56 réponses à ce sujet

[Tigress M]

Gaider has said many times that the best compliment he can get is to hear that something moves us - good or bad.  Hearing how much someone hates a story or character is just as good as hearing how much they love it because it's the emotional investment that writers go for.  And he's right, imho.  

 

My first playthrough of DAO was as a Dalish who romanced Alistair and made him King.  So imagine my surprise when Alistair says "we need to talk" and instead of proposing like I expected him to, he dumps me?  I was soooo livid I quit playing the game.  Then, I went searching to see if this was just how it was or if there was a way to get my "happy" ending and I discovered that playing a human for once in an RPG might not be a bad thing.  But the point was, the game had me so hooked that A) I was furious at that twist and I kept coming back for more (and have been doing so with the DA Franchise almost non-stop for over 5 years).

 

I loved DAO, but only liked DA2 (and like might even be too strong of a word).  I'll share my feelings on DAI in a moment.  

 

In DAO, I eventually got to the point where I hated Wynne and her busy-body demeanor.  I also hated Isolde, Anora, and Loghain.  

 

In DA2, there wasn't anyone I truly hated. I wasn't emotionally invested enough to care about any of the betrayals that my Hawke endured.  

 

Now, in DAI, the list of characters I hate is growing with every playthrough.  Here's my current list:

 

Vivenne - Her elitist attitude was always a bit annoying but every since she somehow wound up a Divine even though I was trying to make Cassandra Divine, her demeanor is grating on me more and more.  

 

Solas - Considering he's a total lie I find it harder and harder to deal with him.

 

Blackwall - Again, a total lie and the more I play the more this ticks me off.

 

Iron Bull - He turned on me!  

 

So, it could sound like I don't like DAI but that's completely untrue.  It's slowly becoming my favorite DA game to date and that's big since Origins has held a very special place in my heart for so many years.  And this is most evident in the fact that the more I play DAI, the more endeared I become of some companions and the more I begin to detest others.  

 

Have any of you experienced something similar?  Can you gauge your feelings about a game based on how much you love or hate certain characters or stories?  If so, I'd love to hear about it!

 

[KCMeredith]

My first time playing DA2 I supported the mages all the way, why wouldn't I? Wynne was a good friend and Morrigan my romance, I liked Anders since Awakening and generally thought the templars got it all wrong. When Anders blew up that church I just sat there with my mouth open, I couldn't believe what just happened. 

 

Then I thought back about all those mages I met while playing the game and realized that almost every time something terrible happens it somehow involves a mage. My attitude towards them just shifted from sympathy to anger, and I joined up with Meredith to clean the city up. 

 

That day I became a templar

 

[Aeratus]

If you don't like optional characters like Vivienne, you don't have to recruit them. If Vivienne isn't recruit, she cannot become divine.

[Medhia_Nox]

I'll focus on someone that made me delight in every encounter with her.

 

Cassandra.  

I think she is, without question, the strongest written character I have ever encountered in a video game. 

 

She believes, she doubts, she worries, she's courageous, she's a tough cookie and a giggling romantic - but, I think the thing that spoke to me most about her is that she feels genuinely burdened by her decisions. 

 

I will miss her character in future DAs... as I am inundated with fanatical cause-heads... shameless hedonists... and boorish anti-heroes.  

[nightscrawl]

I'll admit to being perplexed by the excessive hatred some of the more minor (read: non-followers) characters engender. For example, I've seen significant vitriol leveled at Arl Eamon. While I intellectually understand some players' reasoning for the hatred after having read several posts about it, I don't really "get" it. To me to seems like wasted energy.

 

Then again, I rarely have very strong reactions to most of the characters, plots, or game events. But when I do, such as with my liking for Dorian, I really go insane over it/them.

[akbogert]

I tend to dislike the "even bad reactions are good" view of writing (it's Marvel's philosophy in their comics, and there's a company that seems increasingly bent on trolling its own fan base). I think it's important to still take note of the nature of the anger/hatred; sometimes, people responding negatively, strongly, should be interpreted as a sign that thing was bad.

