20 réponses à ce sujet

[Ophir147]

Dragon Age isn't about your characters, its about the world. I get it. I've made my peace with the fact that I will create elaborate backstories, headcanons, personalities and motivations for the main characters that I play will the full knowledge that, when the game is over, the character isn't mine any more. Bioware has every right to do this, because the game isn't about the characters, its about the world and having it react in the long term to your actions.

This was difficult to come to terms originally with because I naturally tend to grow attached to all of the characters that I play, especially when I am controlling their choices and decisions, who the like and don't like, who they decide to kill or show mercy to and so forth. Some are shameless self-inserts, some are people I would hate to meet in a dark alley IRL, some are people who I disagree with about every thing they do, but they all follow some fundamental logic, something that happened in their past that made them who they are, that has scarred them or emboldened them, shaping their beliefs and morals. None of this matters in the long run. Again, I've made my peace with this.

 

But this raises the question; what is the long-time players' role in the franchise? People who have been playing since Dragon Age: Origins, and are deeply invested in the lore and characters of Thedas; not the people who are planning to play the game once or twice, form their opinions on it, and put it down. I'm talking about the long-term players who have played the game so much that every choice and consequence is familiar as the back of their hand, people who delight in psychologically evaluating characters and their motives beyond cursory observations.

 

Because the way it is shaping up, and I say this with the kind of love for the series that causes me to worry about myself sometimes, the series looks like it is going to be essentially a cross between a game of Plinko and the Sims. You make your decisions at the beginning, and it just tumbles down as you move forward, and you don't know if the decision really mattered in the long run, because the ball hasn't hit the bottom yet. Epilogues are "hearsay and rumor," any sort of closure is pulled from underneath our feet, and then the little green crystal moves to another character, and you can interact with the world again, for a fleeting moment. Drop some more discs in and try to enjoy the world, and the character you created while it is yours.

 

This is a very personal question, and I wouldn't be surprised if no one else even cares if it gets answered. I tend to enjoy Dragon Age games story the first few times, but the long term value of the games comes from learning and experimenting with the permutations of choices the game offers... Which characters live and die? Which characters hated your guts, and which characters are your bros for life? More importantly, how did you make a lasting impact on the world in meaningful way, in a way that says, for lack of a better phrase, "Ophir147 was here." If the story is about the world of Thedas, where do I fit in, at least in the big picture? Is the world, or at least the world state, really mine, or will there just be token cameos every now and again mentioning one of my choices in a previous game in passing in order set my heart a-flutter for just a few seconds?

 

I suppose, if there was a single question to be pulled out of this (incoherent mess of a post) that would put my mind at rest is, am I playing the game wrong? I believe Dragon Age is a special thing to me, but I can only imagine how important it is to the people who have put the work into conceiving it.  It is their right to develop the series in any direction they want. But am I just setting myself up for disappointment? Should I just view the different games as disparate stories with only a few coincidental things in common, with a decision popping up every now and again to haunt me? Or is it in the books to give me at least one thing, one complex and complete monument to my impact on the world?

 

A bit of a confession. I have written up this topic several (4 or 5?) times, but have always come to the conclusion that it's kind of a stupid thing to ask, and ended up not posting it. The only reason this topic is now seeing the light of day is that I am very sleepy/disoriented and a little too brave on painkillers (a wasp stung the **** out of my shoulder while I was trying to fall asleep) to self-censor this time. I also understand if this isn't worth an answer, or if it gets locked before I get an answer (I know that a most people play the game in a completely different way than i do) for being derailed, or if it sinks into the recesses of the forum. I'm not expecting much of anything really, but if someone in a position to answer this question decides to do so... thanks.

[AlanC9]

But am I just setting myself up for disappointment? .

Yes, you are.

But so what? Even if you'll be disappointed someday, at the moment it seems like it's working.

[aTigerslunch]

Quite a few things mentioned but looks like.

