crucial time element which never materialized either, because he/she was always treated as a delivery boy/girl and was never able to be pro-active. The lack of real options, the missing recognition of class and mage/templar side, the railroaded story telling and the artificial way the dialogue system worked, caused that most of Hawke's dialogue lines were rationalizations to keep the story on track.

The above and the point you made further alienated me from caring enough about Hawke and anyone else in the game.

[fchopin]

Great idea for the beginning op, it would have made me like the game more and also care more for Hawke and the family, it would also have helped if the first year that we had to work for thugs was shown a little as it would have helped with the struggle to survive and make money.

The only problem is it would have taken an extra year to make and Bioware was not prepared in spending time for a better beginning or a better end.

[TEWR]

Amycus89 wrote...

Only problem would be to think of something for the rogue to do, instead of having exactly the same origin as a warrior if a mage had their own unique beginning...

First, at the bottom of the previous page I posted my idea from long ago for how it could've played out.

Second: Recon mission/trying to get Chasind barbarians to fight in the battle.

I'm too tired to really give it a full post, and really 2 Origin stories was all that was needed -- Mage and non-Mage. But anyway, meh.

[magodesky]

OP - The alternate introduction you propose sounds like something I would have hated.  You're talking about frontloading the game with at least a good 1-2 hours of superfluous content that frankly, would have seemed like pure fan service.  Setting aside the issue that mage Hawke didn't fight at Ostagar, thus forcing the developers to put together a second equally unnecessary beginning for that particular class, there's absolutely no reason to rehash the events of Ostagar.  I already played the Battle of Ostagar in Origins.  Then I went back to Ostagar for a stroll down memory lane in the Return to Ostagar DLC.  Why would I want to play through it yet again as Hawke?  Ostagar is only relevant to DA2's story in as much as it tells us where Hawke came from and why he was fleeing Ferelden.  A simple mention of it is good enough.  For those of us who played Origins, having us play through the battle would seem redundant and pointless.  For those who hadn't played Origins, they'd be left scratching their heads as to why the beginning of the game spent so much time on this Cailan/Loghain story that was immediately dropped after the first level and never mentioned again.

One basic principal of good story telling is that you start the story as close as possible to the beginning of the conflict.  That's essentially what DA2 did.  We don't really need to get into the details of how the Blight started or Loghain's betrayal at Ostagar.  That's not relevant to Hawke's story.  Hawke's story is about him being the Champion of Kirkwall.  So the game starts us with him fleeing his home and moving to Kirkwall.  Granted, they could have fleshed it out a bit more.  Shown us more of the townspeople in Lothering running from the darkspawn.  Maybe included a section where Hawke has to fight his way through the horde to reunite his family before fleeing.  But that's all just dressing up what they already have.  Their basic format is good.

As far as caring about the characters, I'm not sure what more you really need on that front.  Personally, I was immediately drawn in, and I thought that Hawke caring about his own family's survival would be a motivation that hardly requires further explanation.  But I suppose everyone's preferences are different.

Concerning the time skips, though, I don't think the problem was the skips themselves.  Admittedly, the seven-year format they used was poorly implemented.  Aside from the scenes with Varric and Cassandra and a few lines thrown out about how much time had passed, it was written more or less like any other fantasy adventure, thus creating the sense that nothing happened in Kirkwall for long periods of time only to have everything go bad every three years like clockwork.  But what Bioware tried to do, and fell short of, I think was very interesting.  By showing one place over a period of seven years rather than quickly hopping around from one location to the next, you get to really see how that place changes over time.  You could've seen the long-term consequences of your decisions play out (had there been many far reaching decisions to speak of in the game).  I don't know about anyone else, but I found it kind of chilling when my pro-mage Hawke went to the viscount's keep in Act 3 and saw all of the city guards replaced by templars.  Unfortunately, that and Hawke's move from Lowtown to Hightown between Acts 1 and 2 were the only major changes that seemed to happen in Kirkwall in seven years.  But that doesn't mean the basic concept of using time skips was bad.  They just needed to give us a more dynamic setting to play in.  I would still kind of like to see them come back to the idea some day and do it right.  But sadly, I don't think that's ever going to happen given some of the reactions to DA2.

