135 réponses à ce sujet

[Aren]

I am tired of bioware larger than life hero who save world universe. I prefer someone like Hawke. And I would take Kirkwall over all Inquisition deserts.

my next bioware character must earn the title of the HOU=Hero of the universe

[Guitar-Hero]

Badass normal if you have a reason for being  badass, so like Shepard was N7. Hawke never really got a reason which i really hated. 

[Dabrikishaw]

Badass Normal is simply the most special snowflake of the lot. Other characters need reasons for how and why they can do what they do, the Badass Normal is just that Badass.

It doesn't matter very much to me. We'll be some flavour of super-hero anyway. Some sort of obvious specialness may be necessary to give plausibility to an elf hero, if the plot requires they be treated with respect relatively early on.

I agree with this, that's why I went with the idea of enjoying what the story is rather than what type of character your playing as. 

 

I didn't enjoy the story of Dragon Age ][, while I do like Origins and Inquisition's stories. The type of protagonists used is a reason for that yes, but really it's not the main thing that matters to me.

[ArianaGBSA]

DA2 is probably the worst DA game yes. I hated voiced PCs, yes. But Hawke wins the competition just for not being special. Not being special is the most important feature in a PC. The second most important feature of a PC is NOT being leader, specially not leader of an organization. The third most important is not being "the one everybody follows", not being the one who inspires everyone, meaning not like Inquisitor and not like Shepard.

I really hate Bioware characters, I will always hate, it is impossible that they will not make a character that I hate more than anything BUT if they put less background and less superpowers there is more room for me to create a character I can care about in my mind. So, the problem with being special is the same with every other thing they decide to tell about our character, it makes it harder to be OUR character, but in case of specialness it is worse because it defines how our character relates to the plot since the special feature usually is vital to the plot.

The warden can't turn their back on Thedas, the Inquisitor can't just be someone, they lead the sh*t. Hawke was the one that did not make me want to die just for existing because it was personal, BUT even so, it was pure luck that I liked their story, as was with the Inquisitor in Trespasser (that fixed the sh*t from main game).
I understand, WITH GIGANTIC COLOSSAL PAIN, that Bioware games after NWN are about telling a story of a pre defined character, which makes me deeply sad, I understand it will never be my character again, it will always be some stupid story about the Exile, Revan, Warden, Hawke, Shepard, whatever comes from their sick, perverted, poor and imbecile imagination, someone I will never relate to, not without sacrificing the most important things to my character.

I really understand it, that's part of my infinite hatred for them. But they could really use LESS definition, the less they force a boring and ridiculous character as the Inquisitor down my throat, the better the game... oh how I missed when I could write about my character in my character sheet... When I create my characters in NWN, NWN2 (Obsidian), BG, IWD and many others I can write what I am about. Even when they shove Baalspawn down my throat I can still write how MY CHARACTER is, but now, no, I control that sh*t Bioware made. Hell even NW MMO let's me write about who I am, a sick and perverted action game under the banner of D&D but at least I am not forced to be anything. Less story, more freedom. I know Bioware now is all about pleasing their frustrated writers, they giving us these below dr Seuss sh*tty stories that bore any brain from the most simple to the most complex, but they seriously could help A LOT in making the PC the most normal possible so that it don't completely destroy any chance of seeing ourselves in them.

[Phoe77]

I don't think that any one type is inherently better than the others.  Whether or not a character is relatable has more to do with the character's presentation and their potential personalities than what level of power they have since a good story is going to place meaningful obstacles in the way of the protagonist regardless of how powerful they might be.  

[Ieldra]

I would identify more with a marine who, however talented, is still human, than I do an undead cyborg.

Yeah, me too, but there's a wide range of possibilities between these two extremes.

 

Unsurprisingly to anyone who knows me, I like to explore that which is just beyond the limits that define our humanity. Unlike Shepard's Lazarus upgrades, which I'd rather keep but which aren't really that important, being able to walk into your world's "magic dimension", so to speak, is pretty signficant in that regard, and that's why I liked it in the Inquisitor. I recall my favorite character in BG1/2/TOB - the reason why she chose to ascend was that she could never walk away from those new horizons open to her now. The fact that I'd be less able to relate to my own character after that decision - didn't matter.

 

So...I would love to play, say, an immortal ancient elf. It'd be a roleplaying challenge for sure, but it'd be fascinating to attempt to get into her mind. Not that I expect that to happen in a DA game. Stories featuring such characters are very hard to write even without the added difficulty of having to account for playing choices.     

