954 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

If things happen the way you suggest, there's two ways that could go down.

 

The first, the Templars as an organisation no longer exist and although others are trying to rebuild the order, it will take so much time and effort that they won't have any presence in the next game. If this is the case, that's a fairly large change for Bioware to consider and it does provide them with a lot of difficulty.

 

 

If we did have a canon-ish scenario in which the Templars were destroyed, I'd be able to appreciate a grassroots reaction in which mage-fearing mundanes try to reorganize and re-establish some idealized recollection of the Templars. Even if they were basically just mobs with a purpose and trying to claim an identity.

 

In fact, I'd be rather disappointed if we didn't get some movement to restore the Templars in a mage victory scenario.

 

 

 

 

The second, the Templars quickly recover from their destruction as a new order is made to replace the old in short order. By the time the next game comes around, a new iteration of the Templars has already risen and is ready to combat the mage threat. This cheapens the choice of destroying the Templars to such a degree that most players would just ask themselves: "Well, what's the point then?"

 

 

Depends how you handle it. There's a good deal of difference between existing as the underdog and existing as the big dog, even without the thematic differences available.

 

One scenario we've only read but never seen in practice, for example, is the idea that Templars protect both the mundanes and the mages. I believe it was Asunder where we get a bit of that, not just in good Templar protecting from bad Templar, but in Templars protecting mage from possibly lynch mob.

 

A good distinction scene for such a 'new Templar underdog' group would be if they didn't hold any such view of protecting mages as well as mundanes. They could define themselves as only protecting the mundanes against the mages but not the inverse, adopting a more extreme view.

 

Imagine a scene in which a frightened mage is cornered by a mob. Between the mob and the mage are two Templars. In the 'new Templars' scenario, the Templars have their back to the mob and have swords facing the mage. In a 'classic Templars' scenario, the Templars have their back to the mage with swords towards the crowd.

 

That's the sort of minor difference that can have a huge tone impact.
 

 

It's a horrible balance to try and maintain. Players need to feel like their choices made an impact but at the same time, the story needs to remain moderately linear for the purpose of not making story design a cluttered mess. Or, more of a cluttered mess that it already is. I don't envy Bioware at all and I am certain that we won't have a deciding impact on the Mage-Templar conflict. A significant one, maybe but only a significant as the Collector Base example I gave above.

 

 

 What they really need to work on is having meaningful choices that aren't mutually exclusive world-changing choices.

 

Ever heard of Lieutenant Murphey of Operation Red Wings? In Afghanistan, there was a US special forces team that's now a infamous ethics delima for the military.

 

During their infiltration they were discovered by a civilian goatherder who they detained. They determined he was an unarmed civilian, and ROE was to let him go. Some members of the team advocated killing the man to keep their presence a secret. LT Murphey decided to spare the man... who went on to inform the Taliban, who wiped out everyone on the team other than LT Murphey, and who shot down a US helicopter and killed another 16 special forces soldiers to boot.

 

That was in mid-2005. It was not a decision that determined the war. Almost ten years later, LT Murphey probably wouldn't be serving with the people who died that day regardless. But it certainly was a decision that had a huge, personal impact.

[Xilizhra]

The fall of the Andrastian Chantry and/or Orlais would not necessarily be choices that destroy storytelling ability everywhere in Thedas, if the story took place in a region where neither has much influence. For instance, Tevinter or the qunari conquests. Stories there would certainly be different than the ones told in Andrastian Thedas, but I hardly see that as a bad thing.

 

I don't expect the Chantry to be destroyed, but neither do I expect it to just bounce back into its former power like nothing's happened; while it may pull back together, its ability to control the Inquisition should be low to nonexistent, and the Inquisition itself should be able to remain autonomous in a manner similar to the Grey Wardens. We don't even have to get rid of the PC or the PC's command of the organization if the next game takes place somewhere far enough away from the action of DAI... like, say, Tevinter or the qunari conquests.

As for Orlais, whether the empire is weakened and hamstrung if the civil war ends in its favor or actually broken if it does not also needs not produce much direct impact on such a geographically removed tale.

[Xilizhra]

It would definitely affect a Tevinter story. Tevinter is still Andrastian too. Just another (albeit liberal) interpretation. Having Orlais diminish would change a lot how they breach the subject. Or whether factions in Tevinter that are more like traditional Andrastian beliefs take even stronger root there, out of desperation that they must "carry the banner" now instead of Orlais.