[Alexander1136]

 shhh they are telling a story.  If you read books and looked at the subtext in some of the dialauge i think they are setting the stage for  very awesome "climax" if you will. I say as a writer myself, that we should let them continue with their vision. The diffuclty of making the game both enjoyable story wise and having your "choices matter" is much more so that you seem to give them credit. I'm not jumping to there defense or anything I mean da2 was a co-- shaped turd, but it moved the story along in a specific direction that while unexpected and not what I was hoping for, Still is very interesting.  I say as far as time skips are concerend we shouldnt limit creative freedom from a moral perspective.

Modifié par Alexander1136, 08 août 2012 - 10:17 .

[Renmiri1]

To me the time skips added more depth to the story. It was fun seeing 7 years pass and knowing the new developments. Could it have been done better ? Yup, ofc.

The time skips weren't the problem. The rushed way we had to adjust to them were.

[Amycus89]

magodesky wrote...

OP - The alternate introduction you propose sounds like something I would have hated.  You're talking about frontloading the game with at least a good 1-2 hours of superfluous content that frankly, would have seemed like pure fan service.  Setting aside the issue that mage Hawke didn't fight at Ostagar, thus forcing the developers to put together a second equally unnecessary beginning for that particular class, there's absolutely no reason to rehash the events of Ostagar.  I already played the Battle of Ostagar in Origins.  Then I went back to Ostagar for a stroll down memory lane in the Return to Ostagar DLC.  Why would I want to play through it yet again as Hawke?  Ostagar is only relevant to DA2's story in as much as it tells us where Hawke came from and why he was fleeing Ferelden.  A simple mention of it is good enough.  For those of us who played Origins, having us play through the battle would seem redundant and pointless.  For those who hadn't played Origins, they'd be left scratching their heads as to why the beginning of the game spent so much time on this Cailan/Loghain story that was immediately dropped after the first level and never mentioned again.

One basic principal of good story telling is that you start the story as close as possible to the beginning of the conflict.  That's essentially what DA2 did.  We don't really need to get into the details of how the Blight started or Loghain's betrayal at Ostagar.  That's not relevant to Hawke's story.  Hawke's story is about him being the Champion of Kirkwall.  So the game starts us with him fleeing his home and moving to Kirkwall.  Granted, they could have fleshed it out a bit more.  Shown us more of the townspeople in Lothering running from the darkspawn.  Maybe included a section where Hawke has to fight his way through the horde to reunite his family before fleeing.  But that's all just dressing up what they already have.  Their basic format is good.

As far as caring about the characters, I'm not sure what more you really need on that front.  Personally, I was immediately drawn in, and I thought that Hawke caring about his own family's survival would be a motivation that hardly requires further explanation.  But I suppose everyone's preferences are different.

Concerning the time skips, though, I don't think the problem was the skips themselves.  Admittedly, the seven-year format they used was poorly implemented.  Aside from the scenes with Varric and Cassandra and a few lines thrown out about how much time had passed, it was written more or less like any other fantasy adventure, thus creating the sense that nothing happened in Kirkwall for long periods of time only to have everything go bad every three years like clockwork.  But what Bioware tried to do, and fell short of, I think was very interesting.  By showing one place over a period of seven years rather than quickly hopping around from one location to the next, you get to really see how that place changes over time.  You could've seen the long-term consequences of your decisions play out (had there been many far reaching decisions to speak of in the game).  I don't know about anyone else, but I found it kind of chilling when my pro-mage Hawke went to the viscount's keep in Act 3 and saw all of the city guards replaced by templars.  Unfortunately, that and Hawke's move from Lowtown to Hightown between Acts 1 and 2 were the only major changes that seemed to happen in Kirkwall in seven years.  But that doesn't mean the basic concept of using time skips was bad.  They just needed to give us a more dynamic setting to play in.  I would still kind of like to see them come back to the idea some day and do it right.  But sadly, I don't think that's ever going to happen given some of the reactions to DA2.