Does my choices matter? Yes, your world state alters somethings. Example is, did the warden attempt to kill Leliana and Oghren? They both will mention, yes the warden did attack them. Oghren states in awakening, warden doesnt check the dead to see if they are in fact dead.

Mage war will happen but what did the Warden and Hawke do to the circles, that will be different in Inquisition depending on choices. So the world of Thedas is affected by The Warden, Hawke and soon The Inquisitor. Choices reflected will be corresponded in world state from the Keep to future DA games.

Not sure why your worried about your choices not mattering. Reasons people live been given as to why, and if killed, Zevran, would be dead. Stated in DA2 for my Hawke.

Question, what are you seeking specifically to be answered? Cause, right now, it looks all moot to me. I did see Wardens choice of killing everyone from Awakening to DA2, or having the baby or not is also reflected.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I suppose, if there was a single question to be pulled out of this (incoherent mess of a post) that would put my mind at rest is, am I playing the game wrong?

Absolutely not.

First of all, the right way to play any single-player game is always the way you enjoy it.

Second, how the designers expect or intend you to play is irrelevant to this question. But it might be relevant to your disappointment question. If you're playing the game in a way they're not trying to support, they might stop supporting it one day. But does that matter?

A game series like this is a long-term enterprise. It's already been nearly 5 years since DAO came out, and we haven't seen the third game yet. If you're playing the games just to build a franchise-spanning narrative, you might have a problem. There is far too much risk that BioWare will somehow ruin all your hard work.

I play much as you do, but I play each game as a standalone. This way, I can enjoy each game for what it is without any long-term risk.

In that case, however, the save imports get in the way. They both constrain the design of each individual game, and they create the expectation (which you have) that your decisions in one game will make a difference going forward indefinitely into future titles.

[Sidney]

The world isn't yours. You can create whatever head cannon you want, but the world doesn't respect that. It also doesn't have to respect all your in-game choices either.

 

Some people view this lack of respect as bad. I don't. The Warden is a single person. Hawke is a single person. They are both important to a degree at the moment in time but their effect will necessarily be limited over a longer period of time and a wider area. In Orlais how much does it really matter if Harrowmont or Bhelen are on the throne? Heck, how much does it really matter which Ferelden is on the throne even --  at least in terms of the games will deal with? Just like the real world isn't shaped by your idea or even the ideas of most rulers of states - ask the USA President how much he has shaped the world to his will for example - Thedas can't be changed radically by your characters. The fact that your characters made decisions, took stands, had friends and enmies defines that character not that a choice that character made in DAO affects DA4 somewhere down the road. Accept the limits of what can be and enjoy your characters for who they are within a story.

[Lotska]

I honestly think that I'd be in exactly the same position as the OP if I hadn't come to this game through a long term obsession with Mass Effect. As someone who liked the ending (never played ending until the free dlc update, mind), I got exactly that sense of world (universe) building satisfaction from it.

Then I mainly bought DA2 because most ff.net ME writers also liked or wrote DA stories, har. I understand if it's not to your taste, but if you've never tried out ff then it may give you the feeling that you're chasing. Head canon with something approaching physical presence.

As for the DA games? It's possible, for the as yet unknown of Inquisition. Otherwise not, really. Great question though! You should never underestimate the nerd-fandom-passion of others; not if you've ever looked up cosplay.

[Lotska]

Actually, I don't think I'd ever feel like I made a huge difference in Thedas without being able to introduce important modern concepts like flushing toilets and equal value of sentient life and freedom from religion. And teaching them that magic isn't real?

