82 réponses à ce sujet

[Enrychan]

I don't think DAI seems underwhelming and sanitised because "bioware is afraid to trigger people", but because there's too little conflict. The Inquisitor loses nothing and gains everything. Cory is an incompetent villain, and you keep beating him until the end. No one calls the Inquisitor's authority into question. No leader (the ruler of Ferelden, the Empress of Orlais) oppose the settlement of a new, growing power within their borders. You never have to sacrifice anything to gain something else - just these "power points" that don't mean anything, instead of actual resources and money. Restoring your castle serves the only purpose of having a base for the Inquisition, instead of actually risking it against Corypheus' attacks. Players love the Normandy not because it's pretty and shiny, but because the ship is part of the actual narrative, especially in ME2. The suicide mission is emotionally engaging because there is conflict, you're risking something to gain something else. On the contrary, except maybe for "In your heart shall burn", DAI feels completely safe. And that's the point: it should not feel safe. You don't need to "trigger" anyone to make a story enjoyable; it's not violence or sex that make a story, it's conflict and risk.

 

About the last DLC, I don't know how it could be described as "a good story", since it's basically "the Inquisitor goes underground, makes a big discovery, doesn't question anything, doesn't analyze anything and just returns home with more questions than answers bc the franchise demands sequels". Again, you don't risk anything and in this particular case you also gain very little? You only [SPOILERS] lose Renn, but he's almost a stranger to the Inquisitor so that's not an important, emotional loss. [/SPOILERS]

Sure, there is a lot of lore, but lore =/= story. In a book "lore" by itself would be the infamous "info-dump". Which, while sometimes useful or unavoidable, is usually just a very basic mistake on the writer's part.

[Ieldra]

I don't think DAI seems underwhelming and sanitised because "bioware is afraid to trigger people", but because there's too little conflict. The Inquisitor loses nothing and gains everything. Cory is an incompetent villain, and you keep beating him until the end. No one calls the Inquisitor's authority into question. No leader (the ruler of Ferelden, the Empress of Orlais) oppose the settlement of a new, growing power within their borders. You never have to sacrifice anything to gain something else - just these "power points" that don't mean anything, instead of actual resources and money. Restoring your castle serves the only purpose of having a base for the Inquisition, instead of actually risking it against Corypheus' attacks. Players love the Normandy not because it's pretty and shiny, but because the ship is part of the actual narrative, especially in ME2. The suicide mission is emotionally engaging because there is conflict, you're risking something to gain something else. On the contrary, except maybe for "In your heart shall burn", DAI feels completely safe. And that's the point: it should not feel safe. You don't need to "trigger" anyone to make a story enjoyable; it's not violence or sex that make a story, it's conflict and risk.

No, at least for me that's not the reason. The problem doesn't lie with the Inquisitor, but with the world. It all looks clean, colorful and safe. Not for the Inquisitor (for whom it actually is NOT safe), but for the player. Anything dark has been relegated to the Codex, and ideas that make people uncomfortable don't even exist outside the topics touched by the main plot. I liked the ASOIAF-like mood of DAO, even if they went overboard in DA2, and this reversal is very disappointing.
 
 

About the last DLC, I don't know how it could be described as "a good story", since it's basically "the Inquisitor goes underground, makes a big discovery, doesn't question anything, doesn't analyze anything and just returns home with more questions than answers bc the franchise demands sequels". Again, you don't risk anything and in this particular case you also gain very little? You only [SPOILERS] lose Renn, but he's almost a stranger to the Inquisitor so that's not an important, emotional loss. [/SPOILERS]
Sure, there is a lot of lore, but lore =/= story. In a book "lore" by itself your be the infamous "info-dump". Which, while sometimes useful or unavoidable, is usually just a very basic mistake on the writer's part.

I haven't described "The Descent" as a good story. In fact, its story content is nothing more but serviceable, nothing to be impressed by in any way. My statements in the OP are about Jaws of Hakkon.