I'm not saying you are wrong about me suggesting the battle of ostagar  being included, but hopefully we can at least agree that :
1) Killing of a family member only minutes into the game when you havn't had any chance to learn about them is a pretty bad idea, 
2) Knowing exactly what we lost through the darkspawn attack would help us to feel as desperate as the rest of your family (or why else couldn't we just return to Ferelden after the first timeskip? Varric himself told us through the cutscene that after your one year of servitude, the warden had ended the blight. And considering how poorly you already lived, I would be much more tempted to use those 50 sovereigns to take a ship back to Ferelden where I/my sister didn't have to worry as much about the templars).

And this might just be me, but I think that it would help new players to the series, as well as new players to get into the mood that you should have considering the situation Hawke is in the beginning.

So the question is, when should the game start otherwise?
Going even further back than I suggested (1-2 days before you/your brother march to Ostagar) would be far too much, I think we can agree about that at least. Yet we need some time to learn about our family and see the village. The only other time you will have time for this is when you return after the battle of Ostagar, and from the game we are supposed to have left everything behind us. We didn't have time to take anything.

So the only alternative I can think of is if you start the game with a cutscene where you (or your brother depending on whether you are a mage or not) suddenly tries to wake up your family in their sleep, and tell them that they have to escape after the battle of Ostagar. Then fight your way out,and see the whole village slowly burn, in a similar way to the beginning of skyrim where you run from a dragon, or the first night in the noble origin quest in DA:O. Then you are where DA2 actually starts.

Then simply try to extend the gameplay here a bit (that is, delay) so you can learn about your sibling before one of them are killed. Could work too.

You can make up your own example and I will likely be happy with it, as long as it cover the two points I made earlier. There are probably several ways one could have done this.

But personally I don't like any timeskips, or even cutscenes that are 10 min long, because it disconnects me from my character I'm roleplaying as (my opinion at least).

[magodesky]

Amycus89 wrote...

I'm not saying you are wrong about me suggesting the battle of ostagar  being included, but hopefully we can at least agree that :
1) Killing of a family member only minutes into the game when you havn't had any chance to learn about them is a pretty bad idea,

Given that my Cousland's family didn't last much longer than Hawke's unfortunate sibling, I'm not sure I see the problem.  For most people, I think the idea of protecting family is an inherently relatable motivation.  So I may not know much about Bethany and Carver specifically.  But I do know that I'm playing Hawke, and I know that they're Hawke's family.  So I naturally want them to make it.

Not that I would've minded getting to know Carver a little better before he got smashed by an ogre, but it seems pretty clear that the siblings were intended to serve very specific plot purposes.  And in that respect, I think they served their functions quite nicely.

Bethany is predisposed toward being Hawke's friend, and she obviously gives a warrior or rogue Hawke a personal reason for supporting the mages.  Carver is predisposed toward being a rival.  And while mage Hawke already has a motivation for fighting the templars, having a brother who is constantly pushing him about it makes the struggle more of a personal one.

Whichever sibling is killed isn't really necessary to the narrative, but their death early on in the game does itself serve a number of purposes:
1) It illustrates the threat that the darkspawn pose that an ogre can so suddenly and easily tear apart one of your companions.
2) It highlights the struggle Hawke had to go through to get to Kirkwall and the finality of Lothering's destruction.  As if to show whatever life Hawke had before that point is gone for good.
3) It demonstrates that none of the characters are safe, even if they are Hawke's companion.  Granted, those of us who played through Origins likely understood this already.  But it's worth reiterating for a new game.

