231 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

Hm, I prefer the companions in DA:O. They are the most natural ones. In DA2 and Inq there are too many freaks and chars with forced character traits.

 

And I guess if the game would be "fan service", we would have a DA:O 2 now.

 

Seems to me that "freaks" is kind of a thing for all of BioWare's protagonists to some extent, and the Warden is certainly no exception. We had the spirit-enhanced, nag-a-minute schoolmarm, the holy-rolling bowl-of-sugar pious bard, and the perpetually drunk dwarf who's as smooth with the females as a 20-grit sheet of sandpaper.

[midnight tea]

You missed the point of the thread then. This isn't about continuity and choices carrying over per se. What this thread is discussing is to what degree that fan service should dictate the experience of the next installment. DAI arguably has more fan service than any other BioWare title. The fan service is so pronounced that it even largely affects the main story and what occurs. If you take out all the DAO and DAII content, you'd recognize you are left with a rather emaciated skeleton of a game. Should BioWare rely that heavily on previous games? Or should they have more of a balance with new ideas versus returning stories?

 

Again, that is not what this discussion is about. Forget about DAI being a solid standalone game. That's irrelevant. The point is DAI is more dependent on previous events in sequels than arguably any other BioWare game. Even Mass Effect had the main story changing drastically with each installment while the background and side ventures largely showed the continuity.

 

Now, take out all of the aspects of DAO and DAII in DAI. What are you left with? Not much, really. This is my point. If we were to put a number on the fan service versus original content, it's roughly 65% fan service and 35% original story. Perhaps it is even more than that. The call of the question is should a BioWare title be this reliant on its predecessors? That is what this thread is asking.

 

I disagree - I see what your'e trying to argue, but I keep thinking that it's you who keep missing the point of why DAI is the way it is. Oh sure, fanservice exists, but I don't think it impacts the story the way you think it does.

 

I also don't understand the reasoning behind stating that "DAI is maybe 35% of original content" ... I'm sorry, but that's like saying "The Return OF The King" is 35% original content and relies too heavily on "Two Towers" and "Fellowship" and whatever characters or plots Tolkien has expanded or continued in that book is "fanservice". It's like... you're missing the fact that they're all part of the same story and DAI is simply another chapter of it.

[Hair Serious Business]

I actually liked the companions in DA2 more, but I still enjoyed DAI.

How did you manage that o_O???

Tell me your secret because I wasn't able to stand any of my companions in DA2.

[Dieb]

In their defense of one tiny detail, I have a hard time believeing that making Corypheus -the enemy of an optional DLC of their most hated release of all time- was in anyway a decision decided by popularity.

 

If anything, it further proves my assumption that other than ME, Dragon Age's general plot was thought out from the beginning and is just being adapted to the respective current state of criticism.

 

 

 

Tell me your secret because I wasn't able to stand any of my companions in DA2.

 

Talk to them.

[Rawgrim]

Seriously...learn to roleplay your character.

 

Can't do that in this game. Since its set in stone that the character is either a reluctant hero of the people, or a willing hero of the people. Given how often the game + cutscenes takes control of the character, the Inquisitor ended up being nothing more than an NPC.

[leaguer of one]

Can't do that in this game. Since its set in stone that the character is either a reluctant hero of the people, or a willing hero of the people. Given how often the game + cutscenes takes control of the character, the Inquisitor ended up being nothing more than an NPC.

Sorry...what?

Then why do I have all this options?

 

Also, not being able to be crazy evil does not mean your stuck as the reluctant hero...especially when happy with being the andrastes herald.

[KaiserShep]

Since its set in stone that the character is either a reluctant hero of the people, or a willing hero of the people.

 

How does that differ from the other games?

[leaguer of one]

How does that differ from the other games?

Because it's some how not roleplay unless you can play an crazy axe murder as well.

[AWTEW]

Seriously...learn to roleplay your character.

 

Not everyone likes  to do that., and why should they have too? There money is just as valid as people who head cannon.

[leaguer of one]

Not everyone likes  to do that., and why should they have too? There money is just as valid as people who head cannon.

because it's a player control rpg.Complaining you have to roleplay is like buying a racing game and then complain that you have to steer.

[CronoDragoon]

However, what made me truly enjoy this game was seeing the parallels of what connected it to DAO and DAII, not necessarily because the story was so strong on its own. Is this an approach BioWare should do more of? Do you believe DAI had too much fan service and little attention for original thought?

 

Absolutely not. Dragon Age: Inquisition has the strongest Dragon Age story, and it isn't just a matter of fan service.