[Gwydden]

No, at least for me that's not the reason. The problem doesn't lie with the Inquisitor, but with the world. It all looks clean, colorful and safe. Not for the Inquisitor (for whom it actually is NOT safe), but for the player. Anything dark has been relegated to the Codex, and ideas that make people uncomfortable don't even exist outside the topics touched by the main plot. I liked the ASOIAF-like mood of DAO, even if they went overboard in DA2, and this reversal is very disappointing.

I think DAI has three big problems, storywise:

1. Too much pointless and boring fluff.
2. Too sanitized, which is a significant departure from both of the previous entries.
3. Same old 'save the world', 'big bad evil overlord', 'chosen one plot' you see in almost all Bioware games.

Ironically, DA2 is the very opposite in all of these aspects. It's the darkest game by far, it has relatively scarce content (likely because of the rushed development), and it is the only Bioware game I can think of with an original plot. Go figure.

[BabyPuncher]

This is a rant. Kind of, anyway.

 

When reading comments about Jaws of Hakkon, I found some people who said it was lacking story content, and who cited companion interaction and cutscenes as examples of what they consider story content, and ME3's Citadel DLC as an example of what they wanted.

 

NO! That's not good story content. Character interaction for its own sake is nothing but soap opera, and even worse if it's parody. ME3's Citadel was both a light-hearted goodbye, possible at no other point in the publication history, and a necessary antidote for ME3's depressive endings, but it added almost nothing to the story. Yes, I love the interlude with Cassandra and "Swords and Shields", but one or two such scenes in a game are enough, lest the whole story turns into parody.

 

Although it wasn't the strongest moment in the ME series, the plot of Citadel did have a proper conflict and resolution.

 

That's more than I can say for what I saw in Inquisition.
 

[BabyPuncher]

QFT. This is probably my main complaint about DAI, together with the generally low story density overall and in most open-world maps. It all feels clean and sanitized. it's very much ok to avoid forcing the protagonist into behaviour you don't like, but as in the real world, so in a story that aims to be somewhat serious, we shouldn't have the "freedom" not to be confronted with things we don't like. That's taking pc too far.  

 

That sounds dangerously close to advocating cheap and lazy shock value for the sake of cheap and lazy shock value. 'Put some dead baby corpses into your story or you're immature and PC.' Surely that isn't what you're suggesting?

 

Who is this 'we'? Is 'we' the player, or the protagonist? The protagonist, obviously, needs to encounter things they don't 'like.' Physical pain, violence, emotional dilemmas, and so forth. They absolutely need to struggle. But that's all content 'we' the player paid to see and play. The concept of the audience needs to be shown things they 'don't like' is just silly.

[Gwydden]

That sounds dangerously close to advocating cheap and lazy shock value for the sake of cheap and lazy shock value. 'Put some dead baby corpses into your story or you're immature and PC.' Surely that isn't what you're suggesting?

 

Who is this 'we'? Is 'we' the player, or the protagonist? The protagonist, obviously, needs to encounter things they don't 'like.' Physical pain, violence, emotional dilemmas, and so forth. They absolutely need to struggle. But that's all content 'we' the player paid to see and play. The concept of the audience needs to be shown things they 'don't like' is just silly.

I see it simply as a matter of tone and atmosphere. If DAO and DA2 had been all fluffy and rainbowy I wouldn't care if DAI was based on My Little Pony. But as it stands, DAI feels inconsistent, like it is not set in the same universe. Just take a look at our introduction to Thedas through the origin stories.

• The human noble has their whole family killed.
• The mage is locked in a tower, forced to fight a treacherous demon, and is lied to and used by Jowan... who they potentially betray themselves.
• The city elf or his fiancee is a victim of attempted rape. When you seek revenge against the man responsible the city guard wants to hang you.
• The dalish elf's best friend dies almost immediately and they themselves are infected with a deadly disease that forces them to abandon their only family.
• The dwarf commoner is constantly abused by everyone around them. They are forced to serve as a thug for the family's survival. Their sister is forced into prostitution and their mother is a drunk. Their best friend betrays them for money and they have to kill him.
• The dwarf noble can be manipulated by their younger brother into killing their elder brother. Even if they don't follow through, they get framed for it anyway and are sentenced to death. Before they can talk to their father again, he dies.