Sure, since we don't really get to know the sibling who dies very well, his/her death isn't exactly a tearjerker.  But I don't think it was intended to be.  It had a purpose, and it served that purpose quite well.  It's the relationship with the survivor that really matters to the story, and they have three more acts over which to develop that.

Amycus89 wrote...

or why else couldn't we just return to Ferelden after the first timeskip? Varric himself told us through the cutscene that after your one year of servitude, the warden had ended the blight. And considering how poorly you already lived, I would be much more tempted to use those 50 sovereigns to take a ship back to Ferelden where I/my sister didn't have to worry as much about the templars).

Varric also mentioned that the trip to Kirkwall wasn't exactly an easy one.  I got the impression that picking up and moving to a whole new country is a fairly difficult and costly undertaking (hence why Hawke has to start out his time in Kirkwall living in shack in Lowtown and working as an indentured servant for one group of thugs or another).  Plus, there's nothing left in Lothering to go back to.  The town was destroyed by the darkspawn.  What's left of Hawke's family is now living in Kirkwall.  Anyone he knew from back in Lothering who managed to survive would have moved on.  And even if he feels some lingering attachment to Ferelden, by the time he's gathered enough money to make the journey back, he's already built a life for himself in Kirkwall.

Amycus89 wrote...

So the only alternative I can think of is if you start the game with a cutscene where you (or your brother depending on whether you are a mage or not) suddenly tries to wake up your family in their sleep, and tell them that they have to escape after the battle of Ostagar. Then fight your way out,and see the whole village slowly burn, in a similar way to the beginning of skyrim where you run from a dragon, or the first night in the noble origin quest in DA:O. Then you are where DA2 actually starts.

As I mentioned above, I could definitely see if they had included a sequence prior to where they start showing the darkspawn approaching Lothering.  And either mage Hawke and Bethany or warrior/rogue Hawke and Carver have to fight their way through the horde to get to their missing sibling before they flee the town.  Which would give us a little more time to get to know Hawke's family.

But honestly, it doesn't really bother me that much.  I keep seeing people on these forums complain about opening with companions we don't know yet, and I don't understand it at all.  Over on the ME3 forums, they were saying the same thing about James: "Who is this guy, and why should we care about him?"  Well, I don't need the developers to bog down the introduction with a lot of exposition to tell me that.  I have full confidence that the game will provide me with all the information I need to know in due time.  For the beginning of the game, it's more important that they hook me in and get straight to the action.

Amycus89 wrote...

But personally I don't like any timeskips, or even cutscenes that are 10 min long, because it disconnects me from my character I'm roleplaying as (my opinion at least).

That's fair enough.  Different people just have different preferences.  Some people don't like anything at all that disconnects them from their characters.  So I can see where things like time skips, auto dialogue, and companions that the player doesn't yet know about would seem like unwelcome intrusions.  Personally, I'm more the type of player who's interested in the game's story.  I'm okay with any of that so long as it supports the narrative.  Not that either preference is any better or worse than the other, but Bioware has pretty much always gone with that more story-driven approach in both Dragon Age and Mass Effect.

[Renmiri1]

Nyoka wrote...

But we need to be realistic: if there was no time or money to even make a second kind of cave, then we can't expect a lot.

Good point. I think given the time and budget constraints imposed on the writing / dev team, they did a masterpiece. Too bad that their heroic efforts to give us a good game get so tainted by the lack of resources. What they did with only a year development was a miracle.

The death of Carver / Bethany on the first few minutes of the game didn't affect me much.. Not until I played it again and got to konw Carver. Then the real impact of losing him hit me. He was such a funny rival brother! Same for losing Bethany if you go as mage. I spent the entire playthrough missing Bethany's sweetness and sunshine sunny disposition. I think the game would have gained a lot if it let us get to know the lost sibling before his / her death.