 

The writers have pinpointed exactly what world movements are taking place in the Dragon Age world and highlighted them for DA: I. Questions of the Chantry and origin myths have been bubbling below the surface since you first heard about the Black City at Ostagar. Origins didn't have time to really flesh out this plot point, though, because it was too busy introducing important groups in the DA verse: Orzammar, Dalish elves, etc. There's no cohesive theme in Dragon Age Origins; in typical BioWare fashion it's a matter of establishing  vignettes that upon completion tie into the larger plot in some tenuous fashion. In Origins' case, this was through the Grey Warden treaties, which essentially served as an excuse to ignore the Blight for most of the game. Origins shows you some of the how of the Blight, but is largely unconcerned with the why. Similarly, it presents you situations that introduce groups such as mages and templars, but doesn't offer any real progress into the evolution of the social issue. Origins does have the best final act of the DA games, though, with important variations and epilogues.

 

Dragon Age 2 could have been the best Dragon Age story were it not for time constraints and a few gaffs besides. The idea is sound and I was happy to hear that BW is considering a smaller-scale personal story again for DA4. Unfortunately the game doesn't do much to make Hawke's rise to power compelling (ostensibly the hook for the game) and we all know the flaws with the third act. Act 2 of DA2 is still the best stretch of storytelling in the series, though.

 

Now we come to Inquisition. The mage/templar situation as exploded, and this has forced the Chantry's hand. The writers smartly tied this in with larger questions about the role of the Chantry and Thedosian religion in general, giving the player an opportunity to be a part of real social change at the macro level; something neither Origins nor DA2 attempted. Once you've identified the focus of the game on the political structures of religion and how they compare/contrast with actual questions of belief, the rest of the game falls into place. Corypheus, as someone once betrayed by his gods, is the perfect villain for this story. His story is a crisis of faith that mirrors Thedas at large after the Breach. "Where is Your Maker now?" he asks, but underneath we hear the existential despair of someone who once asked where his own gods were and heard silence in return. As the Inquisitor, you are the opposite reaction to Corypheus. Clearly you can't let him succeed, something which the mage/templar missions establish fairly early. Given that, how should you defeat him? Since you were gifted the key to stopping him, power begins to circle around you, and gives you the opportunity for real input about Thedas society and what it means to you, with the Chantry in particular being the operative focus. It's no coincidence that the game asks you time and again for your opinion on matters of both faith and organized religion, and ultimately it's your decisions regarding the manner in which you fight back against Corypheus that determine the new Divine and so the new path that the dominant religion in Thedas takes.

 

Inquisition is actually pretty elegantly constructed as a deconstruction of all 3 origin myths. The ancient magisters/origin of the Blight is handled through Corypheus and Solas, casting doubt both on the Chantry's beliefs on these events and that of the Grey Wardens (does killing all the Archdemons stop the Blights? Solas doesn't think so). Meanwhile, you as the Inquisitor and your dealings with the Chantry represent an examination of Andrastian belief and the myth of the Maker. Finally, the events of What Pride on represent a total subversion of the Pantheon myth. In all three cases, the traditional beliefs and expectations are subverted, but not necessarily destroyed so much as reframed: the ancient magisters were real and indeed carry the Blight, but didn't cause it; Andraste didn't give you the Anchor, but providence may have guided you to save the Divine regardless; Arlathan was destroyed by the elves themselves, but the Elven Gods were actual elven rulers that are immortal in some sense. More importantly, the game offers you role-playing options to actually give your opinion on these matters.

 

Now, Inquisition's story isn't flawless. The Orlesian plot is woefully underdeveloped in the game, and the ending is abrupt without much build-up. However, there's simply a lot more to actually discuss and interpet about Inquisition's story than there was with Origins and DA2, and this fostering of meaningful discussion is in my mind indicative of superior substance.

[Il Divo]

Dragon Age Inquisition is BioWare's epic third installment in the Dragon Age franchise. It is also likely BioWare's most successful Dragon Age title because of fan service rather than any actual, original substance. Why? Do you ask? This is primarily a story about companions, side characters, and advisors, not the Inquisitor.

 

I'd just like to preface this isn't an attack of BioWare's method with respect to DAI, but rather an analysis of why so many fans, especially those who played DAO and DAII, enjoyed DAI. It was after over 120 hours of play time that I realized why DAI was so entertaining to me. It wasn't because of the Inquisitor, the Inquisition, or anything remotely tied to the main story, but primarily reasons I had experienced previously in the Dragon Age franchise.

 

Leliana. Hawke. Cassandra. Morrigan. Flemeth. Varric. Dagna. It was familiar characters such as these, due to my playthroughs in DAO and DAII that brought credence and legitimacy to my world in Dragon Age Inquisition. They made the game entertaining, memorable, engaging, and kept my attention.

 

Corypheus, who was also familiar, and the Mark had little impact on my actual experience. It was hearing about how my Warden was fairing. How Hawke had been continuing the fight behind the lines and what Isabela was up to. There were so many characters of the past that made a return that were integral to the story that I felt I was playing DAO and DAII more than I ever was playing DAI.

 

Is this wrong? Should BioWare give so much attention to fan service? Maybe. Maybe not. However, DAI is largely a creation based on the writing team paying homage to what we had done more so than what was happening in the game. Obviously, we made new friends as well, and I particularly enjoyed characters such as Sera and Vivienne, who kept things wild and unpredictable.