"Andrastian" as distinct from "Imperial." The White Chantry's more formal name really is the Andrastian Chantry (and I don't think White Chantry is even a term, just White Divine). And I figure that Orlais will be diminished either way, just like Ferelden was (except arguably worse depending on where the Fade tears hit); it'll change the way things in Tevinter our said, but not the fact that those things are said regardless.

[Dean_the_Young]

It would definitely affect a Tevinter story. Tevinter is still Andrastian too. Just another (albeit liberal) interpretation. Having Orlais diminish would change a lot how they breach the subject. Or whether factions in Tevinter that are more like traditional Andrastian beliefs take even stronger root there, out of desperation that they must "carry the banner" now instead of Orlais.

 

Even Lambert was originally Tevinter. Goes to show that people like him exist even there.

I'd hesitate to consider anything about the Tevinter Chantry as liberal. Unorthodox, certainly.

[Dean_the_Young]

The fall of the Andrastian Chantry and/or Orlais would not necessarily be choices that destroy storytelling ability everywhere in Thedas, if the story took place in a region where neither has much influence. For instance, Tevinter or the qunari conquests. Stories there would certainly be different than the ones told in Andrastian Thedas, but I hardly see that as a bad thing.

 

Nice to see you agree. It would be the dual-state of 'fall of the X' and 'rise of the X', and not the outcome itself, that would limit storytelling ability elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't expect the Chantry to be destroyed, but neither do I expect it to just bounce back into its former power like nothing's happened; while it may pull back together, its ability to control the Inquisition should be low to nonexistent, and the Inquisition itself should be able to remain autonomous in a manner similar to the Grey Wardens. We don't even have to get rid of the PC or the PC's command of the organization if the next game takes place somewhere far enough away from the action of DAI... like, say, Tevinter or the qunari conquests.

As for Orlais, whether the empire is weakened and hamstrung if the civil war ends in its favor or actually broken if it does not also needs not produce much direct impact on such a geographically removed tale.

 

A consequence of the player not being in control of the PC is that it would no longer be the PC in charge of the organization while you play elsewhere. It would be a NPC who has the same name and face but whose character would be determined by Bioware. The Player's ability to dictate the policies of the Inquisition are intrensically linked to the player's role as the Inquistor. When the player no longer controls the Inquisitor, they will no longer dictate policy.

 

As for going elsewhere to avoid divergent consequences, that is a limited strategy in the long run. If you make divergent consequences available everywhere you go but spend your time running around and avoiding them, gradually you will limit the space you have left that you can go.

[Mistic]

One scenario we've only read but never seen in practice, for example, is the idea that Templars protect both the mundanes and the mages. I believe it was Asunder where we get a bit of that, not just in good Templar protecting from bad Templar, but in Templars protecting mage from possibly lynch mob.

 

And that is one of the things I liked Asunder very much. That book covered almost every aspect regarding the Circle system, both the good and the bad. Gameplay can cover only so much, since it's difficult to explain the dangers of possession, the commoners' fear of mages or the complex relations between Chantry, Templars and Mages in a video game focused on action and adventure.

 

Depends how you handle it. There's a good deal of difference between existing as the underdog and existing as the big dog, even without the thematic differences available.

 

One scenario we've only read but never seen in practice, for example, is the idea that Templars protect both the mundanes and the mages. I believe it was Asunder where we get a bit of that, not just in good Templar protecting from bad Templar, but in Templars protecting mage from possibly lynch mob.

 

A good distinction scene for such a 'new Templar underdog' group would be if they didn't hold any such view of protecting mages as well as mundanes. They could define themselves as only protecting the mundanes against the mages but not the inverse, adopting a more extreme view.

 

Imagine a scene in which a frightened mage is cornered by a mob. Between the mob and the mage are two Templars. In the 'new Templars' scenario, the Templars have their back to the mob and have swords facing the mage. In a 'classic Templars' scenario, the Templars have their back to the mage with swords towards the crowd.

 

That's the sort of minor difference that can have a huge tone impact.

 

That could be good. However, you pointed out the problem: the 'classic Templar' scenario has been seen only once, and it was in a book with a praticularly nice Templar. So for the vast majority of players, there wouldn't be any real difference. "Oh, yeah, Templars harassing mages. Same old, same old".

