1659 réponses à ce sujet

[Abyss108]

Frankly I just think the execution was poor if the entire plan was to get us involved with the idea of Solas as our arch rival. They could have made him more involved, had more conversations with him be automatic instead of player prompted.

 

And/or, they could have given us the option to take the whole thing less personally at the end. Instead of just "I'm going to kill Solas!", "I'll have to stop you.", they could have put it more like "You need to be stopped."

 

And a large part of it is just personal preference. I find the whole "I'm the only one allowed to defeat you" nonsense to be a terrible cliche, and I don't want to be forced to play it straight. 

 

But "I'm the only one allowed to defeat you" is used in literally every single RPG. How many allow you to just decide the main villain isn't your problem?

 

I don't see how making conversation with him automatic would help either. The only reason not to talk to him is to purposely skip content. It's not like you only get to speak to him if you like him, you can go pick a fight with him. 

 

You don't have to be his "arch rival" to want to go stop him, you just have to be someone who wants to continue to live. If you are forced pick options in the next game that go "Solas was my best friend and I am so torn apart by this" I'll be upset, but I don't think they will do that. I'm sure if you want to play it that you didn't take it so personally that will be an option. But it doesn't make sense for the Inquisitor to go "hmm, Solas is going to kill me soon - I'll let someone else deal with that!"

[Former_Fiend]

Then you'd just have had players complain that Solas was 'forced on them' during DAI even more than he's being 'forced' on players as an arch rival now. The devs are between a rock and a hard place here.

 

And as for the 'only one allowed to defeat you' - well, that's something shared by many, many a game/film/novel. It's the nature of being a special snowflake. Only the Warden can gather the treaties and confront the Archdemon; only Shepard draws the attention of the Reapers; only Harry has been marked by Voldemort.

 

As an aside, that's part of why I find the idea of a disabled protag so compelling. We're used to 'special' status being conferred in a way that makes us 'better' , stronger, more powerful than everyone else. I'd be really interested in special snowflake status that disempowers us, disables us, rather than enables us.

 

Solas is apparently being forced on us, anyway. I would have preferred that the foundation of that be more sold.

 

And that's really part of my problem. It's over done, cliche, and I have no interest in seeing it again. 

 

Not to mention those are some qualified examples. They went out of their way to establish why the wardens are the only ones who can defeat the Arch demon and it wasn't due to personal grudge. And in the end, you can have Alistair or Loghain do it instead. Shepard was the only one who did draw the attention of the Reapers, but he never declared that he was the only one allowed to save the galaxy from them. If anyone else did it, Shepard would have been fine with that. And I don't like Harry Potter, so that isn't an argument to convince me this is a good idea. 

 

And I can't help but think about it from an outsider's perspective - which I think is a testament to how much they've failed to get me invested in the story. I don't think about it from my Inquisitor's perspective of "I have to be the one to stop Solas!" I think about it from a hypothetical new protagonists, "Why the hell should I let that guy deal with this? For all I know, he wants to help Solas. I'm not leaving my fate in his hands, I'm going to do something about it!"

 

History isn't shaped by any one individual, it's shaped by multitudes of great people. And rarely in history does one actually get to defeat one's arch rival personally. Someone else always blindsides them. That's a story I'd be much more interested in seeing than another "I'm the only one allowed to defeat you".

[Former_Fiend]

But "I'm the only one allowed to defeat you" is used in literally every single RPG. How many allow you to just decide the main villain isn't your problem?

 

I don't see how making conversation with him automatic would help either. The only reason not to talk to him is to purposely skip content. It's not like you only get to speak to him if you like him, you can go pick a fight with him. 

 

You don't have to be his "arch rival" to want to go stop him, you just have to be someone who wants to continue to live. If you are forced pick options in the next game that go "Solas was my best friend and I am so torn apart by this" I'll be upset, but I don't think they will do that. I'm sure if you want to play it that you didn't take it so personally that will be an option. But it doesn't make sense for the Inquisitor to go "hmm, Solas is going to kill me soon - I'll let someone else deal with that!"

