228 réponses à ce sujet

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

By the same token, if I know a companion must die every single time that's played out, I'll avoid that quest like the plague.  There is no fear of loss if the player knows ahead of time it will always end with someone dying.  It's a certainty.  If it's a 'main story quest' that has to be done in order to complete the game, I'll just stop playing the game.  To remove agency in the opposite direction is just as silly as 'plot armor'. 

 

*Edit* One of the most difficult choices in DA2 was 'what class to play' because it determined which of the two siblings--one of whom will always die--you lose.  This wasn't fear over a companion's life, it was just a BS decision forced on me for no other reason than 'it's in the script'.

 

When a video game is one long, plodding, angst ridden fest of overblown tragedy where no matter what I do, companions die left and right and each death is treated as if the character was a candle snuffed out and not a 'life ended', I'd not only get frustrated as hell but bored out of my gourd.  Regardless of the 'reasons' for their death, each death removes that much more content from the game.  I always felt cheated because Hawke loses one sibling at the beginning.  Just because.  While that death is treated with more dignity than the WC/Redeemer ending, it still evokes less in me than that of Wesley, who's demise is purposeful and a choice rather than some random happenstance over which the player has no agency at all.  There are examples of right ways and wrong ways to handle it in (sometimes) the same game.

 

Death, if meaningful and treated with the proper dignity and gravity would be fine, I suppose.  I certainly killed Loghain many a run--though he wasn't a companion at that point.  I also killed Anders every game.  But those were player choices, not something forced onto me in the game.  

 

If you screw up a mission and a character dies, in all likelihood I'd reload, try to redo it.  If knowing no matter what I do someone will die, that's a deal breaker for me.

 

This is a video game.  I want to have fun, not be 'treated' to an E ticket roller coaster ride of angst upon more angst upon more angst.  That's not good writing, that's just Twilight.

 

(Added a TL;DR version on the bottom)

 

To the bolded texts:

1) Im not a fan of a character suffering an unavoidable death, unavoidable deaths should not be in the game unless under very - very specific circumstances. I agree with you that 100% death of a companion removes fear for that companion's life. It removes any element of surprise. I agree with you on this.

2) Im not talking about companions dying left and right. Im not talking about being afraid for Solas to be sent to the local fish market for food with lethal dangers on every corner.

3) Companion deaths if done properly and being a result of your player choices and actions (or inactions / neglect / poor judgement) does not mean that companion loses value. The tragedy of such a death makes it even more meaningful as an emotional impact on the player.

4) Deal breaker for me aswell.

Sylvanaeri you seem to mistake my intent (I think). I want there to be a possibility for companions to die in the story line, based on your actions or inaction or your way to handle certain quests and such. I want there to be a possibility of messing up, leading to the death of your companions. But I want this possibility, and note the word - possibility (not a 100% occurence we have no power over) to be meaningful in the way that we as players can look back on our choices if it happens and go: "wow... because I did A instead of B, and then put companion X in position Y - that most likely caused this to happen".

Some people here seem to be under the misconception that those of us who want player companion deaths to be a possibility, is sitting there with popcorn all "GOD I HOPE THESE GUYS DIE LOLZ" like some sort of psycho-club. 

I can only speak for my self, but I think companion deaths should be possible - because it adds value and thrill to our decisions. And IF someone should die, then the sorrow and emotional impact gives you motivation to avenge them or such. 

 

---

TL,DR:

 

Companions being able to die should be possible.
The way they die if they do should make sense storywise and logically.
The reason of their death should be due to player inactions, actions, choices, neglect, betrayal etc. Meaning player agency as you call it? And not due to random 100% events completely out of your control.

One person could complete the game with all companions alive.
Another could complete the game with most companions dead.

This adds replay value, and real sense of loss if they do die. The best way Ive seen this handled is ME2 suicide mission, but to less extremes. Any one event or choice shouldnt (in most cases) lead someone "to their doom".

 

[kipac]

Maybe I misunderstood you maybe not. But my stance is:
No companions should be safe from death - but them dying should be a direct consequence of your actions or inaction when it comes to choices and orders during the game. Like in the Mass effect 2 suicide mission. Can we agree on this or?