 

In fact, the scene you propose reminds me a lot of this art concept for DA:I:

Spoiler

 

 

[Xilizhra]

Nice to see you agree. It would be the dual-state of 'fall of the X' and 'rise of the X', and not the outcome itself, that would limit storytelling ability elsewhere.

I do. It was reflection on the way the imports were handled in ME3 that left me convinced of it.

 

 

A consequence of the player not being in control of the PC is that it would no longer be the PC in charge of the organization while you play elsewhere. It would be a NPC who has the same name and face but whose character would be determined by Bioware. The Player's ability to dictate the policies of the Inquisition are intrensically linked to the player's role as the Inquistor. When the player no longer controls the Inquisitor, they will no longer dictate policy.

 

As for going elsewhere to avoid divergent consequences, that is a limited strategy in the long run. If you make divergent consequences available everywhere you go but spend your time running around and avoiding them, gradually you will limit the space you have left that you can go.

If the next story has nothing at all to do with the Inquisition, then there's no reason to cut the PC out of it because the Inquisition's actions wouldn't affect the plot.

 

Granted, this might only work once, but that once will give the writers more time for another solution that could lead to the departure of the Inquisitor personally without undermining the player's policies for it. And the issue with divergent outcomes is similar; it's entirely possible for a hypothetical fifth DA game to take place with strokes broad enough (a massive continent-wide darkspawn invasion?) that issues like how intact Orlais is could be solved with war asset numbers and a few lines of dialogue. It might limit stories about mages struggling for freedom and the like, but frankly, we've seen those for three games and I'd like the status quo to shift enough to accommodate new stories (and a game set in Tevinter would hardly be bereft of the plight of the city elves).

 

 

That could be good. However, you pointed out the problem: the 'classic Templar' scenario has been seen only once, and it was in a book with a praticularly nice Templar. So for the vast majority of players, there wouldn't be any real difference. "Oh, yeah, Templars harassing mages. Same old, same old".

 

In fact, the scene you propose reminds me a lot of this art concept for DA:I:

Especially since the templars in DA2 were already on the wrong side of the mob, explicitly.

[TheKomandorShepard]

I rly hope they won't go such linear route as Dean says i will lost entirely interest in series that goes in circle and choices even don't try pretend that it matters.

[Dean_the_Young]

And that is one of the things I liked Asunder very much. That book covered almost every aspect regarding the Circle system, both the good and the bad. Gameplay can cover only so much, since it's difficult to explain the dangers of possession, the commoners' fear of mages or the complex relations between Chantry, Templars and Mages in a video game focused on action and adventure.

 

 

That could be good. However, you pointed out the problem: the 'classic Templar' scenario has been seen only once, and it was in a book with a praticularly nice Templar. So for the vast majority of players, there wouldn't be any real difference. "Oh, yeah, Templars harassing mages. Same old, same old".

 

In fact, the scene you propose reminds me a lot of this art concept for DA:I:

Spoiler

 

 

Personally, a variant of that scene is my headcanon for 'the missing scene of Mage-Templar unity that DA2 needed.'

 

I think it would have made an appropriate Act 3 encounter quest if the Champion were called in to resolve a riot in lowtown centered around a cornered mage and templar escort. There are a lot of ways you could resolve that conflict to reflect different roleplaying stances as pro- and anti- Mage, Templar, or neutral.

 

Hawke could talk down the mob (diplomatic), threaten them, kill the mage to resolve the conflict, kill the Templars and intimidate the crowd to let the mage escape, kill the mob, or even (in a worst-route of the previous) do a total massacre of the mob that sees both the Templars and mage jump in on the mobs behalf, only to be cut down as well.

[Xilizhra]

Personally, a variant of that scene is my headcanon for 'the missing scene of Mage-Templar unity that DA2 needed.'

 

I think it would have made an appropriate Act 3 encounter quest if the Champion were called in to resolve a riot in lowtown centered around a cornered mage and templar escort. There are a lot of ways you could resolve that conflict to reflect different roleplaying stances as pro- and anti- Mage, Templar, or neutral.

 

Hawke could talk down the mob (diplomatic), threaten them, kill the mage to resolve the conflict, kill the Templars and intimidate the crowd to let the mage escape, kill the mob, or even (in a worst-route of the previous) do a total massacre of the mob that sees both the Templars and mage jump in on the mobs behalf, only to be cut down as well.

