228 réponses à ce sujet

[Mukora]

You people need some serious culture.

[Revan Reborn]

Why stop there? Lets make it a real tragedy. The game should start with the Inquisitor killing his or her father. Then, whoever you romance is revealed to be your mother (regardless of gender) and in response to this revelation, they kill themself and you are forced to gouge your eyes out. And now your daughter hates men.

 

The end.

While I'm a fan of the classic Greek Tragedy of Oedipus, I believe you are missing the point of the thread. Death is a natural part of life. We should not be able to control it anymore than others can. We may be the "hero" of the story, but even heroes struggle in their darkest hour. What defines us is making the best choices we can with the tools we have.

 

Most?

 

Perhaps not most. But a casualty or two might be good. 

I suppose it would depend on who the "casualty or two" are. With respect to a full-scale war and demons shredding Thedas to pieces, I believe the risk and fear of death should be very real. Everybody shouldn't die obviously, but more than a few would probably be more convincing for the purposes of the story.

 

I don't know if we can really say the threat of the Elder One is greater than, say, the Blights. Things got pretty bad during those. Whole countries had to be abandoned.

 

That said, it is certainly different from the Blights.

The difference, however, is Thedas has dealt with Blights before. They know to call upon the help of the Grey Wardens and the world will be saved. Thedas has never experienced a threat like this before. Darkspawn are also easy to find as they always come from underground. How will you resolve tears in the sky randomly opening and dropping demons all around?

[Birdy]

Legion is an exception

It could technically be said that Legion never died. Their programing lived on in each of the geth.

[Birdy]

The point is some deaths are merely out of your control. For my ME3 playthrough, I lost Mordin and Thane, of which was incredibly tragic but also emotionally engaging and impactful. It certainly was much more memorable for me knowing that I couldn't be Superman and save everyone, as was the case more or less in Mass Effect 2. None of these protagonists are gods. Why should we have the ability to cheat death?

You were able to save Mordin.  And I'm talking purely companions.  People that are more or less with you the entire journey. 

[Mukora]

While I'm a fan of the classic Greek Tragedy of Oedipus, I believe you are missing the point of the thread. Death is a natural part of life. We should not be able to control it anymore than others can. We may be the "hero" of the story, but even heroes struggle in their darkest hour. What defines us is making the best choices we can with the tools we have.

Alright, serious answer, here.

 

This may be true in real life, but it... doesn't really work in fiction. Just killing off characters left and right leads to a real lack of connection. Why care about a character when they're probably going to die immediately? It's important to make any major character deaths impactful, and important to the narrative. You don't just kill a character because it's "realistic" you kill them because it's a meaningful ending to that character's arc. Never let a character die when you can do more interesting things with them alive.

 

And I really don't think Dragon Age is meant to be a dissertation on the nature of mortality in war. Nor do I want it to be.

[Birdy]

Alright, serious answer, here.

 

This may be true in real life, but it... doesn't really work in fiction. Just killing off characters left and right leads to a real lack of connection. Why care about a character when they're probably going to die immediately? It's important to make any major character deaths impactful, and important to the narrative. You don't just kill a character because it's "realistic" you kill them because it's a meaningful ending to that character's arc.

 

And I really don't think Dragon Age is meant to be a dissertation on the nature of mortality in war. Nor do I want it to be.

Haha.  Walking Dead. NO ONE IS SAFE!!!

[Revan Reborn]

You were able to save Mordin.  And I'm talking purely companions.  People that are more or less with you the entire journey. 

Based on my choices, saving Mordin wasn't an option. He redeemed himself by reversing the terrible effects of the genophage and opted to stay behind to complete his work. I couldn't have saved him even if I wanted. That is what made this scene so powerful though. I knew what he was doing was the right thing, but that didn't make it any less emotional that I was losing a good friend. Moments like that really make incredible games. The same can be said for when the Joker dies at the end of Arkham City or when Trask dies at the beginning of KotOR I (this one is a bit of a joke).

[Mukora]

Haha.  Walking Dead. NO ONE IS SAFE!!!

Exactly. And honestly, while I love the Walking Dead, I've always been much less interested in the characters and narrative than I feel I would be if the characters had a higher mortality rate.