[Amycus89]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

But we need to be realistic: if there was no time or money to even make a second kind of cave, then we can't expect a lot.

Good point. I think given the time and budget constraints imposed on the writing / dev team, they did a masterpiece. Too bad that their heroic efforts to give us a good game get so tainted by the lack of resources. What they did with only a year development was a miracle.

Unfortunately I'm not quite that forgiving. Was what the devs did managed to achieve in only one year? Maybe so. Does the game get better just because you know that they didn't have much time? Sadly not, if you ask me.

If DA3 is released and turns out to only be as "good" as DA2, I know I won't be buying, even if they had 10 years or only had an afternoon to do it...  Sorry, I rather spend that money on something else.

[SafetyShattered]

I agree with you completely OP. I really disliked how the timeskips were done. I also agree that we should have definately had more time to learn about our family and the people of Lothering before the darkspawn came. I mean honestly I knew Carver for like 5 minutes. Then he died. The game was telling me to be sad but I was just like.......okay then....minus a warrior. I might've actually cared if the game let me know more about him before he died.

[Winged Silver]

Amycus89 wrote...

In DA2 you are thrown in to a no-mans land that you don't care about, with a family you know nothing about, and thus don't care about, and then thrown into a city that you are never giving any reason to care about, with its inhabitants you never have any reason to care about.

I know that Da2 tried to do a more personal, emotional story compared to origins. And I actually like that idea, as opposed to everything being "epic" where the whole world is once again in peril and you are the only one to stop it. Unfortunately, as I think it is pretty clear now, it failed pretty spectacularly in these areas. 

WHat DA2 SHOULD have done:.....disconnects us from our characters.

This. This would have been simply magical. Really hope Bioware takes this sort of idea into consideration for their next game....

Modifié par Winged Silver, 11 août 2012 - 06:41 .

[Allan Schumacher]

1) Killing of a family member only minutes into the game when you havn't had any chance to learn about them is a pretty bad idea,

I can both agree and disagree with this.

Certainly the loss is more generally effective the more interactions (preferably positive) the game player has with character that dies. At the same time, I know people (myself included) that still found the scene emotional the first time they saw it.

Maybe a scene like this strikes a chord with me because I can relate on a personal level (I lost my brother when I was 13), or maybe I find myself more easily able to get into a character than others. Though I will admit I do believe I'm in the minority in terms of feeling this way.

[nightscrawl]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

My response to this is....

<snip>

I like it. Unfortunately, I think it further illustrates their lack of time and resources while developing DA2.




-- SPOILER for DA2 prologue --

Allan Schumacher wrote...

1) Killing of a family member only minutes into the game when you havn't had any chance to learn about them is a pretty bad idea,

I can both agree and disagree with this.

Certainly the loss is more generally effective the more interactions (preferably positive) the game player has with character that dies. At the same time, I know people (myself included) that still found the scene emotional the first time they saw it.

The problem I have with it, especially if you play the game a second time (no online research on the wiki, no forum discussions, just simply loading up the game again) and go from mage to non-mage (or reverse), it's basically thrown in your face that it's a deus ex machina  revolving around class choice. My first character was a mage and Bethany was killed. My second character was a warrior and Carver was killed. I was immediately irritated when I realized why. To me, this makes the sibling so unimportant as to reduce them down to their class and practically nothing else.

Outside of the game, sure I understand the necessity for it from a developer stand point. I don't know, perhaps I just wish it had been done another way. Maybe instead of just killing one of them off, had you all ever considered just changing the sibling selection right as you load into the game? Varric's initial exaggeration shows you with your non-dead, class-appropriate sibling. From the initial introduction there was no reason to think there was a third Hawke child. So a mage Hawke gets Carver and non-mages get Bethany from the get-go, no death. Bingo.

Was that ever on the table, or did you all want a death from the start to ramp up the drama of a more personal story? I think the same could have been accomplished with only Wesley's death to be honest, especially for those coming from DAO who were familiar with the blight, darkspawn, their filth, and how it all works.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 11 août 2012 - 09:17 .