[Aren]

 

 

 

 

My Wardens would of course give up the taint if they could.  Sure they grant some nice darkspawn-hunting powers, but it dramatically cuts down on one's life expectancy.   Bioware managed to find the one reason that I think really made sense for the Warden to disappear:  Finding a way to stop the Calling.

 

 

and yet a warden who decide to took Avernus path didn't need to find a cure 

[AnUnculturedLittlePotato]

The fact that any of the Dragon Age protagonists can survive half the stuff they encounter with only three companions at the side basically makes them a special snowflake already. But, yeah, I see the point of this thread. Badass normal is the preferred state of the protagonist to me. The only problem with that is that means that guys like Hawke should probably be dead whenever they step into the Deep Roads or confront a blood mage that uses mind control on them.  

Is this dragon age or final fantasy? >.> When i fall from an infinite height into the deep roads I don't expect to live but somehow I do >.>'''

[Iakus]

Yeah, me too, but there's a wide range of possibilities between these two extremes.

 

Unsurprisingly to anyone who knows me, I like to explore that which is just beyond the limits that define our humanity. Unlike Shepard's Lazarus upgrades, which I'd rather keep but which aren't really that important, being able to walk into your world's "magic dimension", so to speak, is pretty signficant in that regard, and that's why I liked it in the Inquisitor. I recall my favorite character in BG1/2/TOB - the reason why she chose to ascend was that she could never walk away from those new horizons open to her now. The fact that I'd be less able to relate to my own character after that decision - didn't matter.

 

So...I would love to play, say, an immortal ancient elf. It'd be a roleplaying challenge for sure, but it'd be fascinating to attempt to get into her mind. Not that I expect that to happen in a DA game. Stories featuring such characters are very hard to write even without the added difficulty of having to account for playing choices.     

 

Heh, when I play games where the protagonist is pushing the boundaries of humanity, I try to focus on those aspects where they remain human.  And thus identifiable.   My Bhaalspawn characters almost always reject the essence and choose to remain mortal.  There's plenty of horizons still to explore on Faerun.

 

 

 My Adam Jensen uses his augmentations as tools to get the job done, but refuses to be defined by them.

 

"Living through adversity is what makes us human.  It's not flesh and blood, or even bone that defines us.  I might be more machine than flesh, but I'm still alive.  I'm still human"

 

Heck when I play Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines, my vampire is generally p*ssed off at his condition.  And tries to stay as human as possible.

 

And I'm really interested in how the Last Castoff can define his/herself in Torment: Tides of Numenera 

[9TailsFox]

my next bioware character must earn the title of the HOU=Hero of the universe

HOM = Hero of the multiverse. Go big or go home.

[vertigomez]

Normal, normal, normal. Warden wasn't special (Alistair and Loghain can kill the AD just as well), Hawke wasn't special, and I was ridiculously glad when then Inquisitor lost the arm and anchor.

I mean, it was fine for the duration of the game, but post-game I don't like the specialness to stick. Feels like a fungus. >_____>

[Ashagar]

I'd say Hawke was special in that Hawke's ability to make everything they got involved in or was connected to become worse had to be a demonic talent in itself, bad luck is one thing  but I seen characters in black comedies and Warhammer 40K have better luck than Hawke.

[GoldenGail3]

I like Characters like the Warden, who is new to the organization but is quite willing do what needs to be done. I don't like people like Hawke, who only made a mess of things. The Inquistor so far hasn't had the opportunity to be killed, so their Mary Janes (a lost of a limb isn't death, it's a lost of the limb). So I hold my opinion of the Inquisitor out for the next game. But overall, I like the Warden better, their story is steriotypical, but at least I can sort of win in the ending (use the DA to live) unlike both Hawke, The Inquisitor, and Shepard who lose in the ending.

[Ieldra]

My Adam Jensen uses his augmentations as tools to get the job done, but refuses to be defined by them.
 
"Living through adversity is what makes us human.  It's not flesh and blood, or even bone that defines us.  I might be more machine than flesh, but I'm still alive.  I'm still human"

This is one of those statements that always makes me shake my head: "X makes us human, therefore it's good that we can't escape it." From my point of view, it's always better to have a choice about something. Also, my baseline position is "Being human isn't all that great". The obvious attempt of some stories to make a good thing of our defining limitations is something I find deeply hypocritical. One can be philosophical about them, since we can't change ourselves (yet), but in principle I'd want to overcome them in most cases.
 