 

However, what made me truly enjoy this game was seeing the parallels of what connected it to DAO and DAII, not necessarily because the story was so strong on its own. Is this an approach BioWare should do more of? Do you believe DAI had too much fan service and little attention for original thought? What is the perfect balance? Discuss and decide.

 

I wouldn't call this fan service, I'd call this writing a sequel. Now, I'll agree that I found the Morrigan/Flemeth plotlines to be the most interesting, primarily because of the implications for the DA universe, but that alone does not indicate fan service.

 

At least as I understand the term, fan service typically indicates that the primary reason for a character/plot point is simply to please the fans, rather than further the developer's goals. In the latter scenario, a happy fan is more of a by product of the developer's own creative intent rather than the inherent goal. Of course, without developer confirmation saying "Hey, we only did this to make fans happy", what's going to be considered fan service will differ amongst players. And even with that stipulation, a developer can make what's initially a fan request dramatic enough to feel like a legitimate plot point. So I guess it might be better to say fan service is simply to please the fans with little to no effort for the setting, plot, or character points already established.

 

Citadel for example struck me as more about fan service than a serious attempt at story-telling. Other situations, like how Cassandra/Morrigan/Flemeth are handled, felt like a natural extension of the plot. They were all foreshadowed  in some capacity (Flemeth's quest in DA:O, Morrigan in Witch Hunt, Cassandra via the Framed narrative). Just my two cents.
 

[CronoDragoon]

Mass Effect 3 in general is interesting to compare to Inquisition. So many characters are included just so fans get to see them again. And for the purpose of ME3 feeling like one giant goodbye to the world, it works. But Revan seems to say that making previous characters important to the central plot is fan service. I disagree and assert that including characters in the game without some important tie-in to a plot or subplot is the real fan service. And again, I think it works beautifully in ME3, though my friend did lament the convenience of a character you know turning up in every single side mission.

[Il Divo]

Mass Effect 3 in general is interesting to compare to Inquisition. So many characters are included just so fans get to see them again. And for the purpose of ME3 feeling like one giant goodbye to the world, it works. But Revan seems to say that making previous characters important to the central plot is fan service. I disagree and assert that including characters in the game without some important tie-in to a plot or subplot is the real fan service. And again, I think it works beautifully in ME3, though my friend did lament the convenience of a character you know turning up in every single side mission.

 

That sounds about right. I think that would've worked better if, in some capacity, Shepard had greater contact with his squad/ex-squad-mates prior to these missions. If nothing else, they're an army of bad-asses so I could buy into the idea that Shepard would want their help on certain key assignments. I don't think it would have completely solved the problem, but the casual  discovery of "Oh look it's Jacob! Oh look it's Grunt!" did have me a bit amused.

 

But yeah, I'm also confused because what he's describing in his OP strikes me as how a sequel would be written. And even if DA may feature a different protagonist each game, DA:O still left me with the impression that there was an overall direction to the world's story. The idea that Morrigan's potential God Child for example wouldn't have some relevance to the Dragon Age lore would have been puzzling.

[Revan Reborn]

Oh, am I not on your ignore list, after all? I was so sure...

 

Anyway, so anything "unnessesary" to the main plot that calls back to events/characters in previous games is fanservice? Meh, if that's what you want to call it. I think fanservice is fine in moderation. I like that each game has events here and there that recognize the world states that I've built in previous games. For the most part, I like character cameos, and I like the idea of NPCs of one game becoming party members in later games.

You make me out into a villain I am not. I have never placed anyone on an "ignore list" and never intend to. I'm merely here for civil discourse and nothing more. If I happen to not respond to one of your posts due to pages upon pages written while I am offline, take no offense. Law school keeps me busy.

 

This isn't a discussion against fan service. On the contrary, it's one of the main reasons I enjoyed the game. My question is how much fan service should there be? How many call backs to DAO and DAII should be done to bolster DAI? Should the game not largely stand on its own merits rather than relying heavily on the past? Again, this is a separate thing from just "continuity" and I think it's something worth discussion. Sadly, very few seem to actually understand the OP.

Agreed. The argument seems based on a false consensus. OP asserts that DAI was a success largely because of an aspect that s/he personally significantly liked, thus implying (without evidence) that those who liked it for "fanservice" are in the majority.

 

I agree that there are lots of cameos, returning characters, and various events that recognize the worldstate the players built, and that this was probably, for me, the best part of the game. But I'm not going to try to claim that this one thing was the reason the majority of players liked the game. Without sources to back up that claim, I'd just be making stuff up.

Not really. Read the topic again. "DAI was a success in large part because of fan service." I never claimed the entire experience was successful because of fan service. It's merely one of the major factors that made DAI appealing, which is why the Keep was so heavily marketed. If you notice, much of the Keep, itself, is fan service. Many of the choices actually have little value on the world state or story. It's just fluff in order to make your world seem more "real."