And those are mostly just the first three or four hours of the game. How is that game set in the same universe as DAI, exactly? Because it feels completely different.

[MrMrPendragon]

I'll definitely agree with you on one thing, which is a pass on the "Citadel DLC" for the Dragon Age series. Right now is not the proper time, I'm not even sure if there is a proper time, to release a DLC like this, mostly because Dragon Age is about a grand story being told in the perspective of different characters, unlike Mass Effect which only focuses on a fixed cast giving you more time to interact and care about the supporting characters.

 

I believe that people do have some things that are worth complaining about, and even if they can't properly put a term to it doesn't mean the problems they're referring to don't exist. Whenever I see people's complaints and their description of it, I can just guess what they're talking about. People put importance to the elements they like, and sometimes "roleplaying" to them is going to a more personal level of connection not just with the combat and exploration, but also with the characters. Maybe it's the one thing they look forward to.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the topic of Dragon Age universe being too clean, I definitely agree. There was not much emphasis on the Mage/Templar WAR - especially the "WAR" aspect. The places you go to don't feel like they've just been devastated by war.

 

You don't see grounded and real problems like famine, rioting, looting, rape - all realities of war. These things happen let's not forget.

 

It's all "this guy zapped this guy with lightning" or "templars killed my man". There's not a lot of detail there. They say that these people had a hard time, but they never describe these things. Sometimes subtlety is the better route, but the Mage/Templar War acts almost like a setting in this game, rather than a plot element, therefore detailed descriptions are needed. I hate making this comparison because it brings more arguments, but when it comes to war and non-fantasy aspects of a fantasy RPG, Witcher is the best at it. It can be a little too "in your face" sometimes, but the details they present helps more than it hurts. You realize how grim the world is because you don't always fix problems perfectly in that game - unlike DAI where you pretty much fix EVERYTHING.

 

Out of all the Bioware games that had some kind of war in them, I would say Mass Effect 3 did the best job (out of all the games) of setting a moody and desperate atmosphere - the Reapers were kicking your ass and everywhere you turn you see or hear about devastation and death. Sure it doesn't quite go through all the things that happen in war, but it does a good enough job of setting the atmosphere and telling the player exactly what he/she is dealing with. That's what I wanted in the Mage/Templar. Like come on, that was like THE most important moment in the second game and it just got resolved in DAI without even being described properly. If I hadn't read Asunder, I probably wouldn't even notice that there was a freakin WAR going on.

 

It didn't help that the Inquisitor basically went on a winning streak for the entire game. Everywhere Corypheus went, the Inquisitor was there to kick his ass and he succeeded - always.

 

 

I just wish Dragon Age doesn't get too carried away with the "fantasy" bit, because it's a little harder to immerse yourself in a world that's a little too clean and perfect. And I'm not just talking about violence-related issues. Like that flyer about sexuality in Thedas, wnat was that for? It's as if Bioware was making doubly sure that everybody knew that they treat non-straight people with respect in this game.

[Aren]

 

 

So far, Descent has shown it is more of the same failed approach. The Inquisition launches into action because they are the heroes of course and they go fight some monsters in a big dungeon while stumbling across some shocking texts and if you're lucky, a cutscene. 

There's this  feeling of artificiality in the story of these Dlc, i didn't have this problem with the Dlc of the previous installments,both DAO and DAII.

There were always compelling reasons for the protagonists to be there, in these new adventures,especially for Hawke.

But even for the Golems of amgarrak,which can be compared somehow to descent,in the sense that both are a tour into the deep roads,the Warden presence can be easily justified without falling into being "the hero of the course".

For the Warden is easly to build up the dlc as a sort of continuation of the Caridin quest after the events of DAA,in which you have to investigate these insane golems mentioned into the epilogue of DAO,to make a personal favor to Jarrick and Brogan and the king after you're celebration at Orzammar,since in the epilogue of the expansion this can happen if you find the memories of the Dwarves in Kal'hirol.

