ME2 was the right way, if you fail people die, gives reason and drama it needed.
what i found disturbing is Lilliana she was death at the sacred ashes, yet she is alive and wel.
Where ME2 went wrong, I felt, was loyalty. This was just something I found terribly unconvincing. It was made worse by the fact that certain characters in ME3 will die for being disloyal. Why the hell would Zaeed die on the Citadel like that? And why the heck is the Citadel ambient music playing during his death scene?
Death is usually used for emotional impact when the writers aren't good enough to create emotional impact without it. I felt plenty when I first saw Corypheus walking through the flames as haven fell. When the survivors broke into "Dawn Will Come" and started surrounding my Inquisitor, I was blown away, far more so than when ME3 decided to kill off Thane.
Hearing Cole helping the injured, and then him saying, " I want to stay." was amazing. Watching Cassandra squirm when my Inquisitor found out she likes romance novels made me laugh so hard it hurt. Seeing Iron Bull's love for his Chargers, and him accepting that he gave up everything to save them was powerful. Bringing Cole into the Fade, and his reaction, made me feel bad that I brought him there. I actually was angry at Blackwall when I found out he was lying to me the entire time.
There's tons of instances where I felt emotion while playing the game. Feeling emotion is a highly subjective thing. Just because you didn't feel any emotion or depth, doesn't mean there isn't any. In fact, If death is the only way for you to feel anything, you might need to work on your emoting a bit.
I just recently played and finished Assassin's Creed IV. {SPOILERS FOR AC4} To keep it short, i felt that Edward Kenway and him losing almost all his friends whether it being Blackbeard or Mary Reed gave a sort of emotional depth to the game that was fairly repetitive in gameplay and its other tired mechanics. Why do i use AC4 as in example? Well because i just played it and it made me feel more close and attached to the side characters in that game than in Dragon Age: Inquisition simply because you feel loss. Loss that Edwards friends die and that stark reminder seeing them in a sort of flashback all sitting at a table drinking at the end of the game.
Dragon Age Inquisiton lacks this and therefore makes everything feel safe and dandy. There is no weight, no risk, you already won by the time you reach the Temple of Mythal. It makes the game forgettable without a meaningful death(s). How can a tired out franchise like Assassin's Creed do it better than the supposed "masters of writing" at Bioware?
Apart from the people who did mass effect(did beautiful death scenes), it seems bioware are too scared to kill off your companions. It makes this game feel unimportant and not memorable because of it, you need things that punch you in the gut, deaths that break your heart. Life or death situations. Dragon Age Inquisiton sorely needed it and properly done scenes.
It's sad that Assassin's Creed IV made me ponder more about its ending than Dragon Age Inquisition. I really dont know what to say Bioware, you are slinking more and more into a dark hole with your egregious and safe writing.
I don't know why you so much need to feel such a sadness in a game, (well I guess you are simply that kind of person who prefers to live on an edge) but I think there was enough sadness in DAI even without deaths of main characters. You speak with the characters, make their quests, see how they reacts on what is going on, you can see what could happen with them and the world in only a year if you won't manage to defeat Cory, you can see how they change during the game, what they are telling you about themselves and their past - I got enough sadness from this plus my heart was completely broken by Solas
ask yourself this. If a important side character had a meaningful death scene, would Dragon Age Inquisition be better or worse for it?
Also i used death as an example.
for me it would be worse, it would be lame, stupid and awful. I guess everyone simply sees the world through different filters. I love tragedy, but it looks like not that much as you, but there are lots of people who sincerely loves happy endings and hate being sad during a game
Entertainment these days, play it safe. Look at DAI for example. This game had no emotional depth whatsoever, i dont know where you're coming from because i put 130 hours into this grindfest. I guess if it did have emotional depth then it was poorly done. Blackwall' "betrayal"(he didnt betray me) wasnt really shocking or emotional, it was more like "oh". Solas? I guess if you romanced him but i'd never do that. Maybe the DAI team should take some lessons from ME3, because frankly, i enjoyed it much more than DAI even with the original ending it had.
Emotional depth =/ death of a character
A lot of deaths pissed me off in ME3 rather than making me sad or angry. Thane and Anderson could both survive if Bioware wouldn't take control of Shepard away from player. Inquisition has plenty of emotional scenes. The moment where your people starts singing The Dawn Will Come after they realize you survived Haven was far more emotional for me than any ME deaths that were forced on us.