 

That said, people don't always articulate their anger properly (or even try to understand it thoroughly themselves). I hate Vivienne. But I also recognize that she is a very well-made character. A poor character would have been forgotten. But Vivienne elicits a strong reaction. She has been well-conceived. She is consistent in her characterization, and ensures that she will be a force to be reckoned with. She is someone who demands that I have an opinion of her, whatever that opinion may be. And to that end, I think the polarization and/or strong disliking of her character is indeed indicative of something going right. 

 

So I get what Gaider is suggesting; it has some validity. 

 

But sometimes I see creators treating their ability to ****** people off as a matter of pride or some evidence of their talent, and I think that's preposterous. People have to care to be angry. You just have to be sure they're angry because you made them care, and not because they already cared and then you betrayed their emotional investment. Like, if everyone loves a character, and then you kill that character, saying "oh, everyone's angry because we killed that character off, so we did well" is stupid if it's used to justify the killing -- they loved the character already, you already succeeded as a writer. Taking things from players and using the extent to which they miss those things as a litmus test for your storytelling is... a pretty awful way to gauge storytelling. 

[Aren]

Well said OP!
I hope that Mr Gaider is not offended when i say that some of his character generated into me a sense of hate while others the opposite sentiment, while few of them.......nothing at all

[Ghost Gal]

I've been obsessed with Thedas for years because, from the first moment I played the City Elf Origin, I fell in love because I was raised poor and Jewish and was bullied by wealthy white Christian boys, and the City Elf Warden being able to put them down like mad dogs was pure catharsis since I always got in trouble for hurting my oppressors. I've also read up on my ancestors' pre-WWII European Jewish ghettos, and I'm pretty convinced that just short of making a game set in that era, roleplaying a city elf interacting with their family, friends, and community in an alienage is the closest I'll ever get to experiencing what my ancestors experienced (before they were put down in WWII).

 

THAT SAID, I was really hoping I could change things for the better for elves in DAO, only the learn that even in the best case scenario things are only mildly improved for Ferelden elves for a short time, but it's all undone within several years after the Warden leaves West to find a cure for the Calling.

 

In general, I'm really disappointed that "the plight of the oppressed" is a huge running theme in all three games (mages, elves, casteless, etc), yet characters who try to actually change things are always depicted as well-intentioned extremists at best, outright villains at worst, but either way they always have to be stopped. While one theme of the game is, "People are the same no matter where you go," another seems to be "People in power will always abuse it, so trying to overthrow one tyrannical system won't work because you'll just replace it with a new one. Might as well stick to the one we're familiar with."

 

Which really makes one wonder: why bother caring what happens to any of these people? If overthrowing the tyranny of the Evanuris just caused them to be replaced by the tyranny of humans for the elves; if overthrowing the tyranny of the magisters by putting all Andrastian mages under Templar supervision just caused the Templars to tyrannize the mages; if any character who tries to start a revolution just gets finger-wagged by the narrative for causing more problems than it solves (Anders blowing up the Chantry to help mages; Solas trying to take down the Veil to help elves), why bother caring about anyone?

 

I actually don't think that aiming to anger, hurt, or frustrate fans is good because after a while they're going to stop caring because not caring is better/easier than constantly getting frustrated or saddened.

[nightscrawl]

While one theme of the game is, "People are the same no matter where you go," another seems to be "People in power will always abuse it, so trying to overthrow one tyrannical system won't work because you'll just replace it with a new one. Might as well stick to the one we're familiar with."

I don't know... I think some of the endings for Trespasser and the Inquisition counter this. Your choice for Divine and your decision regarding the Inquisition can show that large, enduring organizations like the Chantry are capable of change for the better, and that a leader (the Inquisitor) can make a decision to give up power**.


** Yes, an Inquisition that remains will be bound to the Chantry, but the Inquisitor themselves would still have a lot of personal power. If they disband, they have nothing, really.

[Gold Dragon]

Good or Bad, If a character is remembered 10 years later, the Writers have done their job.

 

No Ifs, ands, ors, buts about it.  A job well done, since they elicited powerful emotions indeed.

[Tigress M]

My first time playing DA2 I supported the mages all the way, why wouldn't I? Wynne was a good friend and Morrigan my romance, I liked Anders since Awakening and generally thought the templars got it all wrong. When Anders blew up that church I just sat there with my mouth open, I couldn't believe what just happened. 

 

Then I thought back about all those mages I met while playing the game and realized that almost every time something terrible happens it somehow involves a mage. My attitude towards them just shifted from sympathy to anger, and I joined up with Meredith to clean the city up. 

