417 réponses à ce sujet

[Majestic Jazz]

Question, why is it that people are so sour over their protagonist dying in a videogame. I do not mean just DAI, but in any game? I mean, the chances of us playing as the IQ again in DA4 are very slim and most likely Bioware will resort to the "The IQ left and began some expedition alone and has not been seen since". You know, the same type of explanation they did with the Warden. 

 

Personally, I always found it to be more heroic for the main character to die in the end which is why I like the Sacrifice ending in DAO, it adds a bit of tragedy to it.

 

Why does a main character dying equate to a bad ending? Was it a bad ending when the Warden died by killing the archdemon in DAO? Why does everything have to be a generic kindergarden story of the hero saving the day and living happily ever after? I mean come on, we are all adults here, we can handle some complexity to how our heros story "end". 

[Nixou]

It's a bit late in the game to be trying to state it's some kind of trend. At the end of DA I we have right now, the Warden, Hawke and the Inquisitor can all be alive.

 

 

But two of the three get have already been put on buses to nowhere, which themselves will be problematic in the future when the series tackle the Grey Wardens inner conflict ("Where's Hawke?") and the taint, its origin and the possibility of curing it ("Where's the Warden?"). I said repeatedly that shrödinger-protagonists (who are either alive and active or dead depending on who's playing) are not a good idea when you're doing a long running series, since the medium limitations will eventually force the writers to prune the story's branches.

[Almostfaceman]

Question, why is it that people are so sour over their protagonist dying in a videogame. I do not mean just DAI, but in any game? I mean, the chances of us playing as the IQ again in DA4 are very slim and most likely Bioware will resort to the "The IQ left and began some expedition alone and has not been seen since". You know, the same type of explanation they did with the Warden. 

 

Personally, I always found it to be more heroic for the main character to die in the end which is why I like the Sacrifice ending in DAO, it adds a bit of tragedy to it.

 

Why does a main character dying equate to a bad ending? Was it a bad ending when the Warden died by killing the archdemon in DAO? Why does everything have to be a generic kindergarden story of the hero saving the day and living happily ever after? I mean come on, we are all adults here, we can handle some complexity to how our heros story "end". 

 

Because Bioware games are "choose your adventure" books in video game format and many don't want to be railroaded at the end with their protagonist. It's not that hard to understand, really. 

[BansheeOwnage]

Question, why is it that people are so sour over their protagonist dying in a videogame. I do not mean just DAI, but in any game?

Partly because, as others have said, we don't want to be railroaded (which is not what happened in DA:O). Also, because people like characters. The main reason I like stories (but not the only one) is because I love characters, so naturally people would get sad if the ones they cared about died, especially if it's your avatar in the world. It's not that complicated.

[SmilesJA]

Personally, I would have no problem with my Inquisitor sacrificing himself in the end.

[Skypezee]

Having Bioware give only 1 option for how the Inquisitor's story should end is a bullcrap idea and reminds me too much of ME3 (yes I am still bitter after all this time). If that were the case, why bother giving the choices? Why bother having us construct the stories for OUR characters? Sure it's all an illusion of choice since it's impossible to have every option available to man. But I liked the idea of having options, especially if you are building your games around the idea of "choose your own adventure and fate!"

 

If people want to end their stories with a self sacrifice, fine. Make that an OPTION for those who want it. But I'll be damned if I am forced into another situation where I don't get to decide the fate of MY character and have to make a stupid heroic sacrifice.

[OdanUrr]

So do the right thing Bioware & kill the inquisitor    

 

Oh hell no..

I don't want my Inquisitor to die . BioWare please disregard this foolish request ..

 

Make it a choice like with the Warden at the end of Origins. Maybe toss in another option for Inquisitors who romanced Solas to part with him in a similar fashion to Witch Hunt. Personally, I'm hoping for an Antivan wedding but maybe that's asking too much.

[Nette]

If it's done correctly and fits with the story then I have no issue with my inquisitor dying. The option would be nice.

[Majestic Jazz]

Having Bioware give only 1 option for how the Inquisitor's story should end is a bullcrap idea and reminds me too much of ME3 (yes I am still bitter after all this time). If that were the case, why bother giving the choices? Why bother having us construct the stories for OUR characters? Sure it's all an illusion of choice since it's impossible to have every option available to man. But I liked the idea of having options, especially if you are building your games around the idea of "choose your own adventure and fate!"

If people want to end their stories with a self sacrifice, fine. Make that an OPTION for those who want it. But I'll be damned if I am forced into another situation where I don't get to decide the fate of MY character and have to make a stupid heroic sacrifice.

Ok so help me understand this cause I am seeing some contradiction here. People dont want to be railroaded into one ending where their hero dies without their choice. However we have had Bioware games where the hero lives in the end without our choice. Take DAw for example, we were "railroaded" into having our Hawke live in the end and not giving us a choice, but nobody complained.

[Almostfaceman]

Ok so help me understand this cause I am seeing some contradiction here. People dont want to be railroaded into one ending where their hero dies without their choice. However we have had Bioware games where the hero lives in the end without our choice. Take DAw for example, we were "railroaded" into having our Hawke live in the end and not giving us a choice, but nobody complained.

 

Really? Nobody complained? I doubt that. In fact I see people gleefully talk about killing off their Hawke in this game. 

[SmilesJA]

Yeah, have our protagonist die so that the writers can write off the Inquisition as an irrelevant interlude that didn't result in any lasting changes in the world. Status quo is king after all.