 

Again, not what I'm saying. I'm not advocating the Inquisitor chucks deuces and retires to their mansion in Hightown.

 

I'm advocating a new protagonist gets proactive and decides not to sit by and let some southern cult leader save their life and instead take their fate into their own hands.

[AllThatJazz]

 

Solas is apparently being forced on us, anyway. I would have preferred that the foundation of that be more sold.

 

And that's really part of my problem. It's over done, cliche, and I have no interest in seeing it again. 

 

Not to mention those are some qualified examples. They went out of their way to establish why the wardens are the only ones who can defeat the Arch demon and it wasn't due to personal grudge. And in the end, you can have Alistair or Loghain do it instead. Shepard was the only one who did draw the attention of the Reapers, but he never declared that he was the only one allowed to save the galaxy from them. If anyone else did it, Shepard would have been fine with that. And I don't like Harry Potter, so that isn't an argument to convince me this is a good idea. 

 

And I can't help but think about it from an outsider's perspective - which I think is a testament to how much they've failed to get me invested in the story. I don't think about it from my Inquisitor's perspective of "I have to be the one to stop Solas!" I think about it from a hypothetical new protagonists, "Why the hell should I let that guy deal with this? For all I know, he wants to help Solas. I'm not leaving my fate in his hands, I'm going to do something about it!"

 

History isn't shaped by any one individual, it's shaped by multitudes of great people. And rarely in history does one actually get to defeat one's arch rival personally. Someone else always blindsides them. That's a story I'd be much more interested in seeing than another "I'm the only one allowed to defeat you".

Thing is though, where they failed for you, they resoundingly succeeded with me. If the Inquisitor isn't the one to go after Solas, I will be gutted because they have very much created a relationship there that resonates with me far, far beyond 'here's a bad guy, go and kill him'. That they failed for you is  a shame, but your solution (entirely new protag, no Inquisitor beyond a little cameo) is the one that I would consider the failure.

 

Yes, they are qualified examples - but not isolated ones. A great, great many video games feature protags who, for one reason or another, are the only ones who can do what they do. The 'any old joe' idea is nice in theory but risks being anti-climactic and, well, boring, in practice. That you don't like Harry Potter and won't play TW3 doesn't make including those things in my arguments less sensible.

 

And while the whole of history isn't shaped by one individual of course, important moments in history absolutely are. There's a reason why there are entire eras and movements in history named after people - 'Napoleonic era', 'Trotskyism', 'Thatcher's Britain' - phrases used commonly enough to stand as testament to how important the actions of individuals can actually be, for good or ill. 

 

And really? I'd have been horribly ticked off in Origins if I'd played a Cousland whose revenge against Howe was taken away from me by random guy who had nothing to do with what happened to my family. There's a reason we get to face down our nemeses in popular media - because it's satisfying, in a way that some bloke doing it because reasons, isn't. And as a player of Shepard, if another soldier had turned up and defeated the Reapers while I was faffing around on the Citadel, I would have been very unhappy, to say the least. 

 

Part of the reason I love the Solas/Inquisitor stuff is that it's not (or doesn't have to be) quite so simple as 'I'm the only one allowed to defeat' you, but also 'I'm the only one who can possibly save you' - which is, in itself, an interesting twist on the traditional dynamic, for me.

 

Edit: And, like Abyss, I'd love dual protags, which wouldn't negate what you want to see anyway.

[Abyss108]

Again, not what I'm saying. I'm not advocating the Inquisitor chucks deuces and retires to their mansion in Hightown.

 

I'm advocating a new protagonist gets proactive and decides not to sit by and let some southern cult leader save their life and instead take their fate into their own hands.

 

Well, I want dual protagonists so I'm perfectly fine with someone else also getting proactive about this. 

 

But Mass Effect 3 didn't end with someone else dealing with the Reapers and Shepard going "Oh! Thanks for that!  ". 