[Nefla]

I'm just not sure what you want or expect OP. If you're disappointed about retcons then I agree, I hate those and think they take away from the game. If they will have Leliana in the games no matter what and prop her up to be important every step of the way, then they shouldn't have created a scenario in the original game where she dies (two if you count the suicide ending) If they felt they MUST have Anders join the wardens, meet Justice, and be alive so that he could be in DA2 then he should have been a required companion in Awakening who couldn't die. Tacked on explanations like "I uh woke up in a bush because you were too stupid to know the difference between dead and unconscious" are very unsatisfying to me. Revan in Star Wars: The Old Republic (MMO) makes me want to throw up every time I think of what they did to her. The Rachni queen in ME3 was one of the worst of such cases. Remember how you killed the Rachni queen in ME1? Well we uh...cloned it from bits and pieces or something so here's the exact same quest either way. I just feel like if they either planned ahead or left the past alone things would be fine. Merril and Anders were not needed for DA2, it could have been two new characters filling that role, It's not like their personalities were even the same as the originals. Leliana didn't need to be in DA2 at all, I feel she added nothing and you could have had a new advisor in DA:I. If this is the kind of thing you're saying then I agree OP.

 

However if you're saying you want every action you take to severely impact the next game then I disagree. A few mentions of the important things are fine (and the fewer cameos the better IMO). Each game is set in a different country with a different (mostly) group of people and years have gone by. The world at large doesn't care if you romanced Morrigan or killed the werewolves and in a place similar to medieval Europe most people would know little to nothing of the Warden or Hawke. Even in modern day when information is easy to get and we have methods of instant communication, most of us know little to nothing about what's happening outside our own country.

[PsychoBlonde]

I find the best way to manage expectations is to develop some understanding of the limitations of computer games.  If you treat computer games like they ought to work like a pen-and-paper game with a similar level of reactivity you will be perpetually disappointed.  If you have some understanding of what can and can't be done with a computer game and how expensive it is and what the tradeoffs are, you'll have a much better view going forward of what you can legitimately expect.

[SwobyJ]

I find the best way to manage expectations is to develop some understanding of the limitations of computer games.  If you treat computer games like they ought to work like a pen-and-paper game with a similar level of reactivity you will be perpetually disappointed.  If you have some understanding of what can and can't be done with a computer game and how expensive it is and what the tradeoffs are, you'll have a much better view going forward of what you can legitimately expect.

 

This. That isn't to say that games can't and won't get more elaborate and free-forming in RP. Sure they can. But the tech isn't there yet to support that AND high presentation standards (cinematics for example). You'll have to at least look more towards smaller productions if anything.

 

IMO though the next couple decades will do wonders for RP.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I find the best way to manage expectations is to develop some understanding of the limitations of computer games. If you treat computer games like they ought to work like a pen-and-paper game with a similar level of reactivity you will be perpetually disappointed. If you have some understanding of what can and can't be done with a computer game and how expensive it is and what the tradeoffs are, you'll have a much better view going forward of what you can legitimately expect.

That's right. If you want reactivity, CRPGs suffer some limitations when compared to tabletop games.

If you don't, however, the advantages of the medium can really shine.

[PsychoBlonde]

That's right. If you want reactivity, CRPGs suffer some limitations when compared to tabletop games.

If you don't, however, the advantages of the medium can really shine.

 

I like to have reactivity, but I can live without it if the particular game prefers to focus its efforts elsewhere--I enjoy linear games and branching games alike.  What I don't like is when they promise you something but don't really deliver.  I appreciate that everyone is going to have different standards for what it means to deliver on a vague promise like "your decisions will have effects", but I think it's reasonable to expect more than a few "OMG You're the greatest!" post-quest email messages and a few "I'll get you for this!" fist-shaking NPC's who never appear again, ever.

[Magdalena11]

Each game is standalone, i treat them same way i do elder scrolls, might be set in same world but different games, for me Bioware shouldnt have named DA2 DA2, it is misleading as far as im concerned, shoulda named it Rise of the Champion or something

I think the name Dragon Age: Exile was tossed around somewhere.

[PsychoBlonde]

Each game is standalone, i treat them same way i do elder scrolls, might be set in same world but different games, for me Bioware shouldnt have named DA2 DA2, it is misleading as far as im concerned, shoulda named it Rise of the Champion or something

 

DA2 was a very strange game in a lot of ways, starting with the name.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I like to have reactivity, but I can live without it if the particular game prefers to focus its efforts elsewhere--I enjoy linear games and branching games alike.  What I don't like is when they promise you something but don't really deliver.  I appreciate that everyone is going to have different standards for what it means to deliver on a vague promise like "your decisions will have effects", but I think it's reasonable to expect more than a few "OMG You're the greatest!" post-quest email messages and a few "I'll get you for this!" fist-shaking NPC's who never appear again, ever.