If you are talking about how your mistakes in action choices and preparation can cost you your members' lives, then I have no problem with it as long as there's also a way to not make them die.

But that's not always the case. In ME3, Thane dies no matter how you handle the situation with that ninja wannabe. And you are given no choice to make Mordin survives either whereas you can choose to shoot him dead with renegade.

[President of Boom]

I have a thing for heroic deaths. I don't know about the other characters, I just want my Inquisitor to die rescuing the world.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Would be happy if there was a high chance of party members dieing.... really adds to the weight or the situation and tugs at the heart strings etc etc

 

 

Unfortunately alot of people play DA for the wrong reasons. They think this is a dating + friendship sim in the land of rainbows and unicorns, and not an epic dark fantasy in a state of war, strife and turmoil. People basically want a super-safe, boring, unrealistic and unexciting world where they and their companions are immortal super-heroes fighting the good fight without the possibility of their disney-like universe to suffer any loss or sorrow in any way or form.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

If you are talking about how your mistakes in action choices and preparation can cost you your members' lives, then I have no problem with it as long as there's also a way to not make them die.

But that's not always the case. In ME3, Thane dies no matter how you handle the situation with that ninja wannabe. And you are given no choice to make Mordin survives either whereas you can choose to shoot him dead with renegade.

My opinion from the very start has been that companions can all die, but equally so, companions can all live. Player choices being what triggers said consequences.

[Grieving Natashina]

But that's not always the case. In ME3, Thane dies no matter how you handle the situation with that ninja wannabe.

To hell with the endings, Kai Lang was the worst part of ME3 for me.  And watching Mr. Plot Armor slice open Thane just made me grit my teeth. 

 

Sorry for the off-topic comment, but Kai Lame was one of the most obvious "Villain Sue" characters I've ever seen.  I don't use any of the "Sue" tropes lightly, but damn he was terrible.  

[sylvanaerie]

You say this:

 

(Added a TL;DR version on the bottom)

 

To the bolded texts:

1) Im not a fan of a character suffering an unavoidable death, unavoidable deaths should not be in the game unless under very - very specific circumstances. I agree with you that 100% death of a companion removes fear for that companion's life. It removes any element of surprise. I agree with you on this.

2) Im not talking about companions dying left and right. Im not talking about being afraid for Solas to be sent to the local fish market for food with lethal dangers on every corner.

3) Companion deaths if done properly and being a result of your player choices and actions (or inactions / neglect / poor judgement) does not mean that companion loses value. The tragedy of such a death makes it even more meaningful as an emotional impact on the player.

4) Deal breaker for me aswell.

Sylvanaeri you seem to mistake my intent (I think). I want there to be a possibility for companions to die in the story line, based on your actions or inaction or your way to handle certain quests and such. I want there to be a possibility of messing up, leading to the death of your companions. But I want this possibility, and note the word - possibility (not a 100% occurence we have no power over) to be meaningful in the way that we as players can look back on our choices if it happens and go: "wow... because I did A instead of B, and then put companion X in position Y - that most likely caused this to happen".

Some people here seem to be under the misconception that those of us who want player companion deaths to be a possibility, is sitting there with popcorn all "GOD I HOPE THESE GUYS DIE LOLZ" like some sort of psycho-club. 

I can only speak for my self, but I think companion deaths should be possible - because it adds value and thrill to our decisions. And IF someone should die, then the sorrow and emotional impact gives you motivation to avenge them or such. 

 

---

TL,DR:

 

Companions being able to die should be possible.
The way they die if they do should make sense storywise and logically.
The reason of their death should be due to player inactions, actions, choices, neglect, betrayal etc. Meaning player agency as you call it? And not due to random 100% events completely out of your control.

One person could complete the game with all companions alive.
Another could complete the game with most companions dead.

This adds replay value, and real sense of loss if they do die. The best way Ive seen this handled is ME2 suicide mission, but to less extremes. Any one event or choice shouldnt (in most cases) lead someone "to their doom".

 

But then you also say this:

 

Unfortunately alot of people play DA for the wrong reasons. They think this is a dating + friendship sim in the land of rainbows and unicorns, and not an epic dark fantasy in a state of war, strife and turmoil. People basically want a super-safe, boring, unrealistic and unexciting world where they and their companions are immortal super-heroes fighting the good fight without the possibility of their disney-like universe to suffer any loss or sorrow in any way or form.