But wasn't the total destruction of even the semblance of unity between mages and templars practically the whole point of Act 3? Heck, the end of Act 2 at least still had them working together.

[Dean_the_Young]

I do. It was reflection on the way the imports were handled in ME3 that left me convinced of it.

 

 

If the next story has nothing at all to do with the Inquisition, then there's no reason to cut the PC out of it because the Inquisition's actions wouldn't affect the plot.

 

Granted, this might only work once, but that once will give the writers more time for another solution that could lead to the departure of the Inquisitor personally without undermining the player's policies for it. And the issue with divergent outcomes is similar; it's entirely possible for a hypothetical fifth DA game to take place with strokes broad enough (a massive continent-wide darkspawn invasion?) that issues like how intact Orlais is could be solved with war asset numbers and a few lines of dialogue. It might limit stories about mages struggling for freedom and the like, but frankly, we've seen those for three games and I'd like the status quo to shift enough to accommodate new stories (and a game set in Tevinter would hardly be bereft of the plight of the city elves).

 

There's no difference between tempering the the NPC-Inquisitor two games later rather than one game later. The point still remains that the Inquisitor's policies, already limited by the game state options in Inquisition, will be further tempered once the Inquisitor becomes an NPC. Any 'solution' you apply two games later can effectively be done one game later.

[Xilizhra]

There's no difference between tempering the the NPC-Inquisitor two games later rather than one game later. The point still remains that the Inquisitor's policies, already limited by the game state options in Inquisition, will be further tempered once the Inquisitor becomes an NPC. Any 'solution' you apply two games later can effectively be done one game later.

Actually, my war asset scheme wouldn't even necessitate tempering the Inquisitor, just never having the PC of the current game encounter them.

 

 

Unity was better presented with Rhys and Evangeline.

 

Like I said, traditional storytelling is better.

 

In game, we're destined to be inconsequential f**kups.

Shepard wasn't.

[Dean_the_Young]

But wasn't the total destruction of even the semblance of unity between mages and templars practically the whole point of Act 3? Heck, the end of Act 2 at least still had them working together.

 

Not at all. Throughout Act 3 we still see mages and templars and others who don't believe in irreconciliable differences. They lose, but they exist: that was the premise of Thrask's coup conspiracy, after all. Even in Asunder the sentiment remains.

 

In this case, this hypothetical would be an early act opening that establishes the player's newfound power and influence as the Champion. Think of it as a scene that would play the first time you go to lowtown or darktown or wherever. Where the Meredith-Orisino conflict at the start of the Act re-introduces Hawke as a person of political influence at the highest levels of the city, literally and figuratively, a mob confrontation would serve to establish the Champion as someone respected and feared at all levels, even the lowest, while also serving as an initial hope spot for the neutral/third way players who want to resolve the conflict an an ideal manner.

 

It basically establishes the Champion's influence at the other end of society and counters the negative stereotypes of the mage/templars (the mage is not a blood mage and will not resort to abominationhood, the Templars are defending rather than persecuting) that soon become too normal in the act.

 

It's the reminder that sanity and reasonableness does exist that makes unreasonableness tragic. When everyone and everything is unreasonable except in so much that it agrees with you, that's when empathy with the other is lost and ideas of 'let's utterly destroy X' seem acceptable and reasonable.

[Dean_the_Young]

 

Shepard wasn't.

 

In ME2 Shepard was inconsequential to the larger effort who basically gets played to the benefit of Cerberus, and in ME3 Shepard was Hacket's gopher.

 

Throw in the poor leadership that ran rampant, and yeah. It's a fair shot at Shepard.

[Mistic]

Not at all. Throughout Act 3 we still see mages and templars and others who don't believe in irreconciliable differences. They lose, but they exist: that was the premise of Thrask's coup conspiracy, after all. Even in Asunder the sentiment remains.

 

In this case, this hypothetical would be an early act opening that establishes the player's newfound power and influence as the Champion. Think of it as a scene that would play the first time you go to lowtown or darktown or wherever. Where the Meredith-Orisino conflict at the start of the Act re-introduces Hawke as a person of political influence at the highest levels of the city, literally and figuratively, a mob confrontation would serve to establish the Champion as someone respected and feared at all levels, even the lowest, while also serving as an initial hope spot for the neutral/third way players who want to resolve the conflict an an ideal manner.