This work with every Dlc of DAII and DAO,where you're doing stuff for a reason,while in DAI it's seems that you're doing stuff because you have to follow the inquisition general mandate,cover everything odd,like the heroes of the course.

It remind me of the series Hercules the long journey.......

[NM_Che56]

Imagine how silly it'd be if Shepard and Hackett didn't think this was important for stopping the Reapers, though.

Yes.  If you hadn't played the game all the way through then it's not a big deal; however, considering when it released and that many had beaten the game already it was a bit out of sorts.

[DuskWanderer]

I see it simply as a matter of tone and atmosphere. If DAO and DA2 had been all fluffy and rainbowy I wouldn't care if DAI was based on My Little Pony. But as it stands, DAI feels inconsistent, like it is not set in the same universe. Just take a look at our introduction to Thedas through the origin stories.

• The human noble has their whole family killed.
• The mage is locked in a tower, forced to fight a treacherous demon, and is lied to and used by Jowan... who they potentially betray themselves.
• The city elf or his fiancee is a victim of attempted rape. When you seek revenge against the man responsible the city guard wants to hang you.
• The dalish elf's best friend dies almost immediately and they themselves are infected with a deadly disease that forces them to abandon their only family.
• The dwarf commoner is constantly abused by everyone around them. They are forced to serve as a thug for the family's survival. Their sister is forced into prostitution and their mother is a drunk. Their best friend betrays them for money and they have to kill him.
• The dwarf noble can be manipulated by their younger brother into killing their elder brother. Even if they don't follow through, they get framed for it anyway and are sentenced to death. Before they can talk to their father again, he dies.

And those are mostly just the first three or four hours of the game. How is that game set in the same universe as DAI, exactly? Because it feels completely different.

 

The tone of Origins was Grimdark to the point of silly. Contrast is needed. 

[Gwydden]

The tone of Origins was Grimdark to the point of silly. Contrast is needed. 

DAO was neither grim nor particularly dark. People thinking it was is what I find equal parts silly and baffling 

[Eudaemonium]

I don't think DAI seems underwhelming and sanitised because "bioware is afraid to trigger people", but because there's too little conflict. The Inquisitor loses nothing and gains everything. Cory is an incompetent villain, and you keep beating him until the end. No one calls the Inquisitor's authority into question. No leader (the ruler of Ferelden, the Empress of Orlais) oppose the settlement of a new, growing power within their borders. You never have to sacrifice anything to gain something else - just these "power points" that don't mean anything, instead of actual resources and money. Restoring your castle serves the only purpose of having a base for the Inquisition, instead of actually risking it against Corypheus' attacks. Players love the Normandy not because it's pretty and shiny, but because the ship is part of the actual narrative, especially in ME2. The suicide mission is emotionally engaging because there is conflict, you're risking something to gain something else. On the contrary, except maybe for "In your heart shall burn", DAI feels completely safe. And that's the point: it should not feel safe. You don't need to "trigger" anyone to make a story enjoyable; it's not violence or sex that make a story, it's conflict and risk.

 

This is pretty much how I feel about DAI's narrative. Especially regarding Cory, who is the most hilarious joke of a villain I've ever seen. The primary issue is that as you consistently undermine his every action, to the point of escaping with his sought-after prize while you twirl your Inquisitor moustache and cackle, the game's story continues to claim that he's a threat. His final assault on Skyhold is basically a last-ditch attempt to defeat a force that's basically ruined him every step of the way.

 

Corypheus is not a powerful villain. He's two-dimensional, yes, but he's also actually incredibly weak. His one strength is his immortality (which was really resolved in the stupidest way possible). The first parts of the game build him up, but after IYHSB the game just knocks him down one peg at a time, and in the end he's basically just another thing for the Inquisitor to step on with no power and no possibility of victory. By game's end, he was the underdog and the most you could feel for him was pity.

[Jackums]

This is a rant. Kind of, anyway.

 

When reading comments about Jaws of Hakkon, I found some people who said it was lacking story content, and who cited companion interaction and cutscenes as examples of what they consider story content, and ME3's Citadel DLC as an example of what they wanted.