[Former_Fiend]

Thing is though, where they failed for you, they resoundingly succeeded with me. If the Inquisitor isn't the one to go after Solas, I will be gutted because they have very much created a relationship there that resonates with me far, far beyond 'here's a bad guy, go and kill him'. That they failed for you is  a shame, but your solution (entirely new protag, no Inquisitor beyond a little cameo) is the one that I would consider the failure.

 

And while the whole of history isn't shaped by one individual of course, important moments in history absolutely are. There's a reason why there are entire eras and movements in history named after people - 'Napoleonic era', 'Trotskyism', 'Thatcher's Britain' - phrases used commonly enough to stand as testament to how important the actions of individuals can actually be, for good or ill. 

 

Part of the reason I love the Solas/Inquisitor stuff is that it's not (or doesn't have to be) quite so simple as 'I'm the only one allowed to defeat' you, but also 'I'm the only one who can possibly save you' - which is, in itself, an interesting twist on the traditional dynamic, for me.

 

I will admit that the primary problem with the new protagonist being involved is the "redeem Solas" option. Giving the new protagonist the motivation to stop/kill Solas is easy, making them care about saving him would be more difficult. Not so much a problem for me, personally, because even if I thought Solas was capable of redemption(I don't), I don't think he's worthy of it. But I know others do and I understand why they do. 

 

At the same time, though, I think about how much they've failed to get me to see Solas as tragic and deserving of being saved. I know there's going to be no changing my mind on that with the Inquisitor. But maybe a new relationship with the new protagonist could actually get me invested in him and make me change my mind. Not likely, but not impossible.

[Former_Fiend]

Well, I want dual protagonists so I'm perfectly fine with someone else also getting proactive about this. 

 

But Mass Effect 3 didn't end with someone else dealing with the Reapers and Shepard going "Oh! Thanks for that!  ". 

 

Would have been brilliant if it did, though. 

 

I'm still disappointed that they scrapped the idea of allowing the "Shepard dies" imports from ME2. 

[AllThatJazz]

I will admit that the primary problem with the new protagonist being involved is the "redeem Solas" option. Giving the new protagonist the motivation to stop/kill Solas is easy, making them care about saving him would be more difficult. Not so much a problem for me, personally, because even if I thought Solas was capable of redemption(I don't), I don't think he's worthy of it. But I know others do and I understand why they do. 

 

At the same time, though, I think about how much they've failed to get me to see Solas as tragic and deserving of being saved. I know there's going to be no changing my mind on that with the Inquisitor. But maybe a new relationship with the new protagonist could actually get me invested in him and make me change my mind. Not likely, but not impossible.

But that's kind of wasting the time of those of us who already feel that way (that Solas is worthy of redemption). It's spending a whole other game doing what they've already done, for the sake of those they probably won't succeed with this time either.

 

I think the beauty of the character is actually that you don't have to think of him as tragic - if you want a simpler, Big Bad thing, then you can have that. If you want the 'he's a tragic figure, try to save him' thing then you can have that too, and there is evidence enough to support both perspectives on Solas. Dual protags could allow for both possibilities.  New protag, with no PlayerInquisitor input, really only allows for the 'stop him at any cost' path.

 

It seems we have some fundamental differences in how we enjoy entertainment - I like the Potter novels, I like Witcher 3, I like Solas, I like heroic/epic fantasy and tend to get bored by 'Everyman' tales. I think we're possibly at an impasse!

[Abyss108]

I will admit that the primary problem with the new protagonist being involved is the "redeem Solas" option. Giving the new protagonist the motivation to stop/kill Solas is easy, making them care about saving him would be more difficult. Not so much a problem for me, personally, because even if I thought Solas was capable of redemption(I don't), I don't think he's worthy of it. But I know others do and I understand why they do. 

 

At the same time, though, I think about how much they've failed to get me to see Solas as tragic and deserving of being saved. I know there's going to be no changing my mind on that with the Inquisitor. But maybe a new relationship with the new protagonist could actually get me invested in him and make me change my mind. Not likely, but not impossible.

 

I'm curious what you think they could do with a new character to get you to care that they couldn't do with the Inquisitor?

 

They already showed us his character, showing it again to someone different doesn't seem like it should make a difference...