 

That day I became a templar

 

While DA2 didn't move me the way DAO and DAI have, I can appreciate what you've said.  And completely off topic for a moment - I was right there with you regarding siding with mages the first go-around.  lol

 

 

If you don't like optional characters like Vivienne, you don't have to recruit them. If Vivienne isn't recruit, she cannot become divine.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention I'm a completionist so that's not an option - I swear I've tried to click the "no thanks" side of the dialog wheel countless times but haven't managed to pull it off, yet.

 

I'll focus on someone that made me delight in every encounter with her.

 

Cassandra.  

I think she is, without question, the strongest written character I have ever encountered in a video game. 

 

She believes, she doubts, she worries, she's courageous, she's a tough cookie and a giggling romantic - but, I think the thing that spoke to me most about her is that she feels genuinely burdened by her decisions. 

 

I will miss her character in future DAs... as I am inundated with fanatical cause-heads... shameless hedonists... and boorish anti-heroes.  

 

Agreed.  She is a wonderfully written character and I'm glad to have gotten a chance to know her.  

 

 

I'll admit to being perplexed by the excessive hatred some of the more minor (read: non-followers) characters engender. For example, I've seen significant vitriol leveled at Arl Eamon. While I intellectually understand some players' reasoning for the hatred after having read several posts about it, I don't really "get" it. To me to seems like wasted energy.

 

Then again, I rarely have very strong reactions to most of the characters, plots, or game events. But when I do, such as with my liking for Dorian, I really go insane over it/them.

 

Do you have any companion that you insanely dislike? 

 

I tend to dislike the "even bad reactions are good" view of writing (it's Marvel's philosophy in their comics, and there's a company that seems increasingly bent on trolling its own fan base). I think it's important to still take note of the nature of the anger/hatred; sometimes, people responding negatively, strongly, should be interpreted as a sign that thing was bad.

 

That said, people don't always articulate their anger properly (or even try to understand it thoroughly themselves). I hate Vivienne. But I also recognize that she is a very well-made character. A poor character would have been forgotten. But Vivienne elicits a strong reaction. She has been well-conceived. She is consistent in her characterization, and ensures that she will be a force to be reckoned with. She is someone who demands that I have an opinion of her, whatever that opinion may be. And to that end, I think the polarization and/or strong disliking of her character is indeed indicative of something going right. 

 

So I get what Gaider is suggesting; it has some validity. 

 

 

You hit it with the type of anger.  I'm not trying to bash DA2 and I fully understand some people loved it, but I was never emotionally invested in it.  For example, when Hawke's mother died, I didn't cry.  And worse, I can't even tell you the name of her killer.  But take Isolde, not only do I know her name, but I truly hate her for what she did to Alistair (and ok, I admit the voice doesn't help lol).  Why?  Because I was emotionally invested in Alistair's story.  If I wasn't, the hate wouldn't be there which translates into good writing to my mind.  

 

However, I can agree with you that it can be taken too far.  

 

Well said OP!
I hope that Mr Gaider is not offended when i say that some of his character generated into me a sense of hate while others the opposite sentiment, while few of them.......nothing at all

 

In this interview, Gaider actually talks about how he knows they missed the mark on some characters because few players actually care about them (good or bad).  So you're not alone in your feelings, but it's great that it's only a few that you have no opinions about.  

[ComedicSociopathy]

snip

 

Never really thought of that way. I mean, when I found out that the Dalish boon in Origins ultimately failed I was like, "Oh, well. Hope that works out next time". Just because you failed to help the oppressed a couple of times doesn't mean you shouldn't care about them or give up. Sure, the narrative tends to take a rather cynical view about social change at times, but other times the series does give opportunities to create wide positive change. Making Briala essentially empress results in the end of the alienages in Orlais, the mages can have their own independent organization, the templars can finally have a place to purge themselves of addiction and Dorian creates a reformist faction in Tevinter. Plus, there's the countless individual people in the series you save. You shouldn't discount that. 