[Iakus]

And I really don't think Dragon Age is meant to be a dissertation on the nature of mortality in war. Nor do I want it to be.

Mass Effect tried that.

It really, really didn't work

[Birdy]

Based on my choices, saving Mordin wasn't an option. He redeemed himself by reversing the terrible effects of the genophage and opted to stay behind to complete his work. I couldn't have saved him even if I wanted. That is what made this scene so powerful though. I knew what he was doing was the right thing, but that didn't make it any less emotional that I was losing a good friend. Moments like that really make incredible games. The same can be said for when the Joker dies at the end of Arkham City or when Trask dies at the beginning of KotOR I (this one is a bit of a joke).

The whole of ME3 was emotional.  I cried too letting Mordin go.  :'(

[Allan Schumacher]

I feel moderately bad responding with:

 

[Meltemph]

I feel moderately bad responding with:

 

Admit it, you had a huge smile across your face, while you were typing it. You dont feel bad at all.

[Birdy]

Exactly. And honestly, while I love the Walking Dead, I've always been much less interested in the characters and narrative than I feel I would be if the characters had a higher mortality rate.

I know I invested emotions on who I really wished would die.  Huh, it's amazing, the real shitty stupid people are gone.

[AshesEleven]

I feel moderately bad responding with:

 

 

CURSE YOU ALLAN.  

[Kieran G.]

Exactly. It's these kinds of consequences that make you more appreciative of those around you. Nobody wants there friends to die, but at the same time the story isn't very compelling if no one has a chance of dying. Tragedy is oftentimes a part of the hero epic. Especially when the stakes are as high as they are in Inquisition, I'll be a little disappointed if everybody gets through this with only a few scratches.

Yeah. that's why i love games like Xcom that stress me so out, where my team dies, i lose member who have been with me from the beginning.

 

Like i in no way want to lose cass or dorian or sera, but i want the stress of "Well if i send them there, they may die or get badly injured." its a dilema of deciding who to risk on which missions or operations.

 

Or sending troops in before sending a vanguard of scouts and my army being demolished in a ambush.

 

Dread and stress can be a very good thing in games. 

[Grieving Natashina]

I feel moderately bad responding with:

 

It's pretty deserving, I think.  

[Mukora]

If a lot of characters die, I think I'll be fine with it. But it'll be a fine line between "emotional" and "cheap."

[Revan Reborn]

Alright, serious answer, here.

 

This may be true in real life, but it... doesn't really work in fiction. Just killing off characters left and right leads to a real lack of connection. Why care about a character when they're probably going to die immediately? It's important to make any major character deaths impactful, and important to the narrative. You don't just kill a character because it's "realistic" you kill them because it's a meaningful ending to that character's arc. Never let a character die when you can do more interesting things with them alive.

 

And I really don't think Dragon Age is meant to be a dissertation on the nature of mortality in war. Nor do I want it to be.

Clearly Dragon Age isn't a documentary on the terrible effects of war and I agree it shouldn't be. However, the greatest franchises use themes of real life, hope and tragedy to add to their experiences. There is also a difference between killing off a character randomly and doing it in a way that actually makes sense and adds to the narrative. I'm referring to the latter. As far as making these death scenes more impactful? Getting to know and love these characters overtime only to see them make a sacrifice to save you or others would go a long way into creating an engaging experience.

 

The entire point of death in a BioWare game would always be for the purpose of enhancing and pushing the narrative forward. If there is no death and no one is at risk, what kind of narrative can you really tell? This isn't My Little Pony. Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age 2 were extremely dark and a lot of individuals died, good and bad. They weren't necessarily major characters, but they were still a part of the narrative nonetheless. I just believe having more of a risk to the supporting cast could lead to better storytelling and a higher appreciation for the experience.

[Bekkael]

I feel moderately bad responding with:

 

 

Oh, the cruelty of Darth Allan!

 

Spoiler

 

[Birdy]

I feel moderately bad responding with:

 

Hey now.  

[Revan Reborn]

The whole of ME3 was emotional.  I cried too letting Mordin go.  :'(

Mordin and Thane were major arcs that really made me reflect back on their history, their experiences, and how they had defined my Mass Effect experience. Moments like that allow me to realize how truly amazing the trilogy was and how incredible a job BioWare did making me care about the characters that much.