[Spanishcat]

This is really just a 'do you like timeskips or not?' thread, and to answer that: yes, I do. I liked DA2's narrative encompassing a decade in the life of both Hawke and the city of Kirkwall. In gaming narrative it's not overly common.

How the idea was implemented visually was exactly great, though. Adding a few vines to Kirkwall and changing the time of day does not sell the idea that this city is going through changes. But the narrative use of a decade in Hawke/Kirkwall's life was refreshing.

Amycus89 wrote...

as opposed to everything being "epic" where the whole world is once again in peril and you are the only one to stop it. Unfortunately, as I think it is pretty clear now, it failed pretty spectacularly in these areas.

Heavy emphasis on the very subjective "I think", because I thought it was quite successful.

Modifié par Spanishcat, 11 août 2012 - 10:42 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I love time skips. Whether its in games that skip the clock forward and show you the progression to time, or games that involve time travel between different eras (Orania of Time, Crono Trigger), I thoroughly enjoy them.

I hated DA2's time skips. They accomplished nothing.

There is no reason Hawke and sibling had to be sold into slavery for a year of unplayable game time. There is no reason why the Qunari would be less of a problem three years after the Deep Roads expedition than they were right when Hawke came out. There is no reason why Meredith would wait three years after the death of the Viscount and the upheaval of the Qunari to take control of the city.

Here's a way to write the whole game without time skips:

You arrive in Kirkwall. Gamlen is broke, but arranges you to work your way into the city by doing odd jobs with two different groups (your choice). All of Act 1 involves you earning 50 sovereigns doing tasks for the group of our choice. During that time, you meet Varric as one of your handlers for said group. All other companions are met in similar ways. Once you buy your freedom, Varric recruits you to do a personal favor for him in the Deep Roads to make you all rich. Act 1 runs the same course.

Act 2 begins after you return from the DRE and you attempt to use your new fortune to buy your estate back. The Viscount sees an opportunity and let's you buy back your estate if you instigate the Qunari's influence in the city. Act 2 runs in roughly the same manner.

Act 3 begins immediately after the Qunari leave, with Meredith trying to seize control of the city following the Viscount's death in a scene similar to how Act 3 opened up. Game runs as normal.

That does not improve on the story of DA2 at all (which has faults) but it gives the exact story without the completely unnecessary time skips. They accomplish nothing, they show no progression in the lives of the characters and they make the city seem even more stale with the supposed long passage of time.

[Wulfram]

The HN origin kills off your family pretty quickly too, but that worked for me.

[Allan Schumacher]

Outside of the game, sure I understand the necessity for it from a developer stand point. I don't know, perhaps I just wish it had been done another way. Maybe instead of just killing one of them off, had you all ever considered just changing the sibling selection right as you load into the game? Varric's initial exaggeration shows you with your non-dead, class-appropriate sibling. From the initial introduction there was no reason to think there was a third Hawke child. So a mage Hawke gets Carver and non-mages get Bethany from the get-go, no death. Bingo.

How is this actually any different? I'm not sure why you're upset with an arbitrary death due to which class you choose, compared to an arbitrary sibling simply not existing due to which class you choose.

Yes part of the reasoning was class make up (although that's not the only reason). But straight up one thing I like about it is it immediately adds a level of replayability (which I almost always love), so it's hard for me to go "booo, it's arbitrary based on my class choice which doesn't really make much sense" when the other part of me goes "cool I get to experience some completely different content." I also consider it an integral part of the plot because part of the story telling for the game was the struggle between Hawke and his/her sibling.

Imagine how much more foolish it'd be if it was Bethany telling mage-Hawke "You just don't understand how difficult it is to be an apostate mage!" and part of the animosity Carver has is that Hawke is an apostate mage and part of the issue is that their lives are more difficult as a result.