 

To your point about people always abusing their power in the game. That's just a thing that happens in real life and in fiction. People can be real arseholes. Oh well. Kill them, imprison them, convince them their being stupid. Whatever works. You can't give up stopping them because doing nothing is even worse. And yes, killing one big bad authority will probably result in another showing up later, but hey, you likely gave a lot of decent people some peace and quiet until that inevitability happens. Besides, when that new corrupt authority figure or system shows up you full them full of arrows until they learn the errors of their ways. Or die. Either or works. Just as long as you don't go blowing up chanties or plan the deaths of countless innocents. 

 

And as for revolutionaries like Solas and Anders being treated like villains. Well, yeah, of course they are. Solas wants to kill millions of people and Anders successfully managed to kill about a hundred people and manipulated events for an entire tower of mages to be killed as well. Not painting them as baddies would be as weird as not painting Meredith, Lucius and Corypheus as villains. Dorian on the other hand is a revolutionary and he isn't treated as a monster by the narrative because he doesn't plan on killing a bunch of innocent people "for the greater good".  

 

Anyways, you got to say optimistic, Shiara! We could be freeing the slaves of Tevinter with Dorian in DA4! That should be a blast!

 

Oh, and uh, no, OP. I usually don't have much of a change in reaction to characters and plots after I've played a couple times. If anything my feelings lessen over repeated play throughs. Well, alright, that's not not completely true. Almost every word out Solas's mouth has become freaking hilarious now that I've played Trespasser.  

[Gervaise]

Would just like to point out that Dorian's primary aim is to get rid of corruption, such as use of blood magic behind the scenes, in Tevinter not freeing the slaves.   His actions could have the additional benefit of Magisters getting a conscience about slavery (though I doubt it).   More likely it will just make life better for slaves, particularly elven ones, because they will not be seen as useful tools for magical experiments.   

 

I find that it is not just characters that get me involved but the situations as well.    The whole story arc in Origins once we had been told that a Grey Warden needed to sacrifice themselves really had me emotionally hooked because I turned Morrigan down, knowing it would likely end in my death, so I was fighting my way closer and closer to it.    When Riorden fell (though I had been expecting it) I really felt the reaction of the Warden mirrored my own feelings on the matter.   Then despite all my resolve, genuinely to get talked out of it at the last minute, really blew me away.       What surprised me even more was that I later played as a human noble and was able to find reasons why they might spare Loghain and even end up on good terms with him, despite having loathed him as an elf.      Which is why I feel Loghain was one of the best villains thus far because he could bring out such different reactions in my PC, without it feeling contrived.

 

My problem with Solas is that I feel they went too far in making him the anti-hero.    He has all these great speeches in the main game, which while making him appear arrogant (as befits his name), at least I could identify with and he is constantly approving when you help all the little people but then to turn it around so completely in Trespasser so that he comes off as a complete and utter hypocrite is really annoying.   Apparently I was helping all these people so they could have a few years relative peace before he pulls the plug on them so he doesn't have to think of himself as a monster.    Then I am asked to choose whether or not I wish to redeem him.    I am not generally given to swearing in real life but the expletives were coming thick and fast over that one.    The guy has just admitted to me he always wanted to destroy the world to restore a minority group of people that have been slumbering for the last several thousand years while their descendants have been suffering for his actions (I am an elf) and I am meant to be worrying about his soul?   Talk about getting your priorities wrong.   To make matters even worse, the writer admitted that they put in the Solas romance (who are the majority of those who want to redeem Solas) in order to gain more sympathy for his character.       If he has redeeming qualities that make you want to do so, these should stand on their own without trying to emotionally manipulate me.  

 

The disappointing part for me is that he could still have been a freedom fighter for modern slaves, doing questionable acts (like Anders) and so bringing him into conflict with the PC, whilst still retaining my sympathy for his cause.    As it is my feelings towards him are the same as they were towards Sovereign in ME1.    Yet because they have put the choice to redeem him in there, it makes me feel that my desire to stop him no matter what it takes, makes me seem like the bad guy.   That is truly ironic since my Inquisitors are generally a forgiving lot but currently it feels like I destroyed Corypheus mark 1, only to be confronted with Corypheus mark 2.   I obliterated the first one and am struggling to know why I shouldn't do the same to the second.