 

NO! That's not good story content. 

So are you trying to qualify subjective taste ("yours>others") or are you arguing semantics (what "story" means)?

 

Either way, disagreed.

[LaughingWolf]

Character interaction "for the sake of it" is what makes me care about things.

"Things" can be mildly interesting on their own, but not emotionally engaging. You need to be personally involved on some level. I wouldn't have cared about Krogan being decimated and ultimately wiped out by genophage if some of my favourite companions weren't Krogan. And to estabilish a connection with those character, Bioware gave me interaction with them.

If more character interaction = "soap opera", then I guess I want more soap opera in my RPGs.

^100% agree.

 

I don't care about Thedas, I care about the people in Thedas, specifically the one's I've gotten to know and have connected to.

The curing of the genophage only meant something to me because of the emotional connection had grown from befriending Wrex and Mordin.

[cindercatz]

Yeah, the tone was too dismissive overall, agree there. The romance and positive sexuality was definitely much improved, but overall, the setting only felt dangerous or gritty (not grimdark, gritty), at maybe three or four points in the game. It did go way overboard in its assurances of social responsibility in text, but it was basically no different from DA2 in that regard. It's the best in the series in terms of taking the subject matter seriously, but it also handles its audience with kid gloves in other ways. I still thought the setting was on the whole handled much better than DA2, which treated everything it touched in cartoonish fashion. The root of the problems this time, I think it's the general lack of cohesive story content across the zones. And yes, "story content", not superfluous flavor text, which is where most of the codex falls. I thought the codex was very nice this time taken on its own, but it's like candy sprinkles on a cake. The candy sprinkles don't substitute for the lack of an actual cake. Having ongoing wars as a major part of the setting, it was weird and numbing to spend 90% of the game walking around ignoring everything, basically encountering no more than the occasional abandoned battlement or a few angry widows. People mention Witcher 3, and it certainly accomplished the stronger setting, but I honestly don't think it was all that much better at making the setting relevant. It was primarily people milling about at border crossings. It did confront you with much harsher circumstances through a few events. The main takeaway there is all about side content. In W3:WH, side content was well presented and impactful; in Inquisition, those events are relegated to vaguely referenced codex entries and some random combat.

 

OP, let me respond. Citadel is quite possibly my favorite thing BioWare's ever made. Yes, its activity (TONS of it) wasn't tightly on point and goal driven, but that's the point. These things are long and in many cases often tiresome odyssees comprising at minimum dozens of hours, taking place over months and years of in fiction time. Without all that "fanservice" character development and interaction, they can turn into soul sucking vampires without a drop of fun to be had, for hours and hours and hours at a time. I remember going at one point over fourteen hours without a single acknowledgement of my Shep's relationship with Liara. Just ho-hum. And I actually came here to the forum thinking my game was bugged, fully expecting to be told there's a patch coming, and I was gonna have to start all over from scratch because my playthrough was just screwed and I didn't have a save far enough back for the fix. If I'd had Citadel at that point, I'd've had Shep's apartment, and those (great) extra character building scenes, and that point of nearly quitting the game for lack of story progression never would have happened.

 

Yes, story progression. Story is not limited to 'things progressing the main plot or addressing thematic motifs'. Motifs, because most of that stuff is colorful background noise, that just routinely pops up in dialogue or codex entries, but never goes anywhere, ever. Characterization, by itself, no excuse required, is story. Most of the great dramas out there are 99% characterization. Characterization is the meat of any good story, sparked by conflict and reflection and inflection, not the other way round. Why do you think Walking Dead is such a huge smash hit and critical darling? Because it's all about character and interpersonal drama and relationships. It's the Zombie show that's not really about the zombies. It's always about the characters. If a book or a movie or a game treats its characters like 2D theme cutouts, i.e. flat, i.e. pretentious paperdolls, it's not a very good piece of work. DA has kind of fallen into that a little too much the last couple games. Thankfully, there are all of those non-thematic, non-plot tool banters and scenes to give the characters some life. That's why things like the card game and the romance stuff are some.. well, most of my favorite scenes in the game. That's the lifeblood.