 

And then this:

My opinion from the very start has been that companions can all die, but equally so, companions can all live. Player choices being what triggers said consequences.

 

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to play Dragon Age.  Your posts imply alternately that it's okay to want a positive ending vs a negative one, but then you attach a lot of judgement to those who would prefer to play a more positive ending vs a 'gritty, realistic' ending. I don't want puppies and butterflies and goofy fairies with funny sounding names.  But I also don't want one long angst ridden slog fest where I have to do X or Y just to ensure that Z companion doesn't buy the farm every single game.

 

I don't need a video game to stamp 'sh*t happens' on my ass.  I've lived long enough that I know that lesson all too well.  I like my video games to be my escape from a world full of 'sh*t happens'.

[Revelat0]

I'm pretty sure that an arrow wouldn't be able to penetrate through the heavy metal plate in the front, never mind through the front and back plates. But looking at the size, that isn't really an arrow, it's a projectile from a ballista.

Ballista projectiles are generally larger than that, about the size of a short spear, the broadhead shape indicates it is an arrow, plus the fact it was flaming before it went into him, however, the archer could be using a warbow which has about 85lbs of pressure behind it versus something like a longbow with 50lbs, it could give the needed kinetic energy to go right through a person, but alas we are over-thinking a trailer, perhaps the arrows are magically enchanted.

[Eudaemonium]

And you are given no choice to make Mordin survives either whereas you can choose to shoot him dead with renegade.

 

This is not *technically* true. Completely.

 

Spoiler

If Wrex dies, leaving Wreav in charge of the krogan, and you eliminate Maelon's research in ME2 which (can?) lead to Eve's death and thus the lack of her as a 'tempering' force for Wreav's brutality, you can persuade Mordin to not cure the genophage because of the likelihood the krogan will start another galactic war. He will then survive.

[Eudaemonium]

To hell with the endings, Kai Lang was the worst part of ME3 for me.  And watching Mr. Plot Armor slice open Thane just made me grit my teeth. 

 

Sorry for the off-topic comment, but Kai Lame was one of the most obvious "Villain Sue" characters I've ever seen.  I don't use any of the "Sue" tropes lightly, but damn he was terrible.  

 

I think what galls me most about Kai Leng was that he could have been made interesting. I've heard that he's fairly decent in the first few ME books (never read them) but got massively regarded in Deception and ME3.

 

I love his battle theme, though...

[Mathias]

I ask this question for a very simple reason. When dealing with a large ensemble of cast and characters, it generally adds to the emotion and the heart of the story if everybody does not make it through the end. Let me put things into perspective:

 

The Inquisition was formed out of desperation. After the massacre that took place at the Mage-Templar peace talks and the arrival of the Breach, the world was on the verge of collapse. Never in the history of Thedas has the world been so divided, and never has a more polarizing organization taken the field to resolve it.

 

How did the Inquisitor survive the Breach? Was he responsible? Where does his power come from? Is he truly the Herald of Andraste? Such questions will lead to honor and praise, while others will condemn and vilify.

 

What we do know is that the world has never faced a threat quite like this, and that casualties are likely to be high as a consequence. What sacrifices will the Inquisition have to make to complete its purpose? Is there a price that is too high?

 

How much are you willing to sacrifice to save Thedas? Would you sacrifice your army? Your advisors? Your companions? Or even your loved one? If these kinds of questions were to be posed in DAI, I believe it would make for an incredibly engaging and impactful story, albeit tragic.

 

 

Dude I went through this bullcrap with ME3, and I don't want to do it again. It took me a very long time to recover from that ending, and I'm still to this day unforgiving towards Mac and Casey. I want CHOICE, not forced sacrifice.

 

I loved the way Bioware handled the ending to DA:O. There were some playthroughs were it fit the story well for my Warden to live, and there were some stories were the story flowed better when he sacrificed himself. But I don't want any forced artsy fartsy 2deep4u ending like we got with ME3. So no thanks.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Sylvanaeri: I'm sorry if I offended you. That second quote was not directly aimed at you personally (if you got that impression) and admittedly contained un-needed amounts of hyperbole. If I caused you any grief it was not intended and I apologize. I can be abit harsh in my opinions at times (probably why I got 4 warnings already) but It was not my intent to hurt anyone. 