 

/sarcasm

 

Seriously, the more often I'm presented with this heroic sacrifice BS there more I'm tempted to go completely dark-side. If that's the only way to survive I'll do it just to spite the trope and those who would force it on me. Surely, after having saved the world from something like Corypheus, just living on with my mind, magic and body intact isn't too much to expect, is it?

 

*Is seriously pissed off even by the remotest possibility that this might come true*

 

 

Hey it happened to Hawke and people loved it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Legacy sort of requires Hawke, though.

It requires a Hawke.  Not necessarily yours.

 

All of the details that suggest it needs to be your Hawke are revealed by playing it.  If you don't play it, you're not exposed to those details, so they need not be true.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Personally, I would have no problem with my Inquisitor sacrificing himself in the end.

Some of my Inquisitors might be willing to do that, but I have a hard time coming up with a possible justification for others.

 

My primary Inquisitor would absolutely never do that unless he thought it would help him ascend to godhood or something.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Why does a main character dying equate to a bad ending? Was it a bad ending when the Warden died by killing the archdemon in DAO? Why does everything have to be a generic kindergarden story of the hero saving the day and living happily ever after? I mean come on, we are all adults here, we can handle some complexity to how our heros story "end". 

It equates to an inconsistent ending for some characters.  Not all characters would do that.

 

That's why the character-leaves-to-go-do-something-else epilogue works better - because it's far easier to headcanon around.

[Majestic Jazz]

Really? Nobody complained? I doubt that. In fact I see people gleefully talk about killing off their Hawke in this game.

My point is that people only complain about choice if the only choice is for theie hero to die. If the only choice was for their hero to live you wont see any "I dont want to be railroaded....." complaints.

[KaiserShep]

My point is that people only complain about choice if the only choice is for theie hero to die. If the only choice was for their hero to live you wont see any "I dont want to be railroaded....." complaints.

 

That's because survival and death tend to be categorized as positive and negative respectively, and all things being equal, a forced positive is typically better received than a forced negative. People are not likely to complain about being "railroaded" into the character surviving, unless the way the character survives doesn't make any sense whatsoever, or they simply don't like the character and wish s/he would die. 

[Majestic Jazz]

That's because survival and death tend to be categorized as positive and negative respectively, and all things being equal, a forced positive is typically better received than a forced negative. People are not likely to complain about being "railroaded" into the character surviving, unless the way the character survives doesn't make any sense whatsoever, or they simply don't like the character and wish s/he would die.

Fair enough.

I rather the IQ just die in this one. His or her story has been told and DA4 will take place in a new region with a new conflict.

[TreeHuggerHannah]

Ok so help me understand this cause I am seeing some contradiction here. People dont want to be railroaded into one ending where their hero dies without their choice. However we have had Bioware games where the hero lives in the end without our choice. Take DAw for example, we were "railroaded" into having our Hawke live in the end and not giving us a choice, but nobody complained.

 

Life is the default state in most games (i.e. most protagonists start out as alive and are alive for the course of the gameplay) and death requires something to happen to end it. It's the difference between the default state continuing and the default state being changed by an external force or event.

[Almostfaceman]

Hey it happened to Hawke and people loved it.

 

No, it didn't happen to Hawke. You are presented with a choice and Hawke can survive. That's the context of the discussion. The OP wants Hawke to die, they don't want the choice to survive. 

[Almostfaceman]

My point is that people only complain about choice if the only choice is for theie hero to die. If the only choice was for their hero to live you wont see any "I dont want to be railroaded....." complaints.

 

I just countered that point with the fact that people did complain about Hawke not having the choice to die and even if they didn't say something then (which I'm positive some did) they reveal that complaint now by rejoicing in the ability to kill him in Inquisition. 

[BansheeOwnage]

It requires a Hawke.  Not necessarily yours.

 

All of the details that suggest it needs to be your Hawke are revealed by playing it.  If you don't play it, you're not exposed to those details, so they need not be true.

The only other two Hawkes are with the main Hawke, so I would find that unlikely to say the least. As for the second line, can we please not invent Shrödinger's lore? The lore is the same regardless of if you know it. Let's not get into alternate universe stuff just to allow someone to canonically ignore a DLC.

[KaiserShep]

The only other two Hawkes are with the main Hawke, so I would find that unlikely to say the least. As for the second line, can we please not invent Shrödinger's lore? The lore is the same regardless of if you know it. Let's not get into alternate universe stuff just to allow someone to canonically ignore a DLC.

 

Well, technically only one Hawke by blood, since everyone else is an Amell. 

[Eelectrica]

Right at the start of the game the Inquisitor says the Mark is Killing him/her. So if that's what happens it's been setup already. The mark could be a bit like a cancer perhaps.
So not really railroading just fated to happen.

[Cz-99]

Right at the start of the game the Inquisitor says the Mark is Killing him/her. So if that's what happens it's been setup already. The mark could be a bit like a cancer perhaps.
So not really railroading just fated to happen.

 

So, basically we die unless we kill Naraku first? Challenge accepted.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Right at the start of the game the Inquisitor says the Mark is Killing him/her. So if that's what happens it's been setup already. The mark could be a bit like a cancer perhaps.
So not really railroading just fated to happen.

No, the Inquisitor says "We close the Breach twice(I love how the Inquisitor puts emphasis on that), and my own hand wants to kill me!" They never say it is, just that it apparently wants to.