 

So you agree that the fan service was the best part of the game, for you, yet then retract your assertion because others may disagree? You may be surprised how many actually enjoyed the fan service, especially those that have been around since DAO. For lack of a better term, I'm not "shoving down anybody's throat that this is the absolute truth," as you and many others seem to be suggesting. This is merely an observation I had that made me realize what was actually providing me most of the entertainment in the game, story-wise.

 

You can agree or disagree. You oddly seem to agree. The point remains that this isn't about whether fan service is "good" or "bad," rather how much should BioWare include in comparison to just original content? There is no "right" or "wrong" answer and by trying to discredit the OP merely shows your lack of understanding the call of the question to start. Apologies if that comes across as harsh, but it's rather striking how few actually understand what the original question is.

[Revan Reborn]

I disagree - I see what your'e trying to argue, but I keep thinking that it's you who keep missing the point of why DAI is the way it is. Oh sure, fanservice exists, but I don't think it impacts the story the way you think it does.

 

I also don't understand the reasoning behind stating that "DAI is maybe 35% of original content" ... I'm sorry, but that's like saying "The Return OF The King" is 35% original content and relies too heavily on "Two Towers" and "Fellowship" and whatever characters or plots Tolkien has expanded or continued in that book is "fanservice". It's like... you're missing the fact that they're all part of the same story and DAI is simply another chapter of it.

How am I missing the point of my own thread exactly? I'd highly encourage you to play DAO and DAII if you've never had the opportunity. There is a lot more fan service in DAI than you seem to think. Again, there is a distinction between continuity of stories and fan service, of which isn't actually necessary in the game.

 

Not at all, really. You are trying to compare a true trilogy, such as LOTR or SW OT, to a series of three games that aren't a trilogy. This isn't Mass Effect. These aren't direct sequels. Thus, much of what is being implemented is fan service because it's not integral, but it would make fans happy because these various things happened in previous games.

 

No, they really aren't part of the same story. Each game is separate and independent from each other with a different protagonist and a different threat. This is why Dragon Age is different from Mass Effect, where the entire experience as the same story: Kill the reapers. Until you understand the difference between the Dragon Age franchise and true trilogies, I don't believe you'll be able to fully grasp what is fan service and what isn't.

 

Absolutely not. Dragon Age: Inquisition has the strongest Dragon Age story, and it isn't just a matter of fan service.

 

The writers have pinpointed exactly what world movements are taking place in the Dragon Age world and highlighted them for DA: I. Questions of the Chantry and origin myths have been bubbling below the surface since you first heard about the Black City at Ostagar. Origins didn't have time to really flesh out this plot point, though, because it was too busy introducing important groups in the DA verse: Orzammar, Dalish elves, etc. There's no cohesive theme in Dragon Age Origins; in typical BioWare fashion it's a matter of establishing  vignettes that upon completion tie into the larger plot in some tenuous fashion. In Origins' case, this was through the Grey Warden treaties, which essentially served as an excuse to ignore the Blight for most of the game. Origins shows you some of the how of the Blight, but is largely unconcerned with the why. Similarly, it presents you situations that introduce groups such as mages and templars, but doesn't offer any real progress into the evolution of the social issue. Origins does have the best final act of the DA games, though, with important variations and epilogues.

 

Dragon Age 2 could have been the best Dragon Age story were it not for time constraints and a few gaffs besides. The idea is sound and I was happy to hear that BW is considering a smaller-scale personal story again for DA4. Unfortunately the game doesn't do much to make Hawke's rise to power compelling (ostensibly the hook for the game) and we all know the flaws with the third act. Act 2 of DA2 is still the best stretch of storytelling in the series, though.

 

Now we come to Inquisition. The mage/templar situation as exploded, and this has forced the Chantry's hand. The writers smartly tied this in with larger questions about the role of the Chantry and Thedosian religion in general, giving the player an opportunity to be a part of real social change at the macro level; something neither Origins nor DA2 attempted. Once you've identified the focus of the game on the political structures of religion and how they compare/contrast with actual questions of belief, the rest of the game falls into place. Corypheus, as someone once betrayed by his gods, is the perfect villain for this story. His story is a crisis of faith that mirrors Thedas at large after the Breach. "Where is Your Maker now?" he asks, but underneath we hear the existential despair of someone who once asked where his own gods were and heard silence in return. As the Inquisitor, you are the opposite reaction to Corypheus. Clearly you can't let him succeed, something which the mage/templar missions establish fairly early. Given that, how should you defeat him? Since you were gifted the key to stopping him, power begins to circle around you, and gives you the opportunity for real input about Thedas society and what it means to you, with the Chantry in particular being the operative focus. It's no coincidence that the game asks you time and again for your opinion on matters of both faith and organized religion, and ultimately it's your decisions regarding the manner in which you fight back against Corypheus that determine the new Divine and so the new path that the dominant religion in Thedas takes.