[sylvanaerie]

Sylvanaeri: I'm sorry if I offended you. That second quote was not directly aimed at you personally (if you got that impression) and admittedly contained un-needed amounts of hyperbole. If I caused you any grief it was not intended and I apologize. I can be abit harsh in my opinions at times (probably why I got 4 warnings already) but It was not my intent to hurt anyone. 

Okie, we're cool.

[frankf43]

I ask this question for a very simple reason. When dealing with a large ensemble of cast and characters, it generally adds to the emotion and the heart of the story if everybody does not make it through the end. Let me put things into perspective:
 
The Inquisition was formed out of desperation. After the massacre that took place at the Mage-Templar peace talks and the arrival of the Breach, the world was on the verge of collapse. Never in the history of Thedas has the world been so divided, and never has a more polarizing organization taken the field to resolve it.
 
How did the Inquisitor survive the Breach? Was he responsible? Where does his power come from? Is he truly the Herald of Andraste? Such questions will lead to honor and praise, while others will condemn and vilify.
 
What we do know is that the world has never faced a threat quite like this, and that casualties are likely to be high as a consequence. What sacrifices will the Inquisition have to make to complete its purpose? Is there a price that is too high?
 
How much are you willing to sacrifice to save Thedas? Would you sacrifice your army? Your advisors? Your companions? Or even your loved one? If these kinds of questions were to be posed in DAI, I believe it would make for an incredibly engaging and impactful story, albeit tragic.

The did that with ME3 and the BSN nearly exploded. Don't think they will force the deaths of countless companions without giving us the option to save them. I also feel that predestined death have less impact than ones you can prevent if you do things right.

[Lennard Testarossa]

I don't need a video game to stamp 'sh*t happens' on my ass.  I've lived long enough that I know that lesson all too well.  I like my video games to be my escape from a world full of 'sh*t happens'.

 

And the vast majority of video games deliver that pure escapism. It's not unreasonable to request for series like DA to be the exception there.

 

Dude I went through this bullcrap with ME3, and I don't want to do it again. It took me a very long time to recover from that ending, and I'm still to this day unforgiving towards Mac and Casey. I want CHOICE, not forced sacrifice.

 

But the problem with the ME 3 ending wasn't the lack of 'ideal' outcomes or the forced sacrifice per se. CHOICE means deciding what your character does, not arbitrarily setting the story to have whatever outcome you happen to like. Choice in a video game isn't about being God. (Mind you, the way and the reasons Shepard dies in the ME 3 ending are utterly retarded, but the fact of his death itself isn't part of that retardation.)

[sylvanaerie]

And the vast majority of video games deliver that pure escapism. It's not unreasonable to request for series like DA to be the exception there.

 

 

People are just stating their preference in a reasonable manner just as I am.  It's actually one of the more reasonable discussions I've had here on the boards.  It's not unreasonable, it's just a matter of preference. 

 

*Edit* BTW, +1 like for your Zim Avatar!  I loved that quirky show!

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

People are just stating their preference in a reasonable manner just as I am.  It's actually one of the more reasonable discussions I've had here on the boards.  It's not unreasonable, it's just a matter of preference. 

 

*Edit* BTW, +1 like for your Zim Avatar!  I loved that quirky show!

So it is ^^

I really wish some of the writers could step in on this discussion though. Their insights and opinions on this would be invaluable for a constructive discussion on this topic.

[Thenait]

I wouldn't necessarily say it's a railroaded outcome and more so a dialogue on war and tragedy. No one is truly a winner in the end. Certainly trying to maintain the moral high ground may provide you with better steps to avoid risk and needless death. However, I also believe it makes for bad storytelling if the player has the ability to prevent any of his/her companions from being at risk of dying.

 

I thought Mass Effect 3 handled the deaths of Mordin and Thane incredibly well being some of the best scenes I have experienced in a BioWare game. I think the possibility of loss and failure should always be lingering to some extent. The slogan of the game, after all, is "Lead them or Fall." I would find it incredibly numbing and uninteresting if I had full control to shield and protect my companions from any tragic fates. This isn't a matter of forced tragedy but instead providing an impactful and emotional experience that isn't diluted entirely by the power and wishes of the player.