 

Inquisition, as it is, is like 85% tedium; that's why it desperately needs dlc 'like Citadel'. 'Like Citadel' does not mean 'everybody shows up' like Dragon Age All-Stars. It means all the companions, advisors, and Harding get like three or four personal scenes each, we get to renovate Skyhold, we get a working arena of some kind with unique challenges, we get another big group party/event of some kind, we get a crazy self contained questline that involves the entire group working cohesively at some point, and somewhere in there we get some bit of comic relief. Also, Citadel had an awesome funeral included. That's exactly what Inquisition needs. Lots and lots of highly relevant, impactful, varied and character centric content that covers a ton of missing bases in the main game. That's what Citadel is.

[In Exile]

I see it simply as a matter of tone and atmosphere. If DAO and DA2 had been all fluffy and rainbowy I wouldn't care if DAI was based on My Little Pony. But as it stands, DAI feels inconsistent, like it is not set in the same universe. Just take a look at our introduction to Thedas through the origin stories.

• The human noble has their whole family killed.
• The mage is locked in a tower, forced to fight a treacherous demon, and is lied to and used by Jowan... who they potentially betray themselves.
• The city elf or his fiancee is a victim of attempted rape. When you seek revenge against the man responsible the city guard wants to hang you.
• The dalish elf's best friend dies almost immediately and they themselves are infected with a deadly disease that forces them to abandon their only family.
• The dwarf commoner is constantly abused by everyone around them. They are forced to serve as a thug for the family's survival. Their sister is forced into prostitution and their mother is a drunk. Their best friend betrays them for money and they have to kill him.
• The dwarf noble can be manipulated by their younger brother into killing their elder brother. Even if they don't follow through, they get framed for it anyway and are sentenced to death. Before they can talk to their father again, he dies.

And those are mostly just the first three or four hours of the game. How is that game set in the same universe as DAI, exactly? Because it feels completely different.

 

But the other 54 hours of the game - apart from the body horror we see with the Anvil of the Void quest in the Deep Roads - are decidedly less dark and in fact often so overwhemingly heroic and optimistic that there's no real distinction between DA:O and DA:I.  Redcliffe is the most sanitized moment in the game if you so choose - the Warden can swoop in, save absolutely everyone, then swoop in again, go off to the Circle Tower, and come back with nothing having gone wrong to save Connor, his mom, and Arl Eamon (via the Ashes). There's a reason why it's the origin - a story totally and completely disconnected from the main GW quest - that has all of this darkness early on.

 

The only major, IMO, difference between DA:O and DA:I in terms of the "darkness" in the main game is that, ultimately, we don't really see the red lyrium body horror enough. To me, the bad future in "In Hushed Whispers" is the darkest part of any DA game, by far, because we see a world irreparably corrupted that we can't fix. It was worse than the blight tainting Denerim in the endgame in DA:O.

 

Otherwise, though, DA:O doesn't have very much dark content, and DA:I has some quite dark content we just don't see directly (the Fallow Mire - apart from the actual atmosphere, which is as dark as anything DA:O did, has a very bittersweet story about a healer trying to save a life and causing a deadly plague).

[cindercatz]

But the other 54 hours of the game - apart from the body horror we see with the Anvil of the Void quest in the Deep Roads - are decidedly less dark and in fact often so overwhemingly heroic and optimistic that there's no real distinction between DA:O and DA:I.  Redcliffe is the most sanitized moment in the game if you so choose - the Warden can swoop in, save absolutely everyone, then swoop in again, go off to the Circle Tower, and come back with nothing having gone wrong to save Connor, his mom, and Arl Eamon (via the Ashes). There's a reason why it's the origin - a story totally and completely disconnected from the main GW quest - that has all of this darkness early on.

 

The only major, IMO, difference between DA:O and DA:I in terms of the "darkness" in the main game is that, ultimately, we don't really see the red lyrium body horror enough. To me, the bad future in "In Hushed Whispers" is the darkest part of any DA game, by far, because we see a world irreparably corrupted that we can't fix. It was worse than the blight tainting Denerim in the endgame in DA:O.