This is, btw, why I'd have considerable sympathy for someone like Corypheus, if it wasn't for his complete disregard for others' suffering. My main Inquisitor doesn't believe in gods, but she certainly believes in acquiring certain attributes usually restricted to them, such as immortality and a distributed consciousness. I would rather like to explore the possibilities in that. That would be, of course, a super-special character, and probably wouldn't fit DA's main storyline, but since the theme exists in the setting, it could work in a spin-off. I don't think it'll happen, but one can dream.

And as for identification and relatability, sure it'd be hard to get into the mind of a thousand-year-old-elf, for instance, but for me personally, I'd have more trouble relating to a human who doesn't desire these things.

[Fredward]

I don't have any specific objection to any UNLESS your special comes with a prophecy or is deemed somehow predetermined/destined etc. Like your actions have been set out long before you and you are just one piece of a set of tumbling dominoes. Unless I get to choose to fall ****** sideways you could load me out the wazoo with special and it wouldn't be enough. I usually prefer badass normal because that tends to mean no veiled hand is orchestrating events and leading you down a predetermined path, you own your actions. It is one of my favorite things ever to subvert the intended purpose of the veiled hand though. Like in MotB where the gods punished Akashi and you wound up just being a pawn for people and the a victim of godly pettiness and disregard for human suffering and/or potential and you can turn that **** around to where you literally eat them. That's pretty dope.

[BansheeOwnage]

This is about the type of protagonist you prefer.

 

I've been thinking about this ever since Trespasser came out and I discovered just how much I hated my Inquisitor's being brought back to normal and losing their cool magical extra. Meanwhile, Hawke was more or less a badass normal and I was very much ok with that. So, what was it that made this ok in one case but not in the other? What kind of protagonist appealed to me most? And I was interested in how others think about this.

My guess is because they took your power away. Hawke never had it, so it was fine. Probably the same reason people think superheroes getting de-powered is lame.

[Teddie Sage]

Badass normal all the way.

[Gileadan]

From humble beginning to normal badass for me, please.

 

I.e. from Private A--hole to Major A--hole.

[Iakus]

This is one of those statements that always makes me shake my head: "X makes us human, therefore it's good that we can't escape it." From my point of view, it's always better to have a choice about something. Also, my baseline position is "Being human isn't all that great". The obvious attempt of some stories to make a good thing of our defining limitations is something I find deeply hypocritical. One can be philosophical about them, since we can't change ourselves (yet), but in principle I'd want to overcome them in most cases.
 
This is, btw, why I'd have considerable sympathy for someone like Corypheus, if it wasn't for his complete disregard for others' suffering. My main Inquisitor doesn't believe in gods, but she certainly believes in acquiring certain attributes usually restricted to them, such as immortality and a distributed consciousness. I would rather like to explore the possibilities in that. That would be, of course, a super-special character, and probably wouldn't fit DA's main storyline, but since the theme exists in the setting, it could work in a spin-off. I don't think it'll happen, but one can dream.

And as for identification and relatability, sure it'd be hard to get into the mind of a thousand-year-old-elf, for instance, but for me personally, I'd have more trouble relating to a human who doesn't desire these things.

For myself, I don't see being human as a limitation.  Being human is... being human.  Being you.  To somehow become something other than that you would stop being you.  You would lose your identity and become something someone else.  That's one thing stories like that don't address, how such changes would not just change what you are, but who you are.

 

As for relatability, I believe Tolkien wrote an essay about how human fairy-tales are full of the desire to escape Death, but the human-tales of Faeries are likely full of stories about the escape from Daethlessness.  

[Dieb]

I like the Badass Normal - but I like them even more when the Special Snowflake is the suggested default.

 

The crafty adventurer, who makes up with wits and gadgets what he comparatively lacks in magical powers is my go-to character ever since.

 

You could say I like deliberately "underpowered" characters - whether I shun Rift & Focus skills in DAI; play a thief with zero combat skills in Elder Scrolls; refuse to use magic or even stray from the light armor / swift weapon archetype in Dark Souls, where a jack of all trades is eventually tied to zero downsides - or even simply stick to a Colt 1911 knockoff in bloody GTA Online while everyone else bears full-auto rifles and rocket launchers.

 

Again, it's the relative comparison of what's possible that makes the appeal for me.

[vertigomez]

The more I think about it, something like the end of NWN2: MotB would be really cool. Not for DAI, obviously, but for the next game...

Spoiler

IIRC, you could end the spirit-eater curse and ride off into the sunset, harness its power and wreak havoc in the Realms, or do the self-sacrifice thingie where you meld Akachi's soul with your own and stay in the land of the dead (not actually a bad ending, by the way. Your LI stays with you, you're not actually dead, and the curse is contained! Yay!)