[Former_Fiend]

But that's kind of wasting the time of those of us who already feel that way (that Solas is worthy of redemption). It's spending a whole other game doing what they've already done, for the sake of those they probably won't succeed with this time either.

 

I think the beauty of the character is actually that you don't have to think of him as tragic - if you want a simpler, Big Bad thing, then you can have that. If you want the ' try to save him' thing then you can have that too, and there is evidence enough to support both perspectives on Solas. Dual protags would allow for both possibilities.  

 

My issue with the dual protagonist option is that I firmly believe that only works in games where there are clear contrasts between the protagonists. If one's big and strong, the other needs to be slim and quick. If one's calm and collected, the other needs to be hot blooded. And I do not know how Bioware can do that and still give us satisfactory control over our characters. 

 

 

I'm curious what you think they could do with a new character to get you to care that they couldn't do with the Inquisitor?

 

They already showed us his character, showing it again to someone different doesn't seem like it should make a difference...

 

Specifically? Give me a week, I'll figure something out.

 

Generally I think that the lens through which we view that character would have a major impact. Interacting with him not as a nondescript party member who's pretending to be something else, but instead as a man on a mission with a clear goal, would really affect how we look at him.

[Abyss108]

My issue with the dual protagonist option is that I firmly believe that only works in games where there are clear contrasts between the protagonists. If one's big and strong, the other needs to be slim and quick. If one's calm and collected, the other needs to be hot blooded. And I do not know how Bioware can do that and still give us satisfactory control over our characters. 

 

 

 

Specifically? Give me a week, I'll figure something out.

 

Generally I think that the lens through which we view that character would have a major impact. Interacting with him not as a nondescript party member who's pretending to be something else, but instead as a man on a mission with a clear goal, would really affect how we look at him.

 

Well to your first point - if you only like protagonists with such a contrast, you can easily make them that way? I'm sure that would be a choice you could make. I'd probably do the same! 

 

To the second point - I'm not sure what difference your character would make to this. I agree that seeing him now would be different to seeing him how he was in the previous game. But I don't see why it matters whether it's the Inquisitor/some one else that does this. Either way, you-the-player would still have seen the entire thing, or if you are talking from a role-playing perspective, it seems a new character was be less inclined to sympathize with him now he is trying to destroy the world, rather than the Inquisitor who saw him try to help save it.

[AllThatJazz]

My issue with the dual protagonist option is that I firmly believe that only works in games where there are clear contrasts between the protagonists. If one's big and strong, the other needs to be slim and quick. If one's calm and collected, the other needs to be hot blooded. And I do not know how Bioware can do that and still give us satisfactory control over our characters. 

 

 

 

Specifically? Give me a week, I'll figure something out.

 

Generally I think that the lens through which we view that character would have a major impact. Interacting with him not as a nondescript party member who's pretending to be something else, but instead as a man on a mission with a clear goal, would really affect how we look at him.

There are already contrasts. The Inquisitor is an established and famous hero, leader of a diminished but still extant organisation that once rivalled the most powerful groups in Thedas. He/she has connections to Magisters, Titans (possibly), Avvar warriors, and counts the Divine as a close friend. Theirs is a personal mission to stop/save someone they once loved/liked/hated/in your case didn't give a rat's arse about Their gameplay is necessarily different (because of the arm, magical prosthetics providing different combat styles, or less combat and more puzzles/talky missions etc). New protag  is an unknown quantity, a person of little power and even less influence and no connections beyond the ones the Inquisitor feels like sharing. Theirs is a wider, less personal mission to (possibly) prevent the chaos caused by Fen'Harel's plans (or whatever). Gameplay/levelling follows the more traditional approach.

 

Personal contrasts are yours to decide, as they should be in a CRPG. Are your characters entirely opposite? Are there parallels between them? Do they agree on how the missions should proceed? I think the roleplaying and narrative possibilities are very exciting!

[leaguer of one]

Again, not what I'm saying. I'm not advocating the Inquisitor chucks deuces and retires to their mansion in Hightown.

