This is strange to me, because my Inquisitor was nothing like the character you just described.
Neither was mine.
I don't understand this. Finally - after many years - Bioware has learned some subtlety in their characterization that leaves some space for my imagination to fill, rather than having to fight the writers, and people want the sledgehammer-characterization of DA2 and ME back that shoehorned you into distinctive but extreme types? It boggles the mind.
Neither was mine.
I don't understand this. Finally - after many years - Bioware has learned some subtlety in their characterization that leaves some space for my imagination to fill, rather than having to fight the writers, and people want the sledgehammer-characterization of DA2 and ME back that shoehorned you into distinctive but extreme types? It boggles the mind.
Actually, DA2 did two different things many mash into one.
It established a definite backstory and personality, but it also gave you different options to react in conversation - even if they were not gameplay-effective decisions. I would like to reinforce that those are very seperate things.
I have no need for a character with an established backstory, but I don't see how DA2's dialogue system alone was not superior to DAI when it comes to multi-layered portrayal. I could be three fundamentally different personality types; whereas while in DAI it also lead to a predefined outcome, in normal conversation my Inquisitor had a different daily mood at the very best. There's a few light but very obligatory sounding stabs at humor here and there, and sometimes they can get angry; but effectively every Inquisitor remains the same person when it comes down to it. I liked the way DA2 colored each and every response after a while in relation to your usual behaviour.
The DAI way is something legitimately more enjoyable to some, but it is not for me, and it most definitely is not a linear advancement in objective quality of the same thing - IMO.
Out of all three Dragon Age games, the character I was most invested in was my Warden.
That's not to say I wasn't invested in my Hawke or my Inquisitor, it's just that the stories that sucked me into my character the most were the Origin stories.
The attack on the Cousland household and the deaths of my character's family lit a fire in me that burned bright and hot through that entire first playthrough. Then I started a second playthrough with a new character, and my city elf was assaulted and vilely mistreated on her wedding day, and that flame burned even hotter (heck, it STILL does when I think about it). Every Origins character I made, of every origin, had a spark that lit their way through the story.
Hawke's story had plenty of bright points, as after all it was an origin story unto itself. Inquisition sadly lacks that inner core origin tale, which I found myself missing, though I really loved the return of the racial choices and the differences playing each race provides, as I'm really not a fan of a set-in-stone protagonist for RPGs.
Actually, DA2 did two different things many mash into one.
It established a definite backstory and personality, but it also gave you different options to react in conversation - even if they were not gameplay-effective decisions. I would like to reinforce that those are very seperate things.
I have no need for a character with an established backstory, but I don't see how DA2's dialogue system alone was not superior to DAI when it comes to multi-layered portrayal. I could be three fundamentally different personality types; whereas while in DAI it also lead to a predefined outcome, in normal conversation my Inquisitor had a different daily mood at the very best. There's a few light but very obligatory sounding stabs at humor here and there, and sometimes they can get angry; but effectively every Inquisitor remains the same person when it comes down to it. I liked the way DA2 colored each and every response after a while in relation to your usual behaviour.
The DAI way is something legitimately more enjoyable to some, but it is not for me, and it most definitely is not a linear advancement in objective quality of the same thing - IMO.
Choosing "nice", "snark", "ass" is not multi-layered. Especially when it then later affects the way your character speaks in a later conversation outside of your control.
Inquisition handled the same thing better with its emotion wheel. Whether a character gets angry or upset, or deals with something in a stoic way, or finds a way to be happy about something, tells me a lot more about their character than whether they choose to be snarky or not.
That is the thing with the Inquisitor isn't it?
When Hawke came in to the picture, they were competing with the Warden. They had to bring a backstory to the table, and then some, since people had strong connection to their protagonist. It worked for some, for others it didn't. The Inquisitor on the other hand, always struck me as either a coward or a cheater -dramatically put- in that game; as in they weren't even trying. "You can like and care about me, or not. I'm not running in that competition." was the basic message from the get go. I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing, and if the latter, whose fault it is. But it definitely shifted the largest gear so far. They were, for all intents and purposes, the biggest blank slate of them all.
Even the most liberated of them, the Warden, had an elaborate introduction to get your fantasy started - the Inquisitor grew on me eventually, don't get me wrong, but it took by far the longest and the most to get there.
Choosing "nice", "snark", "ass" is not multi-layered. Especially when it then later affects the way your character speaks in a later conversation outside of your control.
I disagree.
A character who greets a potentially dangerous leader of a warmongering group of alien invaders with a sassy pun, most definitely has a way of putting things in each aspect of life. The Inquisitor had no "way" of anything, never. Even the ones I got to select were typically too faded to sound engaged. His jokes weren't overly funny past the point of puns anyone could come up with in the respective situation (probably my biggest pet peeve), his anger didn't feel genuine mostly, and the sadness was generic in the same way as described about the humor (it's sad that people died).
