3 réponses à ce sujet

[Madmoe77]

In Dragon Age the reoccurring special character is thematic. Even an evolutionary character like Hawke still becomes the special over time. This limits the versatility of the narrative and becomes repetitive. Especially game after game. The stakes can only be raised on the stage but the rise is mostly the same. 

 

As the title suggests; what if we as the player never had that opportunity? Why not a change in perspective that actually relieves the player of such agency?

 

A series like Berserk is a great example. The lead character, even powerful and in the titular lone wolf role is Gutso the strong second. As Guts follows Griffith in his pursuit to gain a Kingdom and eventually Godhood, the events draft Guts into an unknowing rival. This theme isn't lost in Inquisition.

 

At one point in the story with Ironbull; the Inquisitor has the opportunity to dress down and be the invisible support of the Inquisition as a lowly support troop. Ironbull has you dress the part and comically play the silent strongman to engage the regulars and get a sense for how they perceive the Inquisition's efforts and themselves from the admiring base.

 

So many times I felt this could have been done. Many times the Inquisitor may not have been needed or his/her race would have literally effected the outcome negatively. In Crestwood we could have had a racist Mayor whom we would have learned in advance responded only to human ranked personas and we could have set second saddle to Cassandra leading the conversations more thoroughly or even pretending to be the Inquisitor. This does happen in case of recruitment but the totality of it limited to this only. That isn't deep enough! At least in my opinion.

 

Sometimes the Shaper's of our worlds are never the figure-head. Sometimes the supportive, incidental fool creates our pathways and allows our leaders their threshold to give gravitas to leaders of state.

 

Some may say this was done in the Landsmeet in DAO. But even a Warden Cousland was given too much license to interject themselves. Hawke became the Champion default regardless of desire. The Inquisitor is literally given a sword and the title upon wandering frozen mountain paths lead quietly by Solas there. We get to be special and the figurehead at nearly every turn.

 

Frodo; Lord of the Rings

 

Robinhood to an extent.

 

Les Mis! For the dramatic example.

 

We can engage a world without having to set front lines!

 

Living in the shadow of something great can create great drama! Being driven to avoid, engage, suffer quietly is the character I am talking about. Character driven authority! The Puppet-always supportive. The Fool-to easily manipulated. The Guide-secure and stalwart. I wonder if egos would allow such a Dragon Age experience to be played?

 

Sound off. Narratives. Examples that you believe support it already. Desires to even see such a thing.  

 

 

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

<<<< I think we know which one I am.

[Terodil]

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying, to be honest. I see significant elements of everything in DA:I, in fact, I'd say too much already!

Just to take what you name 'the puppet' as an example: that was the subtitle to DA:KW already; Hawke was the unwitting puppet of higher powers until the dramatic catastrophe made her realise just how little influence she had (her walking away from the battle and leaving the entire mess behind was an act of emancipation and Hawke's biggest win in the entire game). The Inquisition in DA:I is constantly manipulated and forced down specific roads by people (e.g. Solas, the late Justinia) and by organisations / traditions (templars / mages / religion). My biggest gripe with DA:I is that the player has practically no influence on the development of the inquisition. From the very start the inquisitor is a tool to be used, not the least by Cassie and Leliana (who, like most puppeteers, are sometimes puppets themselves). The epilogue shows quite clearly who holds the reigns: the next Divine. The Inquisitor ends up a footnote at best, a bizarre fluke who ended up with importance far beyond her station, a weapon and shield to be expertly wielded by the powers that be.

I strongly support the call for a better narrative. I don't believe that forcing the player character into an even more confined action space is the right decision; if anything the player needs to be given more choice, more freedom, more agency.

[Madmoe77]

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying, to be honest. I see significant elements of everything in DA:I, in fact, I'd say too much already!


I strongly support the call for a better narrative. I don't believe that forcing the player character into an even more confined action space is the right decision; if anything the player needs to be given more choice, more freedom, more agency.

 

 

Imagine the setup as a triangle. At top you have (A), at bottom ( and ©; your character is always ( or ©-never (A). Either your story runs parallel to much greater events like a survival story or you are always the strong second. You don't make the decisions, you influence them.

 

***Edit apparently b and c are emoticons. My apologies!  

 

You mold the star by being the "Shaper." Dragon Age 2 opened like this. The player started out just trying to survive the magnanimous events unfolding around you. Player choice would be the opposite of the leader. You don't make the decisions but you support, push or concede the choices of the true "special" of the story. And Dragon Age has never, that I have experienced went for anything other than a pure "get my way" kind of character. Evil being your focus here, still had little to no influence on being the "Hero of Fereldon" in the memory of everyone. Let's say instead you character is left with an unmarked grave while the lead got all the glory. It's a bitter-sweet story that the player knows the truth of.

 

We get more than enough opportunity to be the hero of every tale up front. Be it the Warden, Hawke and now the Inquisitor. Everyone claps as you stand forefront, King, Champion or even Inquisitor. World-shapers! But they seem hollow don't they.

 

They seem and feel that way because your outcome is determined by the final bow. You get that bow no matter what you do. In a strong-second narrative you would never get that chance. Your the coach, the friend, the valued confidant. Sam-wise to Frodo. That role is rarely explored because people live that role most often in their lives. Frodo also counts though as his tale is beside the huge armies and outside of the arching conflict for assurance of his deed. I know it isn't a popular idea but the super awesome consummate winner gets old. And this isn't something that I "demand", it's something I would encourage them to look at.

 

I generally lurk the forums. (Ugly term I know.) It is the safest route. And given the inflated views versus comments on some posts would think that is the case for most people. Being up front isn't always the best way to participate. Most by nature are not the world-beaters found in the common game. We want to be part but for some reason save our input for those asking. This is also the idea of the on-looker who appears to be the Fool with nothing to say. The Guide always has advice and can even lead when needed. The Puppet follows lead in almost every case because it is right. The terms do not sound very forum friendly but they fit. We may not like that title either.

 

So in short; being Sam-Wise to Frodo, Robinhood in the wings while the war wages on, Jean Valjean in Les Mis just keeping his head low is the romantic and tragic hero. Player could be lover of the hero, friend of the hero, childhood rival; but never the hero. Acknowledgment goes a long way in story-telling but a passionate role will always trump the hero if seen by an audience as being the stepping stone.