 

Otherwise, though, DA:O doesn't have very much dark content, and DA:I has some quite dark content we just don't see directly (the Fallow Mire - apart from the actual atmosphere, which is as dark as anything DA:O did, has a very bittersweet story about a healer trying to save a life and causing a deadly plague).

Orzammar, the mage tower, and pretty much everything off the main drag in Denerim are almost entirely dark... They have you collecting bodies to hide, coming up on sacrificial cults, potentially killing mercs because they're having a loud drink, saving a guy (or not) you find laid up on a rack in his underware, the elvenage plague and Tevinter slavers, learning in legitimately creepy rhyme how the darkspawn make more darkspawn, dealing with Oghren's wife and learning about that, dealing with some pretty strong poverty and class dilemmas, handing one claimant to the Orzammar crown or the other his head, etc. etc. There are multiple legit battle scenes and major unavoidable losses. DA:O is very rough. It just has a sense of gallows humor about it. I think people just look at the third way options with the elves and Connor, and that's where they stick.

[fizzypop]

Story content: The DLC has a plot. The beginning outlines the objective and introduces the actors. The middle illustrates the steps the actors take to achieve the objective. Characters may develop (or not) as they work toward that goal, but character development is not the same as plot advancement. The ending of the story shows the actors achieving (or failing to achieve) the objective.

 

There's a reason that character-driven stories are usually framed as "Luthias Dwarfson Becomes a Reaver". There needs to be some kind of goal, even if it's a shallow one.

 

That said, people generally find it easier to care about stories when they can identify with one or more of the characters. The Thomas Covenant series is supposed to be very good, but I was never able to get into it because I didn't like the protagonist. (Maybe it was an experiment to determine if a tale with no likable characters could be successful. My answer was an emphatic "no".) The <Fill in the Blank> of Shanara series is arguably dreadful, but I enjoyed it because I liked the characters.

 

TL;DR: In my opinion, it takes both plot and character development/interaction to make a good story. You can have the former without the latter, but it will always seem flat and lifeless. If you have the latter but not the former, it may be a fun ride, but it isn't going anywhere.

MMm exactly. If people don't like the characters they won't stay for the story.

I mean would you read a book that cut all character dialogue that wasn't relevant to the plot? Or all dialogue except narrator? I doubt it. Humans like fluff. We want our characters to interact with each other and do things that aren't always plot driven. At the same time we also want them to do plot driven things and have conversations about them. Character development is INTEGRAL to good story telling. Just like having a plot is integral to making a good book. Any writer knows this. You have the unfortunate luck OP of meeting me, a writer.

I would argue that citadel in fact added to the story of ME3. It made our characters relationships more significant. Those ties closer. It furthered the romance option you chose. It allowed us to see a different side of Shepard, as well as the bitter sweetness of going off to battle. It absolutely made you feel more for Shepard knowing s/he was likely to die on her/his next/final mission. If you don't think that matters then I feel sorry for you, sincerely. That is part of what makes a book, a good one.

[Ieldra]

MMm exactly. If people don't like the characters they won't stay for the story.

I mean would you read a book that cut all character dialogue that wasn't relevant to the plot? Or all dialogue except narrator? I doubt it. Humans like fluff. We want our characters to interact with each other and do things that aren't always plot driven. At the same time we also want them to do plot driven things and have conversations about them. Character development is INTEGRAL to good story telling. Just like having a plot is integral to making a good book. Any writer knows this. You have the unfortunate luck OP of meeting me, a writer.

It may not have come across that way, but I do know that. My point was that "more character interaction" for its own sake adds nothing to the story if character interaction is already where the story is strong. Bioware's games are usually strong in that, and often weaker in plot. Trying to make up for the weakness in plot by adding more character interaction will eventually turn the story into soap opera.