 

I agree with Shiara Lavellan, please can we have one genuine freedom fighter and champion for the elves that we don't have to feel ashamed of.    (Shartan is my hero but I have a nasty feeling they are going to destroy that one for me at some point).   I'd also like the opportunity for my PC to do something for their situation that lasts.    Regardless of choices made, the rebel mages have their freedom at the end of DAI, which means the world is different to how it began.   So in the future I'd like to be able to free all the slaves or at least improve the lot of the city elves throughout Thedas (or even in just one country), without having my achievements wiped out in the following game (or DLC).   

[bEVEsthda]

Gaider is definitely responsible for some great role-playing experiences for me. My city-elf (first Origin playthrough) and Alistair is something I'll always remember.

 

I just hope that the great betrayal is not becoming a lingering, standard theme with Bioware. I'm okay with recruitable characters having their own agenda on the side, and I'm okay with believable traitors now and then, but a couple of them totally turning on you and your goals in every game will become tiresome. (And I'm absolutely not counting Alistair as one of the 'traitors' btw).

 

Speaking of tiresome. And speaking of one writing aspect where a litmus-test fails: Bioware have a curious tradition of not doing game endings well. The only game that had a well done ending is IMO DA:O. I thought that Bioware had finally understood how to do endings. But instead, Bioware immediately produced their usual mess for 'Awakening'. KotOR is okay'ish, but it's notable that they went out of their way and ruined it retroactively. Lately, they seem to go for defeat on a personal level, or even nothing accomplished (ME3).

 

Maybe the writers read too much 'Game of Thrones'? There seem to be a trend in Bioware story-crafting that I don't like and I don't think is appropriate for games. This is where things get very convoluted in what I  like and think should be, and I'll try to keep it simple and avoid that mess as much as possible. Story is a story. If you get some masochistic pleasure from gorging yourself in misery, disappointments and tragedy, so be it, fine. There are plenty of novels to choose from. Go ahead. Personally, I think tragedy is greatly overrated. But regardless, tragedy doesn't equal great literature, which is what a lot of little children on the forums often seem to think. At least as long as they're still just asking for it.

 

More to the point, it's not appropriate as the final note for a game. And that also applies to the aftermath for that particular game story. It's intrinsic to playing a game that you do it to win. Even if you don't play a game to 'win', it's still intrinsic to structure. There's no point in doing anything at all in a game if it doesn't pretend to manipulate, affect the outcome. This is even true for those games where gameplay only is a means for advancing the set story. You wouldn't invest your time and emotions if the game didn't present the enveloping story as a challenge to overcome.  There's the unstated promise that finishing the game will be some kind of triumph. That there's a reward of some kind.

 

This is one reason why the ME3 ending is such a disaster. It nullifies everything in the game. Every stake the player ever had. I find all talk about 'artistic integrity', 'the path over the goal', 'didn't you enjoy the characters, drama?' very offensive. Immensely offensive even. It fills me with anger. I'll never buy another ME game again. It's not that I don't think another game will be good. It's not that I think they will make the same mistake again. It's just that I not only lost all interest but also resent the entire franchise. And I resent the producers for not apologizing enough, and, in fact, not admitting any wrong at all.

 

It's not that I'm saying there should be wedding bells and the world kneeling before your character's feet at the end. It's not that I'm saying that a character play-through that 'fails' makes the game a failure (or even this play-through a failure).

 

It's me saying that killing off Revan afterwards, the ME3 ending, the Trespass dlc, are things that makes me un-passionate about Bioware story telling. I am unpassionate about Bioware. The litmus-test fails. I don't care anymore.

IMO, the way you should treat a player char, if you don't intend to do a sequel (a real sequel, i.e. same protagonist) - forever - is to let the character fade away into mists of time and let the player head-canon how the character lived. Trespass isn't all bad. I can be okay with that. It's more suspect, if you get what I mean. In the context of other things.

 

Will I even buy DA4? I do like DA:I. I'm critical to where they went, but at the end of the day I do like DA:I. It has nothing to do with story-making, but my genuine passion for DA died as DA:O died, in the sordid, defiling nonsense of cartoon Fantasy fashions, 'iconic', 'awesome', 'fun', hot-rod samurai EA-marketing remake of the DA franchise. (The EA-marketing gurus have a flawless 100% failure rate, in remaking game franchises. They've made EA into a negative-value brand name. It's a complete mystery to me that the share-owners let them continue for decades.)