 

Inquisition is actually pretty elegantly constructed as a deconstruction of all 3 origin myths. The ancient magisters/origin of the Blight is handled through Corypheus and Solas, casting doubt both on the Chantry's beliefs on these events and that of the Grey Wardens (does killing all the Archdemons stop the Blights? Solas doesn't think so). Meanwhile, you as the Inquisitor and your dealings with the Chantry represent an examination of Andrastian belief and the myth of the Maker. Finally, the events of What Pride on represent a total subversion of the Pantheon myth. In all three cases, the traditional beliefs and expectations are subverted, but not necessarily destroyed so much as reframed: the ancient magisters were real and indeed carry the Blight, but didn't cause it; Andraste didn't give you the Anchor, but providence may have guided you to save the Divine regardless; Arlathan was destroyed by the elves themselves, but the Elven Gods were actual elven rulers that are immortal in some sense. More importantly, the game offers you role-playing options to actually give your opinion on these matters.

 

Now, Inquisition's story isn't flawless. The Orlesian plot is woefully underdeveloped in the game, and the ending is abrupt without much build-up. However, there's simply a lot more to actually discuss and interpet about Inquisition's story than there was with Origins and DA2, and this fostering of meaningful discussion is in my mind indicative of superior substance.

You are conflating themes with story. The two are mutually exclusive. Not only is this purely subjective, but the call of the question is how much should BioWare rely on service, in particular aspects that aren't crucial to the story? You may argue Morrigan and Flemeth had a large role to play, even if both were actually relevant only for about 5% of the actual story. Honestly, Morrigan did not have to be included in DAI. Gaider and the writing team just chose to include her due to fan demand and because she was not present in DAII. It was definitely fan service. Flemeth is much in the same way as she has never really had a vital role in any of the games. In DAI we learn a bit more about her origins, but it hardly has a major effect on the main story.

 

Characters such as Leliana, Cullen, Varric, and others are fan service. BioWare brought them back because they were popular, not because they were necessary. I think when fans begin to understand what is actually necessary and what is merely fluff to please the fans, you'll notice an easy distinction between what is continuity for the story and what is fan service. The overlap, admittedly, can be confusing for many if you are not critically analyzing the materials.

 

I wouldn't call this fan service, I'd call this writing a sequel. Now, I'll agree that I found the Morrigan/Flemeth plotlines to be the most interesting, primarily because of the implications for the DA universe, but that alone does not indicate fan service.

 

At least as I understand the term, fan service typically indicates that the primary reason for a character/plot point is simply to please the fans, rather than further the developer's goals. In the latter scenario, a happy fan is more of a by product of the developer's own creative intent rather than the inherent goal. Of course, without developer confirmation saying "Hey, we only did this to make fans happy", what's going to be considered fan service will differ amongst players. And even with that stipulation, a developer can make what's initially a fan request dramatic enough to feel like a legitimate plot point. So I guess it might be better to say fan service is simply to please the fans with little to no effort for the setting, plot, or character points already established.

 

Citadel for example struck me as more about fan service than a serious attempt at story-telling. Other situations, like how Cassandra/Morrigan/Flemeth are handled, felt like a natural extension of the plot. They were all foreshadowed  in some capacity (Flemeth's quest in DA:O, Morrigan in Witch Hunt, Cassandra via the Framed narrative). Just my two cents.
 

This isn't a sequel though. This is what many seem to fail to realize about Dragon Age. This isn't Mass Effect. These are three standalone games in which the events of the previous had little effect. DAI is the first game in the series that is more dependent on previous installments and it shows. Again, whether you agree or not, it cannot be debated that the DAK, which is primarily a fan service tool, was one of the main selling points of DAI. It was building your own "world state" that attained all of your major choices in DAO and DAII. Now if you notice, most of those choices actually don't matter in the main story. Much of it is just fluff that BioWare is acknowledging, and we see that appear in DAI. Again, this isn't a question of whether fan service is right, but rather how much should BioWare rely on?

 

Mass Effect 3 in general is interesting to compare to Inquisition. So many characters are included just so fans get to see them again. And for the purpose of ME3 feeling like one giant goodbye to the world, it works. But Revan seems to say that making previous characters important to the central plot is fan service. I disagree and assert that including characters in the game without some important tie-in to a plot or subplot is the real fan service. And again, I think it works beautifully in ME3, though my friend did lament the convenience of a character you know turning up in every single side mission.

Comparing Mass Effect 3 to Dragon Age Inquisition is comparing apples to oranges. Mass Effect 3 is a direct sequel to ME1 and ME2. The Citadel DLC was clearly fan service, but the majority of main game is not. The only "fan service" elements that would arise would be aspects such as Conrad Verner if you kept him around. DAI, on the other hand, doesn't actually need that much of anything from DAO and DAII because it's not a direct sequel. The point is BioWare is including a lot from DAO and DAII regardless as a way to build incentive, even if much of it is pointless. Again, to not realize DAI is largely a product of fan service is to not critically observe what you are digesting.

[CronoDragoon]

You are conflating themes with story. The two are mutually exclusive.

Themes arise from the events of the story. So no, they aren't. If you disagree, please provide support for doing so.
 