DAI team doesn't have to take any lessons from ME3, it should be other way around actually, since DAI does everything right what ME3 did wrong.
Entertainment these days, play it safe. Look at DAI for example. This game had no emotional depth whatsoever, i dont know where you're coming from because i put 130 hours into this grindfest. I guess if it did have emotional depth then it was poorly done. Blackwall' "betrayal"(he didnt betray me) wasnt really shocking or emotional, it was more like "oh". Solas? I guess if you romanced him but i'd never do that. Maybe the DAI team should take some lessons from ME3, because frankly, i enjoyed it much more than DAI even with the original ending it had.
"This game had no emotional depth whatsoever". Really, it seems like we were playing two different games. I really don't get what you are talking about. I like this game exactly for its emotional depth. Even Cory's story made me sad; I felt sorry for Leliana, it was awful to see Varric in such a sadness, and that Iron Bull's quest... And lots of little facts that you can hear from characters. Like I said - we all see the world through different filters... There is no "right" or "wrong" in this topic. I believe you when you say that for you game wasn't emotional enough, but you too plz believe me and lots of gamers who would agree with me - if this game would be more emotional in a sad way, or if some main character would tragically died, I would be absolutely heart broken and devastated in a bad way, I wouldn't like the game at all, it would make me depressed. Plus to all different sad and emotional facts which I saw in the game, the romance with Solas made me cry, I was holding the consoler very tight and I wanted to unseen what I'd just seen and I was crying like a little girl. For me it was more than enough for emotional depth. I don't want anyone from main characters to die, really.
Character death means jack if you aren't attached to the dying character in the first place. (see DA2 prologue for a good example)
To me personally, a character's death means much more if that death is caused by me making a mistake, a wrong decision, not because the game's writers decreed it so. When Jock got blown out of the sky in Deus Ex, it was because I didn't find the bomb hidden in his helicopter, not because the writer decided that Jock always dies at this point. I rolled my eyes at the forced drama in DA2, but when bad things happen to characters because of mistakes I made - genuine mistakes, not "decide whether A or B dies", or "character dies because you chose not to do their loyalty mission" - then I tend to feel bad about it, even if it's just a side character.
No amount of mandatory deaths can force impact if they are not done well. It's in how it's done, not the quantity of dead people that's used. The sibling's death in DA2's prologue fell utterly flat because the scene is such a facepalmer. On the other hand, I felt affected by the death of Max Payne's wife in the first Max Payne game despite never even seeing her as a living person. Because you could see the protagonist's pain over it. That guy collapsed weeping, and didn't say stupid sh*t like "I want to be a dragon" two minutes later.
If the emotion of losing people is not portrayed well within the game, and that's pretty hard to do, there's no need to bother with killing off characters in the first place.
the 'your entire clan just died lol' table mission made me want ot kill some people, seriously..if people aren't going to even mention a genocide, I will make one big enough that they care, forced mass possession of every chantry sister I see, torture every templar I find to death, the release only allowed after they sing me an opera after their tongue has been torn out and their genitels burned off etc etc, but then, that is to merciful to both sisters and templars, no release, they can live as limbless blind mewling things in their own filth.
Wait, you're saying AssCreed IV had more emotional investment than DAI.
Really...?
I'll be back in an hour or two, I need to laugh this off.
I agree that the game lacks emotional depth. It lacks a personal touch. But I'm not sure if the death of some companions would've changed that, because for that to work the Inquisitor would need to develop a connection to the companions and advisors, which to me never happens in the game, and Corypheus would have to be more powerful, so that the deaths would be more believable.
Emotional depth =/ death of a character
A lot of deaths pissed me off in ME3 rather than making me sad or angry. Thane and Anderson could both survive if Bioware wouldn't take control of Shepard away from player. Inquisition has plenty of emotional scenes. The moment where your people starts singing The Dawn Will Come after they realize you survived Haven was far more emotional for me than any ME deaths that were forced on us.
DAI team doesn't have to take any lessons from ME3, it should be other way around actually, since DAI does everything right what ME3 did wrong.
The thing that always seriously bugged me about Thane was that he was going to die already, so we were well prepared for having some kind of emotional sendoff, but they just had to do something stupid to him. If anything, he should have succeeded in repelling Kai Leng's assassination attempt, even if that means Leng simply lives and runs, and nearing the endgame, we get notice that Thane is on his last legs because of his condition so his story can properly come to a close. I'm not sure what to think of Anderson's death. On the one hand, I kind of like his final words, but the whole Assuming Illusive Control always rubbed me the wrong way. But it seems like just about everyone's death, save the VS, Mordin and Wrex, kind of baffle me in the way they're done.