But that's really a matter of perception, and my own bad.
Actually, DA2 did two different things many mash into one.
It established a definite backstory and personality, but it also gave you different options to react in conversation - even if they were not gameplay-effective decisions. I would like to reinforce that those are very seperate things.
I have no need for a character with an established backstory, but I don't see how DA2's dialogue system alone was not superior to DAI when it comes to multi-layered portrayal. I could be three fundamentally different personality types; whereas while in DAI it also lead to a predefined outcome, in normal conversation my Inquisitor had a different daily mood at the very best. There's a few light but very obligatory sounding stabs at humor here and there, and sometimes they can get angry; but effectively every Inquisitor remains the same person when it comes down to it. I liked the way DA2 colored each and every response after a while in relation to your usual behaviour.
The DAI way is something legitimately more enjoyable to some, but it is not for me, and it most definitely is not a linear advancement in objective quality of the same thing - IMO.
You know...I like to express different personalities as much as any roleplayer does. However, DA2's options were all too often too extreme, *and* they were the only options, i.e. there was no non-extreme characterization option.
DAI's options are more moderate. That may make them appear too similar in many people's eyes, but they were *much* more natural. I could believe taking any of the options depending on the type of character I want to play, or depending on a changed mood, while all too many of DA2's options felt parodistic (not the only element of the game that did, see combat animations) and in quite a few conversations I'd never take any of them if I had the choice. That also meant I could mix and match depending on the situation - which is *way* more realistic than being stuck with a dominant mood that's so dominant it feels like you have multiple-personality disorder if you switch.
Where DAI failed is in that it provided no extreme options at all in most conversations. Those are occasionally appropriate for one character or the other, and their complete absence made conversations appear too tame here and there.
There's one way out of this: more conversation options. DAI occasionally had them, but it was limited to Very Important Situations ™ most of the time. That wasn't enough to create a rounded personality unless you wanted to be moderate overall (which I did most of the time), but it's a step in the right direction.
There's one way out of this: more conversation options. DAI occasionally had them, but it was limited to Very Important Situations ™ most of the time. That wasn't enough to create a rounded personality unless you wanted to be moderate overall (which I did most of the time), but it's a step in the right direction.
Hawke had a way bigger possible personality spectrum than the Inquisitor.
OurBioware's Inquisitor is one dimensional and if you lined up every DA:I player's Inquisitor when it comes to personality and moral compass they would all be clones.
The Inquisitor will never be immoral, dark, grey. You have no choices. The Inquisitor is shaped in stone just like Bioware wanted him/she to be. You think choosing between templars and mages or such makes your Inquisitor unique? None of them are important personality defining choices. You have no big personality defining choices in Inquisition. You can replay the game 100 times and in every single outcome the Inquisitor will be a overly moralistic super-good-natured man/woman which will fight for good and have a high moral standard as the core of the voice acting and persona.
DA;I is more a movie than an RPG game.
The term you're looking for is "JRPG"
Bioware makes JRPGs, the "shape your own protagonist" aspect being mostly an artifact from the early years of the company when its founders were trying to convert pen & paper RPGs into computer games.
Eventually, Bioware had to adapt to the medium limitations and its games got JRPGified
***
Still not buying that Shepard or Hawke are supposedly better-written or more in-depth than DAO or DAI protagonists.
ME1 Shepard was a boring blank slate
ME2 Shepard was an annoying Heinleinesque Invincible Space Marine
ME3 Shepard who couldn't look the Asari councilior in the eyes, barely held down tears during Thane's memorial service and who watched Earth from the CItadel, bloodied, exhausted and obviously fed up with her shitty life, that character was well-written. A shame it took three games for the writers to finally turn her into more than an empty vessel for power-fantasy, but hey, at least they nailed it down in the end.
Hawke had three tones, but it's clear that the writers had a defined personality in their mind: that of a misfit extremely protective toward their family members but often unsuccessful when it comes to actually protect them, inordinately fond of his/her small circle of dysfunctional friends, open-minded enough to see that the current system couldn't work, caring enough to try to fix things whee they can but too self-effacing to fancy themselves a great reformist or liberator: that is the personality revealed by a completionist play-style. Sure, it's a rather archetypal "Fierce on the field, meek in the hall" knight-in-shining-armor personality, but it's still A Lot more than the "nothing-just-project-your-head-canon-on-it" types we see in the Warden, and to a lesser degree in the Inquisitor. (Plus snarky-Hawke has the best lines of dialogues ever given to a knight-in-shining-armor: most of these type of characters are either boring or bullies, snarky-Hawke was neither)
Agreed, but not ME3 Shepard though. He/she was too defined for my taste and there was no room to shape his/her personality. Imagine the inquisitor having nightmares about a boy killed in the attack on Haven throughout the game and constantly whining about the fate of his race disregarding other races.