Not only is this purely subjective, but the call of the question is how much should BioWare rely on service, in particular aspects that aren't crucial to the story?

Obviously it's purely subjective, as with any story-based analysis. My post was centered around examining the content of the story that has nothing to do with returning characters (besides Corypheus I suppose), and finding it worthy. So it's a direct response to the question of Inquisition "depending on fan service."
 

You may argue Morrigan and Flemeth had a large role to play, even if both were actually relevant only for about 5% of the actual story. Honestly, Morrigan did not have to be included in DAI. Gaider and the writing team just chose to include her due to fan demand and because she was not present in DAII. It was definitely fan service. Flemeth is much in the same way as she has never really had a vital role in any of the games. In DAI we learn a bit more about her origins, but it hardly has a major effect on the main story.
 
Characters such as Leliana, Cullen, Varric, and others are fan service. BioWare brought them back because they were popular, not because they were necessary. I think when fans begin to understand what is actually necessary and what is merely fluff to please the fans, you'll notice an easy distinction between what is continuity for the story and what is fan service. The overlap, admittedly, can be confusing for many if you are not critically analyzing the materials.

The assertion that any returning character that isn't necessary is "fan service" is one that I find hard to believe you can adequately explain. However, there are certain cases where cases of fan service are obvious, such as reviving a character from the dead to be the Divine's left hand when really any bard/assassin/master of whispers would have done just as well.

But your OP isn't asserting that fan service exists (as this much is obvious) but rather that Inquisition's story relies on fan service for its quality. A claim you haven't actually supported.
 

This isn't a sequel though.

This is a sequel. A sequel is a continuation of events that transpired in a previous work.

The passive-aggressiveness with which you insult people who don't believe enjoyment of DA: I is caused primarily by fan service is a little irritating. I can also accuse you of being incapable of critical thought, if I so wish.

The only "fan service" elements that would arise would be aspects such as Conrad Verner if you kept him around.

Oh? Which characters that appear in ME3 are "necessary" to the plot?

[midnight tea]

How am I missing the point of my own thread exactly?

 

I said that you're "missing the point of why DAI is the way it is" - which apparently you do, seeing your claims that DAI is a story independent from DAO and DAII. I mean, really....?

 

With that, you've switched from the area of "controversial speculation" to "OK, this is just absurd".

 

The story is a continuation even in writers and developers' words - and the difference between ME and DA is that one franchise focuses on story of one character, while another focuses on the story of the world itself and each event, no matter how distant, is tied in some way to an overarching plot we slowly see unfolding (so far you seem to be predominantly hung on characters, but are you going to say that e.g.the occurrence of red lyrium in DAII or the ever-slowly emerging mystery of elven gods is also something that was incorporated to DAI because of "fanservice"?)

 

Also, I agree with CronoDragoon - you seem to be unable to accept that your pet theory holds no water under scrutiny, and your passive-aggresive lashing out at people who disagree with you is getting kinda noticeable.

[phaonica]

You make me out into a villain I am not. I have never placed anyone on an "ignore list" and never intend to. I'm merely here for civil discourse and nothing more. If I happen to not respond to one of your posts due to pages upon pages written while I am offline, take no offense. Law school keeps me busy.

I'll keep that in mind.
 

This isn't a discussion against fan service. On the contrary, it's one of the main reasons I enjoyed the game. My question is how much fan service should there be? How many call backs to DAO and DAII should be done to bolster DAI? Should the game not largely stand on its own merits rather than relying heavily on the past? Again, this is a separate thing from just "continuity" and I think it's something worth discussion. Sadly, very few seem to actually understand the OP.

I often see people express that they want their choices to matter. They want to see how their decisions in previous games have made an impact upon the characters and upon the world. I couldn't know how widespread this sentiment is, I can only know what I've experienced. I generally believe in moderation, so I might say that the game is balanced, for me, if it has some of both. If a game has some events that show how how my previous characters have significantly impacted the world, and others that give my current character a chance to do the same, moving forward, for me, that is preferable.
 

Not really. Read the topic again. "DAI was a success in large part because of fan service." I never claimed the entire experience was successful because of fan service. It's merely one of the major factors that made DAI appealing, which is why the Keep was so heavily marketed. If you notice, much of the Keep, itself, is fan service. Many of the choices actually have little value on the world state or story. It's just fluff in order to make your world seem more "real."

Right. You didn't say it was a success ONLY because of fanservice. You said it was a success MOSTLY because of fanservice. You have a source for that?

 

So you agree that the fan service was the best part of the game, for you, yet then retract your assertion because others may disagree? You may be surprised how many actually enjoyed the fan service, especially those that have been around since DAO. For lack of a better term, I'm not "shoving down anybody's throat that this is the absolute truth," as you and many others seem to be suggesting. This is merely an observation I had that made me realize what was actually providing me most of the entertainment in the game, story-wise.

I agree that it was the best part of the game for me, and I didn't retract anything.