 

I'm advocating a new protagonist gets proactive and decides not to sit by and let some southern cult leader save their life and instead take their fate into their own hands.

And i say...

 

^this for the next pc and we are not limited to the inquisition.

[leaguer of one]

I'm curious what you think they could do with a new character to get you to care that they couldn't do with the Inquisitor?

 

They already showed us his character, showing it again to someone different doesn't seem like it should make a difference...

Origin story's would help.

[AllThatJazz]

Origin story's would help.

Not to get you to care about your protag, but to care about the Solas character.

[Abyss108]

Origin story's would help.

 

Do you mean origin for the Protagonist or Solas? 

 

I don't see why the protagonist having an origin story would make any difference to how someone felt about Solas, and I don't see why Solas having one would make a difference between seeing it with a new/old character.

[leaguer of one]

Not to get you to care about your protag, but to care about the Solas character.

You don't need to care for his character. Just what he's doing. No all character are going to be liked by anyone.

[leaguer of one]

Do you mean origin for the Protagonist or Solas? 

 

I don't see why the protagonist having an origin story would make any difference to how someone felt about Solas, and I don't see why Solas having one would make a difference between seeing it with a new/old character.

I thought he was talking about the pc....but an orgin story for Solas would be great for one.

[Abyss108]

You don't need to care for his character. Just what he's doing. No all character are going to be liked by anyone.

 

No one has said that!

 

You replied to my comment about whether a new protagonist would be more likely to care about Solas (I said they wouldn't) saying "origins would help".

 

(and you already replied before I posted this, I'm too slow!)

Modifié par Abyss108, 09 octobre 2015 - 08:16 .

[AllThatJazz]

You don't need to care for his character. Just what he's doing. No all character are going to be liked by anyone.

No, I mean that's what that whole conversation with Fiend was about - whether it was possible to get a new protagonist to care about the Solas character when his/her Inquisitor didn't. It wasn't about a protagonist, so Origins stories wouldn't make any difference there.

 

And no, absolutely - there are no universally liked characters. And yes, I would also like a Solas Origin dlc An Arlathan dlc, oooooh.

 

Edit: 

[Former_Fiend]

There are already contrasts. The Inquisitor is an established and famous hero, leader of a diminished but still extant organisation that once rivalled the most powerful groups in Thedas. He/she has connections to Magisters, Titans (possibly), Avvar warriors, and counts the Divine as a close friend. Theirs is a personal mission to stop/save someone they once loved/liked/hated/in your case didn't give a rat's arse about Their gameplay is different (because of the arm, magical prosthetics, or less combat etc). New protag  is an unknown quantity, a person of little power and even less influence and no connections beyond the ones the Inquisitor feels like sharing. Theirs is a wider, less personal mission to (possibly) prevent the chaos caused by Fen'Harel's plans (or whatever). Gameplay/levelling follows the more traditional approach.

 

Personal contrasts are yours to decide, as they should be in a CRPG. Are your characters entirely opposite? Are there parallels between them? Do they agree on how the missions should proceed? I think the roleplaying and narrative possibilities are very exciting!

 

I'm going off on a little tangent here before tackling the larger issue.

 

I'm tired of preventing chaos. I just played an entire game devoted to preventing chaos. I'm tired of being the defender of the status quo. I'm tired of being a beacon of order. I want to impose change. I want to tear the system down, I want to take a sledge hammer to the machine.

 

And that is a large part of why I don't want to play the Inquisitor again; regardless of what dialogue options you choose, the Inquisitor is an agent of order. And I am 110% done with that. 

 

Now, on  point. Contrasts between dual protagonists shouldn't be optional and shouldn't be limited to "one's got experience with this, the other's new at this". We shouldn't have the option to make them virtual clones of each other, but if we can't have the option of having them agree on everything, people will decry it as infringing on their roleplaying and capability of determining "their" characters. 

 

That's why I think the formula just flat out does not work when applied to rpgs.

[leaguer of one]

Ok, as for the pc caring about Solas. That's not really need. The pc only need to care about what he is doing. The question is if the pc does anything about it and why.

