44 réponses à ce sujet

[Former_Fiend]

I found  90 percent of the game just annoying.

 

The remaining 10 percent involved groaning anyway.

 

I probably wouldn't play 100% of a game I found that bad.

 

And I have gotten 100% completion in GTA V(something I never do).

[ElementalFury106]

I was expecting a post about having tri-protagonists in the case of the Warden, Hawke, and the Inquisitor. Not what I expected.

[Addictress]

I suggested the same for ME Andromeda, but with ship crew mates/squad members (all new of course).

I think Bioware fans really just want Bioware to pull a Grand Theft Auto 5 on anything because a GTAV protag setup, combined with the rich lore and storytelling powers of Bioware, would fulfill our wildest fantasies.

[Addictress]

I actually rather enjoyed GTA V's story. The game was rather light on plot, but the story of the characters and their interactions together was something I found rather compelling.

Correct. The combined plot was rather hedonist and Fear-and-Loathing-in-Las-Vegasesque as is GTA's right, however they really wrote each individual character and their relationships with one another extremely well, beyond a lot of other games actually.

[Former_Fiend]

However, as much as I love GTA V, I'm not convinced it's formula will work for a Bioware game. The reason the three protagonists worked in GTA V is that they are all very contrasting in personality and have different abilities in gameplay that make them useful for different things.

 

Bioware's stock and trade is in our ability to customize our protagonist. In gender, appearance, sexuality, personality, and ability. It's entirely possible for a given player's Warden, Hawke, and Inquisitor to be virtual clones of each other, for them to have the same politics, for them to have the same humor, and for them to have the same basic combat abilities.

 

GTA V works largely because Michael, Trevor, and Franklin don't always agree and will often clash with each other on various issues. A Bioware game with multiple protagonists where we couldn't have them agree on every issue would raise considerable ire from the fanbase, claiming that our characters are being railroaded and that our control is being usurped. This is compounded by how passionately some fans feel on certain issues; mages vs templars, the elves, the Qun, and Tevinter are all subjects that spark heated debate on these forums.

 

If, for the sake of plot, one of our protagonists had to agree with a position we personally disagreed with, or had to oppose a position we personally supported? There would be outrage. But if all our protagonists agreed on everything, there'd be no point in having more than one.

 

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that this isn't what the OP was suggesting. They were asking that, just as Trevor stomped in Johnny's brains in his introduction, a new protagonist would kill the Inquisitor early on in the next game. 

 

But that largely falls into the above problem; having our characters just fight it out automatically instead of taking the time to talk to each other would be seen as horribly out of character for a lot of people, and Bioware would be slammed for interfering with player agency.

[Addictress]

However, as much as I love GTA V, I'm not convinced it's formula will work for a Bioware game. The reason the three protagonists worked in GTA V is that they are all very contrasting in personality and have different abilities in gameplay that make them useful for different things.

Bioware's stock and trade is in our ability to customize our protagonist. In gender, appearance, sexuality, personality, and ability. It's entirely possible for a given player's Warden, Hawke, and Inquisitor to be virtual clones of each other, for them to have the same politics, for them to have the same humor, and for them to have the same basic combat abilities.

GTA V works largely because Michael, Trevor, and Franklin don't always agree and will often clash with each other on various issues. A Bioware game with multiple protagonists where we couldn't have them agree on every issue would raise considerable ire from the fanbase, claiming that our characters are being railroaded and that our control is being usurped. This is compounded by how passionately some fans feel on certain issues; mages vs templars, the elves, the Qun, and Tevinter are all subjects that spark heated debate on these forums.

If, for the sake of plot, one of our protagonists had to agree with a position we personally disagreed with, or had to oppose a position we personally supported? There would be outrage. But if all our protagonists agreed on everything, there'd be no point in having more than one.

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that this isn't what the OP was suggesting. They were asking that, just as Trevor stomped in Johnny's brains in his introduction, a new protagonist would kill the Inquisitor early on in the next game.

But that largely falls into the above problem; having our characters just fight it out automatically instead of taking the time to talk to each other would be seen as horribly out of character for a lot of people, and Bioware would be slammed for interfering with player agency.

Yeah but remember Bioware Games allow you to customize the protag but not your crew. Remember how Shepherd's martial class would be the same as another squad member's and when I selected Mage class for my warden, I'd have to keep in mind that if I brought Wynn to a fight I'd be a very mage-y team indeed, because the protag would overlap with somebody, always. But regardless, it would still be a dynamic and exciting fight every time because even though there were two mages, I'd also have a two-handed, an archer, etc, making combos and stuff.