I liked Hawke more than HoF and TI though. Hawke's defined character was also the reason he/she made cameo in DAI and HoF not.
I didn't like how HoF's various dialogue options all didn't have much of consequences. I mean, calling the queen of Ferelden "you ******, I'm going to kill you!" was fun but ultimately meaningless without a retribution.
I liked Hawke more than HoF and TI though. Hawke's defined character was also the reason he/she made cameo in DAI and HoF not.
The Hero of Ferelden being a silent protagonist and possibly being dead probably had more to do with it.
what if the people (gamers, us) don't like the background history?
that could be a big problem too, it happened with fallout
what if the people (gamers, us) don't like the background history?
that could be a big problem too, it happened with fallout
what if the people (gamers, us) don't like the background history?
that could be a big problem too, it happened with fallout
The problem with Fallout's background history (that of the player character, anyway) was that it imposed an attitude on you. For instance, as I played I was completely aware of the possibility that a lot of time may have passed between the episode where your child was taken away and the final awakening, but I couldn't express it, and even worse, the story assumed I was ignorant and set its reponse options accordingly.
The same happened with Shepard in ME3, only very much worse.
As I see it, the backstory doesn't matter so much, as long as it doesn't impose traits I should be able to control. ME2, ME3 and to a lesser degree, DA2 failed me in roleplaying not because their protagonist had a defined backstory, but because the story forced me to express traits I didn't want, or in DA2's case, forced me into extremes I didn't want. In ME3's case, things were so bad that I wished I hadn't started the trilogy.
Which brings me to your point: If I dislike some aspect of a character enough, I won't play the game. Unfortunately, you rarely know these things in advance. I had my doubts about DAI, since "Inquisition" raises some really bad associations. It worked out reasonably well, but it was a close thing. I still hate that I had to lead a faith-based organization named "Inquisition", no matter that the true meaning of the word is rather less offensive than the historical ballast it carries.
In any case, I want to control my character's attitudes. That's the part where I am unwilling to compromise. I have very limited ways to control my actions, but attitudes in themselves are invisible, so all I need there is being able to avoid expressing attitudes I do *not* want - by being noncommital if necessary. DAI gave me that option, almost all of the time, while DA2 and ME2 and worst of all, ME3, didn't. That's why I don't want another Shepard or Hawke. Not unless the dialogue options include expressing traits I do want in most of the conversations. Since it appears Bioware and I rarely see eye to eye with regard to what they or I consider desirable traits for our protagonists, I don't have any confidence I'll ever see that in a Bioware game, and I think I'll be stuck with the second-best option: being able to be neutral if no other option fits.
The same happened with Shepard in ME3, only very much worse.
Agreed.
In ME3, if Shepard's expression happens to match what I wanted him to say, I counted it as a happy coincidence.
Not a good thing for a game that claims to encourage role-playing.
Maybe I'm not reading this right OP, but if you want your characters to be more like Shepard/Hawke, then maybe Revan should be the character he/she was before a rebirth was necessary *silly shrug*.
Anyhoo, I thought the Inquisitor left some room "in the moment" for the player to interpret who he/she was as Inquisitor, which was cool. But you probably met some resistance if you came up with your own character's backstory and tried to apply it to every single situation and choice in the game. It's a bit unfair that the other characters can go on and on about their past and you can barely communicate any of yours, but it's a tough business creating RPG games.
Choosing "nice", "snark", "ass" is not multi-layered. Especially when it then later affects the way your character speaks in a later conversation outside of your control.
Which can be a non-wonderful thing if you are trying to roleplay a character that has changed over the years or whose reaction differs depending on the situation or the person whom they are talking to.
It's a nice idea, I think, but like the paragon and renegade thing in the Mass Effect series, it can be an obstacle to roleplaying a complex character and so I prefer the Inquisition approach far more. I think the latter provides me more range and options.
Which can be a non-wonderful thing if you are trying to roleplay a character that has changed over the years or whose reaction differs depending on the situation or the person whom they are talking to.
It's a nice idea, I think, but like the paragon and renegade thing in the Mass Effect series, it can be an obstacle to roleplaying a complex character and so I prefer the Inquisition approach far more. I think the latter provides me more range and options.
This bolded part, so so much.
Apparently I was either mean or snarky to someone too many times, because at one point the game decided that after I went on a quest to find a man's wife, only to discover she was dead, I apparently wanted to laugh in his face about it?!? 
WHY WOULD YOU DECIDE THAT GAME?!?
Choosing "nice", "snark", "ass" is not multi-layered. Especially when it then later affects the way your character speaks in a later conversation outside of your control.
Which can be a non-wonderful thing if you are trying to roleplay a character that has changed over the years or whose reaction differs depending on the situation or the person whom they are talking to.
These. So. Much.
Retour en haut