For my decisions to have effects, first I must be allowed to make decisions, and this is where the ME2 and DA2 really failed.

 

But I don't need reactivity to my roleplaying, per se.  As long as the game reacts to the things I do, and I get to choose what those things are, I'm content.  The roleplaying all happens behind the scenes as I make those decisions, and the game can't possibly react to that (but nor can live GMs), but what my character says (or doesn't say) should have consequences, just as what my character does (or doesn't do) should have consequences.

[aTigerslunch]

Interesting, I must of missed some options somewhere. I saw my choices done in different ways and saw them carried over. Confused at what everyone keeps talking about.

My choice to had killed Leliana for example is brought up by her when ask about it. Maker didn't see it as her time, but before she reappeared, I killed Oghren. During awakening he explains the Warden doesnt check dead bodies, and assumes death. Thereby showing warden having issues to checked Leliana and Wynne as well.

Looked feasible to me, other choices that was altered? I really really have to think cause I saw those that carried over reflected choice made.

So, what is being referred to?

[frylock23]

I guess I'm not as obsessive about it precisely because it isn't a tabletop RPG. It would also make a difference if I was playing the same PC game after game, but Hawke wasn't my Warden won't be my Inquisitor. They're all three different people with different lives. They'll learn about the NPCs in their own ways. Because of those things, I can be content with the little things that are mainly nods to the things my previous efforts in the world in other stories have done. They're allusions, and every so often I see a big difference here and there. It's enough for me. I'll load up different saves to see different worlds, and in that sense, like my Shepards are, my Thedases are my characters here in the Dragon Age franchise.

[bEVEsthda]

Basically what Sylvius the Mad already has said.

 

Somewhat O.T. - Personally, I'd like to get rid of the movies. That's not going to happen, since Bioware have decided that's gonna be a big part of what's their trademark. And I know lots of their staff are really invested in making the "Cinematics".

 

But that creative activity risks taking away too much of what playing the game creatively could (should) be about, for the gamers. DA2 and ME2 are examples.

That's one reason. Another reason is that the movies often doesn't come out "right". For reasons ingrained in corporations like EA, scared of their shareholders, Fox news and Walmart, scenes are often going to play out in a, quirky, immersion breaking, representational way, like a low budget TV series from the '50ies. What's the point of Cinematics anyway, then? The only thing they can do, is to raise the level of definition of the story telling, and they do that at a considerable cost. So what about when they fail even that?

[PsychoBlonde]

For my decisions to have effects, first I must be allowed to make decisions, and this is where the ME2 and DA2 really failed.

 

But I don't need reactivity to my roleplaying, per se.  As long as the game reacts to the things I do, and I get to choose what those things are, I'm content.  The roleplaying all happens behind the scenes as I make those decisions, and the game can't possibly react to that (but nor can live GMs), but what my character says (or doesn't say) should have consequences, just as what my character does (or doesn't do) should have consequences.

One of the things I really didn't like that was particularly prevalent in DA2 was how there were NO decisions of ANY kind (forget of any consequence, of any KIND) other than "pick from these 3 dialog options".  None.  If you went this way instead of that way, fought this way instead of that way, killed the summoner before the summonees . . .nothing.  Everything played out EXACTLY the same way and you DOING anything was just an interlude between the next "select from this list".  Bleh.

 

I realize that having real dynamism in a game of this type is hard as crap (and also BUGGY as crap) but it's also so superior to "pick from this list" that I'd rather live with the bugs and the weird outcomes and actually feel like my character is interacting with the world.  Skyrim may be shallow as all get out but at least I can decide how I want to APPROACH the bandit lair.  And surprise enemies don't fall out of the sky 2/3 of the way through, either.