That way there's some choice about whether to be "brought down to normal" or keep the special snowflake power. I think that's a pretty good compromise?

[actionhero112]

While I think Special Snowflake has negative connotations associated with it that I don't agree with, I'd still probably choose it over some normal. 

 

In reality, I don't get magical powers and I don't get to save the world. I like roleplaying as someone unique and "special", because in actuality, I'm only a mild mannered guy in an office. And there are literally millions of people like that. 

 

I would not buy CPA simulator 2015. 

[Ieldra]

For myself, I don't see being human as a limitation.  Being human is... being human.  Being you.  To somehow become something other than that you would stop being you.  You would lose your identity and become something someone else.  That's one thing stories like that don't address, how such changes would not just change what you are, but who you are.

Much in the same way as the you of today is someone else than the you of ten years ago. You never know who you're going to be in ten year's time. Identity is not some fixed set of attributes - it's a kind of continuity, which we influence by our actions every day. What would that even mean in this context, losing your identity?
 

As for relatability, I believe Tolkien wrote an essay about how human fairy-tales are full of the desire to escape Death, but the human-tales of Faeries are likely full of stories about the escape from Daethlessness.  

Sure. Neither side is happy that they don't have a choice. I could actually relate to such hypothetical stories.

[Cute Nug]

The DA protagonists and companions are special snowflakes by game mechanics that have us slaughter thousands without any casualties. I like when you get to hear a random inquisition mooks noting that your group fights the worse enemies without any casualties and they wonder if they could join your group.

 

Killing thousands and killing gods and uber bosses kind of destroys for me that we are normal. For whatever head cannon reason we are freakishly abnormal killing machines. Like Rambo is a novice compared to us kind of abnormal. Seriously when the Veil fails Solas will just blame it on all our killing.

 

I think I would like a good story game where the protagonist is normalish and companions could realistically die on missions. Would be a much much much much less combat but would be interesting.  

 

It's just part of the fantasy game setting that you take the role of someone that will do freakishly improbable things even if you started out normal.

[Dai Grepher]

I think I got the gist of what you're asking, but I disagree on some points.

 

I think my Hero is the special snowflake sort. Male Cousland, dual weapon, became Teyrn by default, Champion, Berserker. Became King of Ferelden. Then Spirit Warrior, non-lyrium Templar. Level 35. So he's incredibly powerful, highly cunning, highly skilled, and has a superb set of morals and values that drive him to solve problems and advance noble causes. A living legend. Large as a titan, and twice as tall.

 

My Hawke is the middle ground sort. Not quite as powerful as the Hero, not as wise or as confident, but she has her own unique skillset that sets her above most others. In my mind, she started out as a hunter, and made a decent living in Lothering that way. A simple roguish girl who grew a thick skin to live in a harsh world and eek out a worthy existence. So from this she was exceptional with a bow and arrows. Tracking quarry also meant being stealthy, and thus she was a Shadow and later an Assassin as the situations called for it. She usually stayed far from danger, and hidden from enemies. So while she may not match the Hero in power or abilities, she can move in ways the Hero cannot, and do some things he cannot do. All in all, she was a woman who was special, but trying her best to live a normal life.

 

And the Inquisitor is a special person like the Hero. A Trevelyan, yet born with magic. In my canon he was a senior enchanter in the Ostwick Circle, who was talented with magic and highly educated in all matters of academia. Sent to the conclave as a voice of reason, he ended up becoming a symbol of hope in an uncertain world. He stood for truth in all things. He continued to develop his skills as he regained his memories of what happened. He studied the Fade, and became a Rift Mage. A new area of study. And he stood as a good example for mages everywhere. At the end he was highly skilled in all the elemental schools of magic. He was always a special case. The mark made him more so, but it wasn't what defined him.

 

That's why even taking the stupid storyline of Trespasser into account, I don't consider him to have been reduced to being "normal" or average. He is still a highly skilled mage, which much knowledge, cleverness, and wisdom. He can also still use magic. I also imagine he will find a way to manipulate his Stone Fist ability to create a new left arm to use as a suitable prosthesis.

 

So I don't mind any of these categories, and I don't mind any combination of them. Everyone has a part to play, and even someone with no power at all can make a world of difference, like Chancellor Roderick did. So I don't mind what kind of character we get in DA4, as long as the character is relevant to the plot, serves a purpose, and allows for player choice.

 

But, if I had to pick one, I would say someone like Hawke who is not super powerful, but excels in certain aspects. That would provide me with an equal balance. Two powerful characters, and two above average characters with special roles.