So I wouldn't restrict the party size to three, maybe make it four. And it wouldn't be terribly confusing because as in GTA V, they had strong AI on their own and could handle themselves if you wanted to only control one character the whole time.

[Addictress]

Sorry I was talking about combat

Choices, yes I see what you mean. We were forced to do whatever the preset character decided inGTA V.

Well you could always have three preset characters and then one main protag whose choices you customize.


Unfortunately for Bioware development team, this would necessitate an EXPONENTIAL project decision tree as three characters' story arcs would have to be written based on all possible decisions of that one protag. :/

[Serza]

 

I probably wouldn't play 100% of a game I found that bad.

 

And I have gotten 100% completion in GTA V(something I never do).

 

Well, it got a little better in Multiplayer (groaning reduced to mere 5 percent in that portion of the game)

 

I also agree with your later post, but I will not quote it just to say "I agree". Efficient use of space or something, apparently.

 

I would find it nearly impossible to like a character whose first few actions after introduction involve killing a character that I've grown attached to.

My first reaction would likely be "Can I kill this ******* off?"

[TheExtreamH]

If they do it right, then i think it would be a great idea, But it could also fail. GTA is a whole different beast to Dragon Age, Would it break the narrative of the game if we have more than one protagonist? Would party members react and talk different to each Protag?

 

I fully support the Inquisitor making a return in DA4, but i would like it to be our choice to ether pick a new PC or keep the Old Qwizzy.

[DWareFan]

*Quickly looks again to make sure she read that right*  HUH???

[Former_Fiend]

Well, it got a little better in Multiplayer (groaning reduced to mere 5 percent in that portion of the game)

 

I also agree with your later post, but I will not quote it just to say "I agree". Efficient use of space or something, apparently.

 

I would find it nearly impossible to like a character whose first few actions after introduction involve killing a character that I've grown attached to.

My first reaction would likely be "Can I kill this ******* off?"

 

Honestly, from a pure trolling, meta stand point, I could see how it could be done in a way that cleverly deconstructed a basic premise of the game.

 

99% of the people we come across in game that are hostile towards us, we kill without a word of warning or a second thought. We spot them, they spot us, combat ensues, they're dead or we're loading. The only times we're given the option to use any kind of diplomacy is when the plot dictates it.

 

So, play the encounter like that where, from the Inquisitor's perspective, they're just coming across another random group of enemies, only to die because it turns out that "random" enemy was actually the protagonist of the new game.

 

Now, this wouldn't work as an actual set up for the game; too meta. But it could make for a funny extra, a free, what if? joke dlc.

[Beomer]

IMO GTA V was weaker than GTA IV and expansions. The only reason it works is because of the humour and because Trevor. The story is shorter, the overall world is much smaller than San Andreas (which IMO was one of the best, if not THE best installment in the series).

But I digress, I don't think a multiple protagonist formula would work with DA series. BW seems to be trying to cut down their work, not increase it.

[Nashimura]

I hated that scene.... Johnny was a cool character who was suddenly nothing like who he was in the expansion. 

[PrinceofTime]

This is actually a good idea.

[correctamundo]

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that this isn't what the OP was suggesting. They were asking that, just as Trevor stomped in Johnny's brains in his introduction, a new protagonist would kill the Inquisitor early on in the next game.

 

Nah, the Hof is who we need to kill. It would end a lot of annoying threads.

[Reighto]

Nah, the Hof is who we need to kill. It would end a lot of annoying threads.

Because there will be none for the Inquisitor in the future...

[correctamundo]

Because there will be none for the Inquisitor in the future...

 

That will be for DA5.

[Nixou]

"Dragon Age 4 -

The Blank, The Slate & The Funny."

 

 

      

 

I nicknamed my trio the Good, the Snark and the Bully, personally

 

***

 

Yeah, I mean - why not kill the Hof?

 

 

Nixou greatly approves

[Dieb]

Because I feel it is due:

As much as the premise, success, reputation, customer base and setting might make it attractive for supposed intellectuals and artistic elitists, GTA V is neither a bad nor even a stupid game.

 

Despite the obligatory bugs and glitches here and there, Rockstar actually fully deserves most of the praise they are getting, and many developers could learn a thing or twenty from their keenness on detail and execution.

 

You've never played "Grabd Theft Auto 5"?

 

<hilarity ensues>
 

 

You are my favourite person right now - kudos for the effort - yet judging by the very nature of your humor, I suppose it hardly even was one; besides all the typing.

 

Thank you for the laugh!

[Rekkampum]

People play Grand Theft Auto for the story?

 

Next you'll tell me that people played the first three Assassin's Creed games because they really liked that Desmond fellow.

 

I play for the story, and not because

Spoiler

 you can rob a hooker after the deed to get your money back.