 

Why should we be able to have our cake and eat it too when this is never the case in real life?

 

That is exactly why we should if we so choose. Because life can be incredibly unfair and depressing many people (myself included) play games such as Inquisition as a form of escapism and it would ruin some of our enjoyment if such moments were forced on us.

[Shadow Trooper]

I really hate it when the game has unavoidable companion deaths because it takes away a vital part of combat gameplay. I am only ok with a non optional companion death if the game offers you a substitute that can fill the same role like Alistair/Loghain or it is during the end game so it does not really matter any more. I don't mind mandatory deaths among characters if they are not on your current party though. Like other people in this thread have mentioned, Thane and Mordin are good examples of nearly unavoidable deaths that were really well done. They have the emotional impact of killing a companion but since they are not on your squad, it does not hinder the gameplay aspect as much. I also believe that having a way to save the characters would really cheapen these moments; the whole reason they had such a powerful emotional impact was that there was no way to stop it from happening. If Bioware wants to use forced plot death, I would prefer to have former companion characters like Alistair or Isabela forced into a plot line death because their death would still be really emotional but it would not effect the current gameplay by depriving you of a character that may be vital to combat.  

[N7recruit]

That is exactly why we should if we so choose. Because life can be incredibly unfair and depressing many people (myself included) play games such as Inquisition as a form of escapism and it would ruin some of our enjoyment if such moments were forced on us.

But that isn't a good enough reason for them to not do it when it comes at the expense of good & believable story telling. You getting sad because of Character death or suffering is A GOOD THING for Bioware, it means they did a good job (ME3's stupidity aside) 

 

TBH I am getting Jaded from the "I'm the Hero who Saves the world" plot that is in almost EVERY SINGLE GAME & almost ALL of Bioware's.

 

You can only experience it so many times before it gets Boring. We have all played this dozens if not hundreds of times before. 

 

As to the OP. Bioware don't have the BALL'S to dare hurt/scar any of the Players Companions or Fan Favourites in a serious way, either physical or mental. They are our special snow flakes that always survive with no lasting damage NO MATTER WHAT.

 

I do find it ridiculous though that they try to sell this "End of the World" scenario in most of their games but the main characters always can come out Squeakie Clean, thousand's (Some time Billions) of people die but they wouldn't dare touch the main cast because of mass Fan Bitching & or Fan Depression.  

 

It's being Sold as your run of the mill generic "Hero Fantasy" so the player can feel good & have their ego stroked. You can bet your house on their being an ideal "Hero saves everyone, kills the bad guys & gets the girl" type ending to DA:I.

 

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as a douche bag but this **** is so stale & predictable at this point it's literally impossible for me to get excited for any game with this regurgitated formula being fed to us over & over & over.

 

I'm sure the writers have a few curve balls to throw at us to spice things up & to keep us guessing, but we all know how this is going to turn out. Our Heroes saved Thedas from the demons, then in DA:4 or 5 the Darkspawn, Magisters or Qunari take up the role as main Baddies then our new hero must form another army of miss-fits  to go beat them up. 

 

I can really See us being the leader of an army that saves the world from darkness at least another 2 times before the series is concluded depending on how many games they make. Is that good storytelling? Same old **** over & over? 

 

Don't Bioware get Bored of making this **** again & again & again?

[Angloassassin]

There is a fine line to trot across when you're talking about Tragedy that is real and believable (A-la, Mordin's Sacrifice to end the Genophage), and that which you can tell/predict, and are done solely for shock value or gameplay reasons. Another example from ME, is Jenkins when you land on Eden Prime. You listen to him talk, you start getting the sense he's over-eager, red-shirt wearing, nameless lieutenant, and he dies. Filling up room in your party for your "Proper" soldier, Ashley. Or Bethany/Carver depending on your Origin, so you don't double Mage or double Warrior in the beginning.

 

Decisions like Virmire (Ashley/Kaidan, not Wrex - whom you could talk down with high enough Paragon/Renegade), are an example of real and believable. You have limited time, and can choose to save one of them.