 

It basically establishes the Champion's influence at the other end of society and counters the negative stereotypes of the mage/templars (the mage is not a blood mage and will not resort to abominationhood, the Templars are defending rather than persecuting) that soon become too normal in the act.

 

That's another thing I didn't like about DA2: being a noble didn't mean much, being the Champion meant even less. You're famous, but you don't hold real power, not even among the common people. Or at least there wasn't almost any instance to show it.

 

It reminds me a bit of many GTA games. It doesn't matter if you become a killing machine with a dozen houses and millions of dollars, you're still a henchman (ok, Vice City was an exception). Say what you want about Saints Row, but those games at least take the consequences of being a snowflake protagonist to the very end: from henchman in a small street gang to freaking President of the United States in four games.

 

Unity was better presented with Rhys and Evangeline.

 

Like I said, traditional storytelling is better.

 

In game, we're destined to be inconsequential f**kups.

 

Well, not really. We aren't inconsequential. Not even Hawke was. But it's true that so far traditional sotrytelling works best in that regard.

 

Why? Because the actions that matter in DA so far are those that the player can't choose. The traditional storytelling moments. Ok, the player can choose the way they are handled, but not the heroics themselves.

 

The Warden always saves Ferelden from the Blight. The Circle Tower is saved from demons and blood mages. Orzammar always has a new king. The darkspawn are kicked out of Amaranthine. Hawke discovers red lyrium and becomes a noble. The Qunari invasion of Kirkwall is stopped. Hawke always takes part in the Mage-Templar war.

 

Those are certainly important moments for Thedas, but maybe they aren't for the player.

[Xilizhra]

Not at all. Throughout Act 3 we still see mages and templars and others who don't believe in irreconciliable differences. They lose, but they exist: that was the premise of Thrask's coup conspiracy, after all. Even in Asunder the sentiment remains.

 

In this case, this hypothetical would be an early act opening that establishes the player's newfound power and influence as the Champion. Think of it as a scene that would play the first time you go to lowtown or darktown or wherever. Where the Meredith-Orisino conflict at the start of the Act re-introduces Hawke as a person of political influence at the highest levels of the city, literally and figuratively, a mob confrontation would serve to establish the Champion as someone respected and feared at all levels, even the lowest, while also serving as an initial hope spot for the neutral/third way players who want to resolve the conflict an an ideal manner.

 

It basically establishes the Champion's influence at the other end of society and counters the negative stereotypes of the mage/templars (the mage is not a blood mage and will not resort to abominationhood, the Templars are defending rather than persecuting) that soon become too normal in the act.

 

It's the reminder that sanity and reasonableness does exist that makes unreasonableness tragic. When everyone and everything is unreasonable except in so much that it agrees with you, that's when empathy with the other is lost and ideas of 'let's utterly destroy X' seem acceptable and reasonable.

I think that might be the point. Kirkwall is not a sane or reasonable city; madness and treachery are written into its very stones. It's a fitting place to make everything start exploding, and having everything be so sharply divided better foreshadows the total lack of compromise at the end, or at least it seems that way to me.

 

 

Yeah, I'm being harsh, I admit. Sorry. I just find myself envying the storylines of the book characters than anything I've made.

 

I said elsewhere that Briala has managed to pull off more for her people than my Dalish and CE Wardens, Velanna, and Merrill combined.

Not yet. It could easily be squelched. In any case, the Warden ensuring that all of Ferelden's elves would survive seems significant enough to me.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Yeah, I'm being harsh, I admit. Sorry. I just find myself envying the storylines of the book characters than anything I've made.

 

I said elsewhere that Briala has managed to pull off more for her people than my Dalish and CE Wardens, Velanna, and Merrill combined. And it's all because of "choice".

Well, to be entirely fair to the Warden, it isn't exactly like he was in any posistion to improve the lot of Elves everywhere. He can achieve a small victory in getting an Elven Bann or land given to the Dalish, but the Warden's priority will always be the Blight.

[Xilizhra]

That's true, but that's just general heroics. I like the personal victories more. And what Briala does is both epic and personal.

Briala has started to do something epic and personal. If it succeeds, it'll be due to the Inquisitor's aid.