 

Yeah. that's why i love games like Xcom that stress me so out, where my team dies, i lose member who have been with me from the beginning.

 

Like i in no way want to lose cass or dorian or sera, but i want the stress of "Well if i send them there, they may die or get badly injured." its a dilema of deciding who to risk on which missions or operations.

 

Or sending troops in before sending a vanguard of scouts and my army being demolished in a ambush.

 

Dread and stress can be a very good thing in games. 

It doesn't necessarily have to be "dread and stress" but just a lack of security and the story being predictable and safe. It just makes for a more compelling story when someone could die, no matter how much you want to avoid it. That's the point. You have become emotionally invested and it's against your better judgment that this character should die.

 

If a lot of characters die, I think I'll be fine with it. But it'll be a fine line between "emotional" and "cheap."

It will depend entirely on execution. I have faith in BioWare's ability as they have shown evidence in the past that they can create emotional and impactful tragic scenes.

[Aimi]

The true tragedy is her entire life.
 

Spoiler

Have you seen Oedipus The King and Antigone?

Yeah, I know Sophokles and the other Athenian tragedians. Their works are not much fun.

Problem is, Antigone doesn't "hate men". The entire plot of her eponymous play centers around her efforts to ensure the proper spiritual care of a man's corpse. She also kind of does a suicide pact with her betrothed, another man, at the end of the play.

The thing about Antigone is not hatred of men, it is a disagreement with the political cloud that has fallen on her slain brother, one aspect of which she credits to the generally accepted gender roles that assign her, a woman, a position of subordination and fear with respect to the king, Kreon, a man.

The way you wrote it, with initial references to romantic and sexual relationships on the part of her ancestors, it was very easy to (mis)interpret "hates men" as a description of Antigone as a lesbian. Even if it were true, and it isn't, I have a rather personal interest in making sure that it is not considered to be a Bad Thing.

---

On the subject of death in the game generally, I think that it's rather staggeringly unrealistic to expect a victorious force in this time period to suffer significant casualties to leadership (with, one assumes, proportionate casualties propagated down into the ranks). I also don't think that death is the only way to bring tragedy home to the player, nor do I think that it is the best way. I acknowledge that, duh, death is a part of war, and it obviously has its place in a story about war, but I would certainly raise my eyebrow at seeing the unavoidable deaths of more than two or three of the follower/advisor/key subordinate NPC demographic. More than that, and it's not clear to me that the Inquisition would even be capable of functioning as a fighting force and political organization.

[Meltemph]

Yeah, I know Sophokles and the other Athenian tragedians. Their works are not much fun.

Problem is, Antigone doesn't "hate men". The entire plot of her eponymous play centers around her efforts to ensure the proper spiritual care of a man's corpse. She also kind of does a suicide pact with her betrothed, another man, at the end of the play.

The thing about Antigone is not hatred of men, it is a disagreement with the political cloud that has fallen on her slain brother, one aspect of which she credits to the generally accepted gender roles that assign her, a woman, a position of subordination and fear with respect to the king, Kreon, a man.

The way you wrote it, with initial references to romantic and sexual relationships on the part of her ancestors, it was very easy to (mis)interpret "hates men" as a description of Antigone as a lesbian. Even if it were true, and it isn't, I have a rather personal interest in making sure that it is not considered to be a Bad Thing.

---

On the subject of death in the game generally, I think that it's rather staggeringly unrealistic to expect a victorious force in this time period to suffer significant casualties to leadership (with, one assumes, proportionate casualties propagated down into the ranks). I also don't think that death is the only way to bring tragedy home to the player, nor do I think that it is the best way. I acknowledge that, duh, death is a part of war, and it obviously has its place in a story about war, but I would certainly raise my eyebrow at seeing the unavoidable deaths of more than two or three of the follower/advisor/key subordinate NPC demographic. More than that, and it's not clear to me that the Inquisition would even be capable of functioning as a fighting force and political organization.

So what, tragedy in the vein of Jaime and his hand? I thought that was worse then killing him, when it 1st happened.