 

Some of these choices are easy (For me at least) to rationalise, being as I didn't agree with Ash's Xenophobic thoughts and statements, and (If romancing Liara while simultaneously ignoring Ashley), apparent possessiveness over Shepard because "Alien bad, why u do dat?", and Kaidan was much more likable (He's my Carth...), I generally tailored it so She went with the bomb, and I could save all the Salarians *And* Kaidan.   

 

Though that's mostly due to my knowledge of what was going to happen, beforehand . 

 

Deaths in Dragon's Age that had a meaningful impact (To myself at least), while not cheapening the sentiment: Your Parents (Noble Human Origin), Your Spouse (F!City Elf Origin), Caridin (Deep Roads), Riordan (Final Confrontation), Duncan/Cailan (Ostagar), Leliana retconned (Defending the Urn), Wynne (Defending the Mages), Alistair (Letting Anora have her way), M!/F! Warden (Ultimate Sacrifice).

 

Mainly I chose major ones - I'm not sure how many people would remember optional things like Ser Otto, but there's a Trend. All of these  were people who were willing to sacrifice everything for what they believed in - or for you in general. Caradin to keep his knowledge of the Anvil from being used, Leliana to keep you from defiling the Urn, Wynne to keep you from killing all the mages. Et Cetera Et Cetera.

 

 

In my honest opinion - a couple deaths (1-3), done right, will not make me squeal like a little girl in anger. Things like Mordin's Sacrifice, Thane's "To the Rescue!" moment, things that required you to have played the previous games in certain ways to make their deaths mean something.

 

Just going in and cutting a swath through everyone "Just cause! Tee Hee" isn't going to satisfy anyone, it's like the Pre-DLC altered ending to ME3, where anyone you brought with you got vaporised at the beam.

 

Guess I'll be meeting Garrus at the bar sooner than I'd hoped. 

[budzai]

I think it should be similar to the suicide mission in ME2 but without perfect solution... and the whole main mission chain should be like that not just near the end.. oh ok the first few hours can be a tutorial...

[Spectre Impersonator]

I bet Gaider pushed for everyone to die and no possible way to avoid it. 

[Revan Reborn]

I really hate it when the game has unavoidable companion deaths because it takes away a vital part of combat gameplay. I am only ok with a non optional companion death if the game offers you a substitute that can fill the same role like Alistair/Loghain or it is during the end game so it does not really matter any more. I don't mind mandatory deaths among characters if they are not on your current party though. Like other people in this thread have mentioned, Thane and Mordin are good examples of nearly unavoidable deaths that were really well done. They have the emotional impact of killing a companion but since they are not on your squad, it does not hinder the gameplay aspect as much. I also believe that having a way to save the characters would really cheapen these moments; the whole reason they had such a powerful emotional impact was that there was no way to stop it from happening. If Bioware wants to use forced plot death, I would prefer to have former companion characters like Alistair or Isabela forced into a plot line death because their death would still be really emotional but it would not effect the current gameplay by depriving you of a character that may be vital to combat.  

This is a good point and a possibility. This would lead for characters such as Morrigan, Flemeth, Cullen, Leliana, etc. to be potential candidates as we have a history with them. Certainly whatever BioWare does do, they should try to avoid causing any detriment to the gameplay experience of the player. That is one thing BioWare ideally should avoid at all cost.

 

But that isn't a good enough reason for them to not do it when it comes at the expense of good & believable story telling. You getting sad because of Character death or suffering is A GOOD THING for Bioware, it means they did a good job (ME3's stupidity aside) 

 

TBH I am getting Jaded from the "I'm the Hero who Saves the world" plot that is in almost EVERY SINGLE GAME & almost ALL of Bioware's.

 

You can only experience it so many times before it gets Boring. We have all played this dozens if not hundreds of times before. 

 

As to the OP. Bioware don't have the BALL'S to dare hurt/scar any of the Players Companions or Fan Favourites in a serious way, either physical or mental. They are our special snow flakes that always survive with no lasting damage NO MATTER WHAT.

 

I do find it ridiculous though that they try to sell this "End of the World" scenario in most of their games but the main characters always can come out Squeakie Clean, thousand's (Some time Billions) of people die but they wouldn't dare touch the main cast because of mass Fan Bitching & or Fan Depression.  