But don't forget our good friends Emily Wong and Kal Reegar. They may not have played huge roles in the greater narrative, but their deaths were no less ridiculously lame because of it.
Yes it does.
Except it doesn't. Not even close. Thane's death held no depth whatsoever, because the scene was framed in such a horrible, stupid fashion. Same goes for Legion's death. IT plays entirely to emotion, but there's no reason for it to have ever happened, and it makes no sense whatsoever.
totally true, the only time i felt down was because i was RPing Anders and had to siege on my fellow wardens... but else... it lacked of emotion, but at least it didn't had any deaths by being ubber stupid ((aka Leandra)). Hawke's death oh come on, it was just taking out the trash, varric may cry but to tell the truth i would cry more if a broken toy ends in the bin than for Hawke
The thing that always seriously bugged me about Thane was that he was going to die already, so we were well prepared for having some kind of emotional sendoff, but they just had to do something stupid to him.
Am I really the only person who remembers the "so we've developed a new treatment for Kepral's Syndrome..." broadcasts on the Cerberus news? The ones that would have staved off the disease and extended Thane's lifetime?
Then again, this is the same Bioware who also totally changed the nature of Thane's disease.
Am I really the only person who remembers the "so we've developed a new treatment for Kepral's Syndrome..." broadcasts on the Cerberus news? The ones that would have staved off the disease and extended Thane's lifetime?
Then again, this is the same Bioware who also totally changed the nature of Thane's disease.
I honestly did not pay attention to the Cerberus news, so this is news to me.
The thing that always seriously bugged me about Thane was that he was going to die already, so we were well prepared for having some kind of emotional sendoff, but they just had to do something stupid to him. If anything, he should have succeeded in repelling Kai Leng's assassination attempt, even if that means Leng simply lives and runs, and nearing the endgame, we get notice that Thane is on his last legs because of his condition so his story can properly come to a close. I'm not sure what to think of Anderson's death. On the one hand, I kind of like his final words, but the whole Assuming Illusive Control always rubbed me the wrong way. But it seems like just about everyone's death, save the VS, Mordin and Wrex, kind of baffle me in the way they're done.
But don't forget our good friends Emily Wong and Kal Reegar. They may not have played huge roles in the greater narrative, but their deaths were no less ridiculously lame because of it.
Especially Reegar's. Instead of seeing him go out like the badass we knew him to be they killed him off screen instead. Instead of, you know, doing it during the bloody mission to Rannoch.
I honestly did not pay attention to the Cerberus news, so this is news to me.
short version: they went ala DA2 with that moment, but the entire ME3 game looked like a TV series that has extended it's regular lifetime... same as with FFVII near the end
Seneschal Varel's death at Vigil's Keep comes the closest to the kind of moment that I have been expecting from this franchise and that old soldiers passing still remains very affecting.
The internal algorithms that track choices that we make and tack on surprise ramifications to produce the game ending states, seems like such a lock for an unexpected cinematic that would punch you in the gut. Since nothing similar has been featured thus far, I would humbly suggest that losing a valiant comrade during the big battle to conclude one of these games would really drive home the danger of what you are attempting.
Consider how you would have felt at the end of Inquisition if one of your companions got skewered saving your life or even devoured like Warden-Commander Clarel at Adamant. The victory would still be there, but the loss of a dear friend would be tough to swallow in the aftermath. Even more so if it was your love interest? In one of my favorite films, of The Magnificent Seven only three were still alive at the end.
And it shouldn't have been PC's choice.
I would have appreciated having some obscure coded equation flip the quarter on who got left behind in the Fade also. It would have been easy for Bioware to have made the choice based upon how we had previously talked with Hawke or Alistair/Loghain/Stroud and/or what comments we made to them during Here Lies the Abyss in regards to the Warden's, etc.
what are you talking about? I feel grave emotional loss over those 200 hours which will never come back.
Assassins creed is not a tired out franchise!
Tell me you're kidding.
Tell me you're kidding.
Nope. He's fanboying. Or fangirling. Whichever's applicable.
AssCreed worn itself out already. More like Spiderman's Creed with the way parkour elements look now.
Plus the story's all messy. Honestly, where's one single simple reason Arno would stay with the Assassins if they're all the way they are.
Retour en haut