[Tigress M]

I find that it is not just characters that get me involved but the situations as well.    The whole story arc in Origins once we had been told that a Grey Warden needed to sacrifice themselves really had me emotionally hooked because I turned Morrigan down, knowing it would likely end in my death, so I was fighting my way closer and closer to it.    When Riorden fell (though I had been expecting it) I really felt the reaction of the Warden mirrored my own feelings on the matter.   Then despite all my resolve, genuinely to get talked out of it at the last minute, really blew me away.       What surprised me even more was that I later played as a human noble and was able to find reasons why they might spare Loghain and even end up on good terms with him, despite having loathed him as an elf.      Which is why I feel Loghain was one of the best villains thus far because he could bring out such different reactions in my PC, without it feeling contrived.

 

Your entire post was a good read, but this is what caught my eye in regards to my original topic.  Loghain is an awesome villain.  Back on the old BioWare forums it was fun for me to read the heated debates between Loghain lovers and haters - I don't think many people were indifferent to him which to my mind, makes him a fine character.  

 

But you're right, it's not just people but stories.  Maybe I'm masochistic but part of the enjoyment I get out BioWare games is trying to figure out how to get a "happy" ending.  That's hard to do in RL, and I respect that it's not a cake-walk in my gaming experience.   

 

More to the point, it's not appropriate as the final note for a game. And that also applies to the aftermath for that particular game story. It's intrinsic to playing a game that you do it to win. Even if you don't play a game to 'win', it's still intrinsic to structure. There's no point in doing anything at all in a game if it doesn't pretend to manipulate, affect the outcome. This is even true for those games where gameplay only is a means for advancing the set story. You wouldn't invest your time and emotions if the game didn't present the enveloping story as a challenge to overcome.  There's the unstated promise that finishing the game will be some kind of triumph. That there's a reward of some kind.

 

I completely respect and appreciate your opinion but I don't share it.  I can read a book in a matter of hours and I judge the quality of the books I read on how emotionally invested I am by the end of the story. So, when it comes to playing a story-driven game that will take me days or weeks to complete, I want to be emotionally invested in that as well, or I'm wasting my time.  

 

I don't want all my games to be like the Dragon Age franchise though - when I want to "win", I turn to other games.  But I don't play BioWare games to win, I play them to be moved, and most of the time, I get what I'm after.  And when I don't, like DA2, I can point that directly to the fact that I didn't care enough to hate any of the people I encountered.  

 

Thanks for replying though!  I truly can appreciate how this isn't what everyone is after in their gaming experience.

[akbogert]

Which really makes one wonder: why bother caring what happens to any of these people? If overthrowing the tyranny of the Evanuris just caused them to be replaced by the tyranny of humans for the elves; if overthrowing the tyranny of the magisters by putting all Andrastian mages under Templar supervision just caused the Templars to tyrannize the mages; if any character who tries to start a revolution just gets finger-wagged by the narrative for causing more problems than it solves (Anders blowing up the Chantry to help mages; Solas trying to take down the Veil to help elves), why bother caring about anyone?

 

For whatever it's worth, my inquisitor in one game was solely devoted to helping mages and elves. She got Briala elevated in Orlais, and set up a softened Leliana as Divine, resulting in the abolition of the circles and unprecedented freedom for elves and mages across Thedas. I don't recall the game having chastised me for pursuing these ends either. And in light of what she accomplished without committing atrocities, I'm fine with those who do being called out for it. Solas isn't "trying to help the elves," at least not the ones you've cared about for three games. He frequently dismisses the notion that he is like other elves throughout the game, and the return of the Evanuris requires that everyone currently alive -- including all the current elves -- perish. 

 

More to the point, it's not appropriate as the final note for a game. And that also applies to the aftermath for that particular game story. It's intrinsic to playing a game that you do it to win. Even if you don't play a game to 'win', it's still intrinsic to structure. There's no point in doing anything at all in a game if it doesn't pretend to manipulate, affect the outcome. This is even true for those games where gameplay only is a means for advancing the set story. You wouldn't invest your time and emotions if the game didn't present the enveloping story as a challenge to overcome.  There's the unstated promise that finishing the game will be some kind of triumph. That there's a reward of some kind.

 

This is the reason I was so angry at Final Fantasy XIII-2 and have yet to play Lightning Returns. 