 

It's being Sold as your run of the mill generic "Hero Fantasy" so the player can feel good & have their ego stroked. You can bet your house on their being an ideal "Hero saves everyone, kills the bad guys & gets the girl" type ending to DA:I.

 

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as a douche bag but this **** is so stale & predictable at this point it's literally impossible for me to get excited for any game with this regurgitated formula being fed to us over & over & over.

 

I'm sure the writers have a few curve balls to throw at us to spice things up & to keep us guessing, but we all know how this is going to turn out. Our Heroes saved Thedas from the demons, then in DA:4 or 5 the Darkspawn, Magisters or Qunari take up the role as main Baddies then our new hero must form another army of miss-fits  to go beat them up. 

 

I can really See us being the leader of an army that saves the world from darkness at least another 2 times before the series is concluded depending on how many games they make. Is that good storytelling? Same old **** over & over? 

 

Don't Bioware get Bored of making this **** again & again & again?

I agree. I believe we severely limit the kinds of storytelling that can be portrayed when we place such idealistic and stringent rules on BioWare. I also believe people misconstrue the power of storytelling when they are emotionally impacted by it. BioWare wants you to be upset by the events that take place. That's the point. It shows you care about the characters and the story. When you have an investment in something, it means BioWare has done their job. If they are never willing to take the risk to have tragedy or death and everybody always "wins," then BioWare cheapens the story and we lose because we'll always get the same results.

 

I think it should be similar to the suicide mission in ME2 but without perfect solution... and the whole main mission chain should be like that not just near the end.. oh ok the first few hours can be a tutorial...

I do not approve of the suicide mission approach. It's logically flawed. It was meant to be a compromise between those who would like the risk of death versus those who are vehemently against it. By default the death itself is cheapened because it's easily avoidable and it actually serves no storytelling purpose in the long run. The only ones who really approve of the suicide missions are those who don't want death at all.

[Revan Reborn]

As the OP, I feel it's necessary to reel the discussion back on its original path and to place things into perspective once again.

 

This is clearly a heated and contested issue on both sides. There are those in favor of death and tragedy in storytelling. There are those who are absolutely against it in favor of escapism and an ending they completely control. There are valid arguments on both side of the aisle, but one thing that should always be considered is the art of storytelling and the never-ending crusade to improve it.

 

I understand why many are averse to the idea of companions dying. I get it. It's sad. It's tragic. You feel as if you are lack control and there is no alternative. These are very valid concerns. However, I feel it's also necessary to state this isn't a matter of "forced death" or "forced tragedy." These are terms I feel are being thrown around inappropriately and are honestly undermining the point of the discussion.

 

It should go without saying that the OP adheres to death done well and making sense with the purpose of the story. The reason I created this thread is because the events of DAI suggest there will be a lot of death and sacrifice. Much like Mass Effect 3, anyone who had a basic understanding of the series should have known there was going to be tragedy that ensues. However, with understanding the source material and seeing where the game is going, I believe BioWare does themselves as well as us a disservice by providing everyone we care about with a character shield.

 

Plot devices to bar characters from tragedy or death are cheap tools that cheapen the experience and break the immersion. It's not easy or glamorous to be a hero. It never was. Being the Inquisitor isn't a blessing. It's a curse. One that he/she will need to come to terms with and decide how he/she wants to advance the cause and try and resolve the ultimate dispute.

 

A lack of any death or the ME2 suicide mission approach would be absolutely unacceptable. The ME2 approach is an illusory mechanic of tragedy that serves no value as there is no point to the death other than the sake of death. I want death that has meaning and purpose towards the story. That is what BioWare games are all about. I certainly want to be happy and enjoy the experience, but BioWare games are also dramas. At times I may want to be sad, or laugh, or feel that connection with what the character is saying.

 

That's the point. That's why video games are an art. This isn't just a sandbox where we make the rules. This is a time for BioWare to create something that is serious, professional, and of the quality people expect and deserve. All I want is better storytelling. You don't have to like or hate the idea of death. However, recognize that if it is done right, it most certainly will add to the story. That is all I have to say on the matter.