 

What if Solas has a good reason for doing what he is doing and the pc finds out and want to help him. What if the pc what to help the qun stop Solas over siding with the inquisition? Or with tevinter?

 

It may not be as simple as stopping Solas.

[Reznore57]

I'm going off on a little tangent here before tackling the larger issue.

 

I'm tired of preventing chaos. I just played an entire game devoted to preventing chaos. I'm tired of being the defender of the status quo. I'm tired of being a beacon of order. I want to impose change. I want to tear the system down, I want to take a sledge hammer to the machine.

 

And that is a large part of why I don't want to play the Inquisitor again; regardless of what dialogue options you choose, the Inquisitor is an agent of order. And I am 110% done with that. 

 

Thing is if we go to Tevinter...chances are we'll play an agent of change 100% guarantee.

There's the whole slavery thing over there , and the devs are not going to dance around slavery much ...it won't be a templar/mage debate , with the whole freedom vs security debate or even yeah but mages lives in nice tower etc...

I mean Tevinter is build on slavery , and with the Qunari knocking on the door , it's not the best time to free slaves but like I said I very much doubt the devs will try to sell us slavery is better than chaos.

 

So even the Inquisitor going to Tevinter would be an agent of change.

[AllThatJazz]

I'm going off on a little tangent here before tackling the larger issue.

 

I'm tired of preventing chaos. I just played an entire game devoted to preventing chaos. I'm tired of being the defender of the status quo. I'm tired of being a beacon of order. I want to impose change. I want to tear the system down, I want to take a sledge hammer to the machine.

 

And that is a large part of why I don't want to play the Inquisitor again; regardless of what dialogue options you choose, the Inquisitor is an agent of order. And I am 110% done with that. 

 

Now, on  point. Contrasts between dual protagonists shouldn't be optional and shouldn't be limited to "one's got experience with this, the other's new at this". We shouldn't have the option to make them virtual clones of each other, but if we can't have the option of having them agree on everything, people will decry it as infringing on their roleplaying and capability of determining "their" characters. 

 

That's why I think the formula just flat out does not work when applied to rpgs.

Well, the 'preventing chaos' example was just an example, I obviously have no idea what the story will be. Maybe the new protag's role will be to incite a slave rebellion in Tevinter to distract/impress Solas/prove that the world has something worth preserving (depending on the stop/save Solas arc) while the Inquisitor looks for him? Edit: In fact, as Reznore said, I think it far more likely we'll be upsetting the status quo in the next game than preserving it.

 

As for your second point, agree to disagree. I believe there are already enough inherent contrasts, both in terms of position/experience and indeed gameplay, to make the characters anything but 'virtual clones' - but as for ethical outlook etc, I absolutely think that is up to the player. At any rate, I believe that if the next game is in Tevinter, there's a chance that we'll be race-locked somehow. I can't see Elven non mages or Qunari gaining much traction in Minrathous. They'd be stabbed in the face by a hundred guards as soon as they pull a sword/bow. If so, there's another contrast.

[Former_Fiend]

Thing is if we go to Tevinter...chances are we'll play an agent of change 100% guarantee.

There's the whole slavery thing over there , and the devs are not going to dance around slavery much ...it won't be a templar/mage debate , with the whole freedom vs security debate or even yeah but mages lives in nice tower etc...

I mean Tevinter is build on slavery , and with the Qunari knocking on the door , it's not the best time to free slaves but like I said I very much doubt the devs will try to sell us slavery is better than chaos.

 

So even the Inquisitor going to Tevinter would be an agent of change.

 

I suppose, but there are some real unfortunate implications with a Southerner being the one to come up and change things in Tevinter instead of a native. 

 

And that leads into this whole other issue I have where people make the rivalry with Solas so all encompassing that I feel the Inquisitor going up to Tevinter would have serious tunnel vision on Solas - whether the player is invested in that or not. Where as a new protagonist will actually be someone who cares about Tevinter's problems, and be invested in the land and it's people, not in one man.