Just because it was the best part of the game FOR ME doesn't mean that I think that's the reason it worked for EVERYONE ELSE. I didn't retract my assertion that the fanservice was the best part for me; I suggested that what was my favorite part may not be everybody's favorite part. That's all.

You may think that you're not trying to shove an absolute truth down everyone's throat, but quite frankly that's exactly what you're doing. The title doesn't say

"DAI successfully entertained me in large part because of Fan Service " ie "I liked DAI because of fanservice"
it says
"DAI was a success in large part because of Fan Service" ie "I think EVERYONE liked DAI because of fanservice"

[Il Divo]

This isn't a sequel though. This is what many seem to fail to realize about Dragon Age. This isn't Mass Effect. These are three standalone games in which the events of the previous had little effect. 

 

The problem is you have an extremely narrow understanding of the plot line. All you see is "direct sequel". Dragon Age's approach to story-telling is not particularly new, nor unheard of. It's an approach where in a separate narrative is told in each installment, while a larger narrative is weaved in the background over the course of multiple installments, including foreshadowing.

 

Neil Gaiman did something similar to great effect in his series the Sandman. Other series (such as the Malazan Book of the Fallen) have also done so. Hell, go watch Marvel's the Avengers and you'll see something similar. Whether you want to call them "direct sequels" or "spin offs" is simply an issue of terminology. As it stands, Dragon Age has been weaving an overarching narrative since the beginning. The use of Flemeth and Morrigan, two characters who on multiple occasions have demonstrated some understanding of this change and wish to involve themselves, does not strike me as fan service. 

 

DAI is the first game in the series that is more dependent on previous installments and it shows. Again, whether you agree or not, it cannot be debated that the DAK, which is primarily a fan service tool, was one of the main selling points of DAI. 

 

 

It can (and has) been debated. Your definition of fan service is meaningless as used. 

 

ow if you notice, most of those choices actually don't matter in the main story. Much of it is just fluff that BioWare is acknowledging, and we see that appear in DAI. Again, this isn't a question of whether fan service is right, but rather how much should BioWare rely on?

 

 

See my previous post. Fan service does not mean "every single time a creator uses a prior character or element of his story".  That's absurd. 

[Giantdeathrobot]

Um, sorry if it's been pointed out before, but returning characters doesn't equal fanservice. Else every single story with more than 1 installment relies on fanservice, which is a ludicrous affirmation to make.

[Uirebhiril]

It's also been stated that they've had the story written out from the start of DA:O, so while things will get changed between the concept and the finished product the idea that they're jamming things in based only on feedback and not following an overall story arc is silly beyond words. Flemeth was always going to be Mythal, Morrigan was always going to be her daughter and likely her eventual successor, and so on. Cassandra was tied in to the story in DA2. If Corypheus was meant to be the villain that gets the ball rolling for big events in later games, then he is playing his part in the story and not there to make people feel tingly and loved by the devs. It's not surprising that they show up in DAI since they are a major part of the whole story which is not confined to just one game but is being told over the entire series of games.

 

I'm sure fan feedback and character preferences do come up when deciding story arcs or what characters are needed for companions or cameos, but as much as BioWare are really good to their fans about slipping in jokes or references, they have a story to tell and that will happen no matter what. They aren't fanfic writers taking prompts to get kudos from their followers. Give 'em some credit and maybe back off feeling self-important about their decisions as creators.

[Revan Reborn]

It's also been stated that they've had the story written out from the start of DA:O, so while things will get changed between the concept and the finished product the idea that they're jamming things in based only on feedback and not following an overall story arc is silly beyond words. Flemeth was always going to be Mythal, Morrigan was always going to be her daughter and likely her eventual successor, and so on. Cassandra was tied in to the story in DA2. If Corypheus was meant to be the villain that gets the ball rolling for big events in later games, then he is playing his part in the story and not there to make people feel tingly and loved by the devs. It's not surprising that they show up in DAI since they are a major part of the whole story which is not confined to just one game but is being told over the entire series of games.

 

I'm sure fan feedback and character preferences do come up when deciding story arcs or what characters are needed for companions or cameos, but as much as BioWare are really good to their fans about slipping in jokes or references, they have a story to tell and that will happen no matter what. They aren't fanfic writers taking prompts to get kudos from their followers. Give 'em some credit and maybe back off feeling self-important about their decisions as creators.

We know this isn't reality, however. Leliana is a perfect example of something that was not well-considered. If the entire story arcs for DAO, DAII, and DAI had already been planned, Gaider wouldn't have made such a glaring error and then justify it by saying "writer's privilege" when a decent portion of DAO fans killed their Leliana.

 

Mass Effect is even a better example as BioWare knew all along before ME1 was even released that they were doing a trilogy. Even with that fact, the writers did not plan ahead, did not have concrete story arcs for ME2 and ME3, and it led to various inconsistencies, plot holes, and poor attention to detail that we eventually received in the sequel titles.