I would argue that citadel in fact added to the story of ME3. It made our characters relationships more significant. Those ties closer. It furthered the romance option you chose. It allowed us to see a different side of Shepard, as well as the bitter sweetness of going off to battle. It absolutely made you feel more for Shepard knowing s/he was likely to die on her/his next/final mission. If you don't think that matters then I feel sorry for you, sincerely. That is part of what makes a book, a good one.

About 20% of it did, yes. Don't think I wasn't touched by the very poignant farewell scene, for instance. The rest, well, that worked for this specific story, at this exact point in the publishing history, for mostly meta reasons, but felt alien to the story nonetheless. The over-the-top humor became rather grating.

[fizzypop]

It may not have come across that way, but I do know that. My point was that "more character interaction" for its own sake adds nothing to the story if character interaction is already where the story is strong. Bioware's games are usually strong in that, and often weaker in plot. Trying to make up for the weakness in plot by adding more character interaction will eventually turn the story into soap opera.


About 20% of it did, yes. Don't think I wasn't touched by the very poignant farewell scene, for instance. The rest, well, that worked for this specific story, at this exact point in the publishing history, for mostly meta reasons, but felt alien to the story nonetheless. The over-the-top humor became rather grating.

I completely disagree with bioware being strong in character interaction. Maybe in previous games, but Inquisition for me has failed in that respect. I honestly feel less for my quizzy or the characters of this story than I did Hawke and her companions. DA2 was actually quite good with character interaction compared to inquisition. That was arguably their worst game. Bioware imo has shown it is good with plot, but DA series could use some work in that direction. It has always had some issues with their plot, but that could be the nature of using the hero's journey very religiously. That is where we will disagree again. The DLC has been both weak in plot and character interaction. They need to do better of both. Which I think is what most people are asking for to make a better plot and add more character interaction. Quizzy is one of the least fleshed out heroes bioware has ever had. DLC could have at least partially fixed that instead it hasn't.

There were a few cringe worthy lines, but that is typical bioware. You kind of just deal with those lines as if they never existed. Selective hearing for the win.

[Ieldra]

Quizzy is one of the least fleshed out heroes bioware has ever had. DLC could have at least partially fixed that instead it hasn't.

From my point of view, that's actually a quality for a roleplaying game. I don't want a predefined character, I want to define them myself. More character-defining lines, absolutely, but I don't want another protagonist I almost come to hate because I couldn't make them mine (looking at you, Shepard).

People say the Inquisitor is bland. I say if that's so, it's at least in part the player's fault. My Inquisitors aren't bland at all, and I identify more with them than with my Hawkes.

DA2 was good at companion interaction, yes, but at the price that you had no choice about when to interact with them. You got "X wants to speak with you" in the journal, and you didn't have the option not to do that without cutting off the progress of their story. DA2 was more like a book in that, and its roleplaying suffered from it. If I want a book, I read a book. Playing a game, I want something different. I want to interact with the world and the characters on *my* terms, as far as that's possible in a game that also tells a story.

[The Oracle]

There's a place in the Exalted Plains where you loot the body of a tiny little skeleton covered by two other bodies. The note is written by the mother just saying that they're trying to get their family away from the civil war. In fact, the Exalted plains is littered in bodies so thick that it's actually mind boggling. The thing is, it doesn't make much of an impact because you run around in a third person view, far enough back that the hanging bodies and littered corpses might as well be grass or stones. Also, DAO had a dark, grim colour palette throughout while DA:I is very fresh and colourful. I'd love a sort of "first person mode" (do you think this is something that could be modded?). I think the game would really be something else seen from that angle. 

[BabyPuncher]

People say the Inquisitor is bland. I say if that's so, it's at least in part the player's fault. My Inquisitors aren't bland at all, and I identify more with them than with my Hawkes.

It's no fault of my mine the Inquisitor is a vapid dullard and perhaps one of the most contrived characters I have ever come across in fiction.

[Kabraxal]

It's no fault of my mine the Inquisitor is a vapid dullard and perhaps one of the most contrived characters I have ever come across in fiction.

Considering I've had 4 distinct Inquisitors.. yes, yes it is.  Sorry if you can't be bothered to flesh out the Inquisitor yourself, but it isn't the game's fault.  It is yours.