[bEVEsthda]

I can read a book in a matter of hours and I judge the quality of the books I read on how emotionally invested I am by the end of the story. So, when it comes to playing a story-driven game that will take me days or weeks to complete, I want to be emotionally invested in that as well, or I'm wasting my time.  

 

I don't want all my games to be like the Dragon Age franchise though - when I want to "win", I turn to other games.  But I don't play BioWare games to win, I play them to be moved, and most of the time, I get what I'm after. 

(...and I feel so like you didn't read...)

 

But what actions are you emotionally investing in? And why? What drives your actions? Don't you invest in your character's ambitions with your gameplay actions?

Are you telling me you just passively advance the story and consume the game's story like you consume a book's story?

 

(If so, then I can genuinely tell you we are different. It has nothing directly to do with the question of 'win' or not, but I nurture a distinct dislike for games that just show us a story, while we're doing some combat & killing on the side, between, as entertainment and power fantasy and for cranking the story forward. I hate to see big budget games converge more and more towards that format.)

[DarkAmaranth1966]

I love the game but, like the OP, I hate some of the characters.

 

Sera - total idiot, just plain stupid and, i can't deal with her dumb remarks like "The veil has sand in it's breeches here." No one is that dumb to think the veil has legs and wears pants and, if she is well,  she should bee with a caregiver, if she isn't then saying it makes her look too stupid to fight - I rarely even recruit her and, if I do it's only to get Pel Harmond as an agent then kick her out.

 

Some of the rest have major faults I do not like but, they have sound reasons for how they are, what they do. Sera is the only one that I find doing and saying stupid things for no reason other than she's honestly that dumb. I can't handle dumb.

[NotSoDeepMushroomFarmer]

Some of the rest have major faults I do not like but, they have sound reasons for how they are, what they do. Sera is the only one that I find doing and saying stupid things for no reason other than she's honestly that dumb. I can't handle dumb.

 

Wow, I kind of.. Can you explain it a little further? Not to say that it's groundless, I just don't understand yet

[Qis]

DA:O characters are far more superior than the later games, it is because the players can love and hate them for reasons. One character can be loved and hated. But the later games, there are characters that we have no reason to love and as well no reason to hate, It is because their motivation is clear. Even the cameos become like that.

[akbogert]

Wow, I kind of.. Can you explain it a little further? Not to say that it's groundless, I just don't understand yet

 

I'll say it's groundless. I've already written far too much between this thread and the "feel bad about not liking Sera" thread to bother rehashing here, but there is far more than enough content in the game to eradicate the claim that Sera is just dumb and says/does things for no reason. At best, the comment was trolling. At worst, it's simply derived from willing ignorance. 

[Bizantura]

Sadly enough, art is married to emotions these days for it to be described as art.

The group multiplier effect is definitely used to reach an affect, but then I still would not call that the description of art.

 

The same effective tropes and memes the media spouts thru the tube are effecting/incorporated into video gaming.  I initially got very upset over that but on the other hand it was to be expected since gaming is big bucks these days and reaches vast amounts of people.

 

In the end you can't have an honest opinion because someone allways comes along and demands accountability not a discusion to steer you back to the dominant/allowed group think.  Being an individual is dangerous and outrages the herd people.

[NotSoDeepMushroomFarmer]

DA:O characters are far more superior than the later games, it is because the players can love and hate them for reasons. One character can be loved and hated. But the later games, there are characters that we have no reason to love and as well no reason to hate, It is because their motivation is clear. Even the cameos become like that.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. All of them have reasons for what they do and clear character traits which are the base for liking or not liking a character. In origins and in inquisition as well.

 

 

I'll say it's groundless. I've already written far too much between this thread and the "feel bad about not liking Sera" thread to bother rehashing here, but there is far more than enough content in the game to eradicate the claim that Sera is just dumb and says/does things for no reason. At best, the comment was trolling. At worst, it's simply derived from willing ignorance. 

 

Yeah I read a little bit from that too to understand it better but I still don't at least not to the full. Yet there are people who dislike Sera and there is always a reason behind something like that. I mean she's not dumb she knows what she does, but I think there are people who just don't like the way she does it. Maybe because they think the situation is just too serious for her shenanigans or maybe because she likes to jump to conclusions. 