 

The point is it's one thing to have a basic outline of future events, which is likely all the writing team was going on. It's different to have most of the major plot points and events considered a laid out well in advance. DAI was a significantly different game than what was original intended. Due to the underwhelming success of DAII, an entire DLC that was never made was rammed into DAI in order to finish off the Hawke story.

 

These were not planned. They were not well-executed. This was sloppy writing and nothing more due to poor planning and unforeseeable circumstances. So no, I really don't buy the argument that much of the content that wasn't crucial to the story wasn't "fan service." Cullen is an obvious example of fan service sa he constantly has appeared in every game for no other reason than to appease "Cullenites." At least in DAI, the writing team tried to justify is ridiculous nature and place in Dragon Age.

 

I digress. I believe you heavily undervalue how much player feedback and what the fans want actually affect the story.

[Uirebhiril]

The point is it's one thing to have a basic outline of future events, which is likely all the writing team was going on. It's different to have most of the major plot points and events considered a laid out well in advance. DAI was a significantly different game than what was original intended. Due to the underwhelming success of DAII, an entire DLC that was never made was rammed into DAI in order to finish off the Hawke story.

 

These were not planned. They were not well-executed. This was sloppy writing and nothing more due to poor planning and unforeseeable circumstances. So no, I really don't buy the argument that much of the content that wasn't crucial to the story wasn't "fan service." Cullen is an obvious example of fan service sa he constantly has appeared in every game for no other reason than to appease "Cullenites." At least in DAI, the writing team tried to justify is ridiculous nature and place in Dragon Age.

 

I digress. I believe you heavily undervalue how much player feedback and what the fans want actually affect the story.

 

 

I tend to take exception to people who suggest writers and creators don't know their own business. Beyond that, I don't even know what argument you are trying to make. I think your post would have been helped by being better planned and executed. Writing up a post without a clear point makes it look sloppy.

 

Cullen is often brought up to feed this argument, but let's remember that he was not, in fact, an original romance for the game. He fell into the "what the hell, why not" slot when the game was given extra time. If we want to claim fan service, he would have been the second companion spit-shined and polished for a romance arc and given bigger time in the game. He wasn't. He's just another part of the story that worked well for the spot he was given.

 

(The first character would have been Varric, whose cult following hoped and literally prayed for him as a love interest right up until he was revealed to not be one. He still loves Bianca. That's his story to follow. No amount of fangirls and boys will change that unless and until Varric's arc allows it.)

 

And my "undervaluing fan service" comes from reading articles and posts and tweets from the devs who have made it clear that while fan feedback matters, it doesn't factor in as much as players might like to think. The story comes first. I suppose they could all be lying about that, but why would that be something anyone considers important enough to lie about? Like I said, give them some credit. They're professionals, and while they might not always get it right they are still capable of doing their job and not requiring fan feedback to teach them how they must do a story.

[Revan Reborn]

 

I tend to take exception to people who suggest writers and creators don't know their own business. Beyond that, I don't even know what argument you are trying to make. I think your post would have been helped by being better planned and executed. Writing up a post without a clear point makes it look sloppy.

 

Cullen is often brought up to feed this argument, but let's remember that he was not, in fact, an original romance for the game. He fell into the "what the hell, why not" slot when the game was given extra time. If we want to claim fan service, he would have been the second companion spit-shined and polished for a romance arc and given bigger time in the game. He wasn't. He's just another part of the story that worked well for the spot he was given.

 

(The first character would have been Varric, whose cult following hoped and literally prayed for him as a love interest right up until he was revealed to not be one. He still loves Bianca. That's his story to follow. No amount of fangirls and boys will change that unless and until Varric's arc allows it.)

 

And my "undervaluing fan service" comes from reading articles and posts and tweets from the devs who have made it clear that while fan feedback matters, it doesn't factor in as much as players might like to think. The story comes first. I suppose they could all be lying about that, but why would that be something anyone considers important enough to lie about? Like I said, give them some credit. They're professionals, and while they might not always get it right they are still capable of doing their job and not requiring fan feedback to teach them how they must do a story.

You clearly didn't actually read my post, so this is rather redundant.

 

Yes, the writing team is made up of professionals. That doesn't mean, however, that they do not make mistakes (BioWare has been doing it for a long time) and they don't consider the feedback of their fans. Obviously the main story arc will likely be an original creation. That's not the call of the question here. Fan service is irrelevant fluff that makes its way into the story "just because."

 

Again, and lastly, this isn't a thread in opposition of fan service. It's something BioWare can do quite well due to continuity and continuing to build a universe. What is of concern is to what degree should this be relevant in a game? Where should the line be drawn? If you can't even understand this basic concept and resort to insults consisting of "I don't even know what argument you are trying to make" and "I think your post would have been helped by being better planned and executed. Writing up a post without a clear point makes it look sloppy," you are clearly here to troll and nothing else.

 

Perhaps you just don't like when someone actually has a difference of opinion from you? I'm not sure what's worse. The fact you can't even remain objective and see what the actual issue is really speaks for itself. I'm all for civil discourse, but this is something you are currently not engaging in. Lets try to be mature, please.