Change how the game decides which family member dies, and suddenly you're reworking a lot more of the conversations or just flat out adding more just so that it can make sense.

[LobselVith8]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Imagine how much more foolish it'd be if it was Bethany telling mage-Hawke "You just don't understand how difficult it is to be an apostate mage!" and part of the animosity Carver has is that Hawke is an apostate mage and part of the issue is that their lives are more difficult as a result.

A variant of that already happens with blood mage Hawke, and the anti-blood mage sentiments.

[SafetyShattered]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

1) Killing of a family member only minutes into the game when you havn't had any chance to learn about them is a pretty bad idea,

I can both agree and disagree with this.

Certainly the loss is more generally effective the more interactions (preferably positive) the game player has with character that dies. At the same time, I know people (myself included) that still found the scene emotional the first time they saw it.

Maybe a scene like this strikes a chord with me because I can relate on a personal level (I lost my brother when I was 13), or maybe I find myself more easily able to get into a character than others. Though I will admit I do believe I'm in the minority in terms of feeling this way.

I'm sorry about the loss of your brother. I can definately see how that scene affected you. Thanks for sharing that with us Allan. 

[Ianamus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I can both agree and disagree with this.

Certainly the loss is more generally effective the more interactions (preferably positive) the game player has with character that dies. At the same time, I know people (myself included) that still found the scene emotional the first time they saw it.

Maybe a scene like this strikes a chord with me because I can relate on a personal level (I lost my brother when I was 13), or maybe I find myself more easily able to get into a character than others. Though I will admit I do believe I'm in the minority in terms of feeling this way.

I don't think the problem was so much the death itself, but how it was brought up many times as something Hawke was deeply upset by. 

Your family members often speak of it and how hard it must be for Hawke, which always feels a little off since the player only saw them for two seconds and can barely remember the character at all. It was like the game was trying to tell you how to feel, despite what the player actually felt. 

That's one of the problems with a partially fixed protagonist. By all accounts Hawke as a character should have been upset but the player had no reason to, so the dialogue where Hawke talks about how upset he is felt a bit forced upon the player. 

I think that if death, particuarly the death of someone close to the protagonist is going to play a vital role in the story then the character should be developed enough before they die that the player feels moved by their death as well as the charcter they are playing. Role-playing is a lot more fun when you feel the same emotions your character is feeling. 

Modifié par EJ107, 11 août 2012 - 10:09 .

[Get Magna Carter]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Imagine how much more foolish it'd be if it was Bethany telling mage-Hawke "You just don't understand how difficult it is to be an apostate mage!" and part of the animosity Carver has is that Hawke is an apostate mage and part of the issue is that their lives are more difficult as a result.

reminds me of how iritating it can be in Elder scrolls with the racially blind characters telling my Dunmer about the hardships suffered by the Dunmer...or how much they dislike or don't trust Dunmer

[nightscrawl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm not sure why you're upset with an arbitrary death due to which class you choose, compared to an arbitrary sibling simply not existing due to which class you choose.

Perhaps it's because the death scenes played out exactly the same way for both, which is what made it seem arbitrary. Sure, you could argue that, because they're twins, they might have the same (foolish) reaction in such a situation, leading them to be killed, however that statement seems to suggest a closer relationship as twins than we are led to believe they had in the game. Why didn't they react the same way and both get killed? Or why didn't they react in such a way as to work together to prevent either from being killed?

An arbitrary death is worse than an arbitrary non-existence, to me. I really can't explain it in any other way.

I also felt like it was stuck in there to get an emotional reaction. I only really felt bad for Leandra in that scene, to be honest, since her child was just killed in front of her. I never felt sad on behalf of my Hawke because I didn't even know the person. I feel like Bioware is telling me I should be sad about this person's death because of who they were, which, to be honest, is another way of them controlling the PC and limiting role play.


And... I've gotten really far off track of time skips. Sorry about that.