Surely here are many who just don't get what's behind all the childishness but I believe that's not the entire Sera-disliking thing

[DarkAmaranth1966]

Wow, I kind of.. Can you explain it a little further? Not to say that it's groundless, I just don't understand yet

Sera apparently thinks the veil is a person "The Veil has grit in it's breeches here." and other similar remarks. Tell her it's not that simple and, she gets mad and insists that it is. No matter what it is, if she doesn't like it, an arrow is her only response. She won't see the big picture, I assume she is incapable of anything but the most simplistic view of anything.

 

Vivienne is what she must be to maintain her position with Duke Bastian and, what she must be to hold a place of power  Orlais.

 

Blackwall was wrong, but he is now trying to atone for that and, is willing to face the consequences, a bit late, but understandable.

 

Iron Bull only turns on you because of choices you make, he would not had you made different choices.

 

Cassandra is too idealistic but, she is smart enough to temper that with realism.

 

Lelieana can be a heartless woman or a well meaning, kind one, that's up to you.

 

Varric keeps secrets to protect his friends, not the wisest thing to do but, understandable.

 

Solas is trying to undo a mistake he made that destroyed his people - he's going about it the wrong way but, at least he has a sound reason - he's trying to save his loved ones and atone for his mistake.

 

Josephine is too nice, she never wants anyone to have to be killed but, she does understand that it is sometimes unavoidable and, more often the most expedient means of solving a problem.

 

Cullen doubts himself too much but, give what he's been through it's understandable. First abominations capture and torture him, then his Knight Commander goes insane and, the city he calls home is destroyed by both Qunari and the mage/Templar war starting. then he sets out to help Cassandra deal with that but, the Breech happens. then you either dump a slew of mages at him to deal with as allies or conscripts, or give him a herd of Templars, thus making him act as Knight Commander, even though he wants nothing to do with that life anymore.

[Tigress M]

(...and I feel so like you didn't read...)

 

But what actions are you emotionally investing in? And why? What drives your actions? Don't you invest in your character's ambitions with your gameplay actions?

Are you telling me you just passively advance the story and consume the game's story like you consume a book's story?

 

(If so, then I can genuinely tell you we are different. It has nothing directly to do with the question of 'win' or not, but I nurture a distinct dislike for games that just show us a story, while we're doing some combat & killing on the side, between, as entertainment and power fantasy and for cranking the story forward. I hate to see big budget games converge more and more towards that format.)

 

I truly did read your first post - sorry if you feel like I didn't.    

 

Oh, don't get me wrong, I WANT my character to succeed.  I want to save the world and live happily ever-after.  But, I don't want that assumed as a given from the beginning or all the hours I spend in the game mean nothing to me.  I know when I play a BioWare game that it's possible to wind up somewhere I don't want to be so it makes my choices all the more important to me.  So no, I'm telling you the exact opposite.  And yeah, I like things ending imperfectly even though I WANT that fairy-tale conclusion.  Why?  Because they feel more "real", I guess.  At the end of the day, my Warden and my Inquisitor feel like real people.  I'm not sure I'd feel the same if I hadn't allowed a OGB to be created or still had my arm (and all my friends).  

 

What about you?  Do you want to always know you're going to save the day, get the girl (or in my case boy), and come out unscathed?  And if so, what motivates you to play?  It sounds to me like you enjoy a different genre of game so I'm curious what draws you and presumably keeps you playing BioWare games if it's not the story and the chance that we can royally mess things up.  

 

 

I love the game but, like the OP, I hate some of the characters.

 

Sera - total idiot, just plain stupid and, i can't deal with her dumb remarks like "The veil has sand in it's breeches here." No one is that dumb to think the veil has legs and wears pants and, if she is well,  she should bee with a caregiver, if she isn't then saying it makes her look too stupid to fight - I rarely even recruit her and, if I do it's only to get Pel Harmond as an agent then kick her out.

 

Some of the rest have major faults I do not like but, they have sound reasons for how they are, what they do. Sera is the only one that I find doing and saying stupid things for no reason other than she's honestly that dumb. I can't handle dumb.

 

And yet you hate her enough to write about her which goes right back to my original point.  Sera's a well written character because of this.  And it's funny because I hate dumb, too, but I never thought of her as dumb - illogical maybe, but not dumb.  BUT - I can totally see how she could come off that way (and you could be right! lol)