430 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Did people complain when Origins did it with the origin stories and Osteger?

Hey, doing that ash warrior quest got me a dog!

[AresKeith]

In most of the Origins, everyone you interact with doesn't die, so no, it doesn't do this. In the one case they do, its the worst opening, but at least they are characters you are supposed to care about. What reason would a Dalish spy have to care about people in the conclave? They should be keeping their head down. Maybe a human might know someone.


No, people specifically complained that doing minor quests were pointless if said characters always die.

All of the races besides human made no real sense being there, the game was originally human only and they can't rewrite the entire game

Ostegar says hi about minor guest givers always dying

[BansheeOwnage]

Do you have a game in mind that strikes the sweet spot to use as an example? 

Nothing perfect comes to mind, but I like the way ME1 handled it as a basis. It was a bit like DA:I in the sense that you had text backgrounds, so not playable (although I would have been interested in playing them), but here we had a choice. We could choose from three origins (where you're from and what happened to you), and also three backgrounds (what you did). That's nine possible combinations, so we had a decent number to choose from in terms of roleplaying. I hope they go back to multi-tiered background options in the future. Those options still let you headcanon a lot of things, except of course story-required things like joining the Alliance. And they also all gave your character a reason to do so.

 

Next, they all had a specific quest unique to one background. That was a huge bonus, and I don't think I have to explain why. Finally, these choices were referenced occasionally. Obviously, the more the better, but I like the template. If we take this model and add in more scenes like Josephine asking you about your past (definitely a pleasant change of course, I agree Sah), I think it would be pretty great. Just my thoughts.

[Abyss108]

All of the races besides human made no real sense being there, the game was originally human only and they can't rewrite the entire game

Ostegar says hi about minor guest givers always dying

 

I disagree, my Elf play through made the most sense to me. I haven't played Dwarf or Qunari so can't really comment on those, but my Elf had plenty of options that made sense throughout the game and had a perfectly good reason to be there.

 

I think Ostagar is the worst section of the game by far (the walk around and talk to a bunch of boring NPCs part anyway),  so bringing that up isn't going to convince me of anything.

[AresKeith]

I disagree, my Elf play through made the most sense to me. I haven't played Dwarf or Qunari so can't really comment on those, but my Elf had plenty of options that made sense throughout the game and had a perfectly good reason to be there.

I think Ostagar is the worst section of the game by far (the walk around and talk to a bunch of boring NPCs part anyway), so bringing that up isn't going to convince me of anything.

I wasn't talking about the entire game I was specifically mentioning the Conclave which makes no sense for the other races to be there

[Abyss108]

I wasn't talking about the entire game I was specifically mentioning the Conclave which makes no sense for the other races to be there

 

And as I said, my character did have a reason to be there. The clan leader knew that what happened there would affect all elves. She was right.

[Smudjygirl]

I wasn't talking about the entire game I was specifically mentioning the Conclave which makes no sense for the other races to be there

 To be honest only mage humans have a concrete story reason to be there. All other stories were just "you were sent for ABC"

 

But i thought the reasons all races were there made sense for the role their race has in the world

[CardButton]

Did people complain when Origins did it with the origin stories and Osteger?

Hmm ... the function is a wee bit different if you compare the beginning of the two games.  Don't get me wrong I love both games (for different reasons in some cases, but I do love both), but the Warden's connection to the story had already been established by the time of Ostagar ... Ostagar served to propel story further, but it wasn't intrinsic to the Warden's participation in events.  Plus do you actually remember anyone that mattered beyond King Cailen that was introduced at Ostagar and died at Ostagar? Duncan does't really count as he was introduced beforehand and we barely had a chance to interact with him once there...  

 

The Conclave was intrinsically linked the Inquisitor to the events of the game.  With out that tragedy they would not be the hero of DA:I.  In a weird way the explosion at the Conclave was the Origin story for the Inquisitor, as such it was what was important to the Player Character.  I'd hate to say it but Trevelyan, Lavellan, Cadash, and Adaar's Origins didn't matter to the story of the Inquisitor, because neither the story nor the individuals involved were interested in who they used to be.  "The title overshadowed the name" as Solas so eloquently put it. 

 

Now if this was as a result of lazyness on Bioware's part that really sucks, but if they did it on purpose (or at least use it appropriately even if they didn't) then it could be a really interesting story element if we get the Quizzy back next game because then ... away from the Inquisition ... the player finally has a chance to define who the Inquisitor really is behind the title. 

[Sah291]

Nothing perfect comes to mind, but I like the way ME1 handled it as a basis. It was a bit like DA:I in the sense that you had text backgrounds, so not playable (although I would have been interested in playing them), but here we had a choice. We could choose from three origins (where you're from and what happened to you), and also three backgrounds (what you did). That's nine possible combinations, so we had a decent number to choose from in terms of roleplaying. I hope they go back to multi-tiered background options in the future. Those options still let you headcanon a lot of things, except of course story-required things like joining the Alliance. And they also all gave your character a reason to do so.

Next, they all had a specific quest unique to one background. That was a huge bonus, and I don't think I have to explain why. Finally, these choices were referenced occasionally. Obviously, the more the better, but I like the template. If we take this model and add in more scenes like Josephine asking you about your past (definitely a pleasant change of course, I agree Sah), I think it would be pretty great. Just my thoughts.

I was just thinking the same thing about ME, I liked how that series handled Shep's background in general, though of course I would expect a newer game would improve upon it.

With DA, the races/classes double as your background/occupation a lot of the time. If you were a human mage for example, you most likely grew up in a circle. If you were a dalish elf, then you grew up with your clan, and if you were a mage you were the clan's first, or a hunter if you were a warrior or rogue. They already have the basic template there. What's missing is something about your personality, or your reputation/notoriety.

[Heimdall]

I wasn't talking about the entire game I was specifically mentioning the Conclave which makes no sense for the other races to be there

I can buy the vashoth mercenary explanation, but for the elf and dwarf I agree, they would need better explanations

[CardButton]

I can buy the vashoth mercenary explanation, but for the elf and dwarf I agree, they would need better explanations

The Dalish was there because their clan was more interactive with humans than the standard and the result of the Conclave could make that relationship more or less dangerous for them (considering if your not very careful with the Lavellan War Table ops the clan gets wiped out by those humans, they were probably right to be concerned enough to send a spy).  As for the Dwarf, many of them are entirely dependent on the Lyrium trade, any decision made at the Conclave between the Mages and Templars (both groups which depend on Lyrium) could have heavy consequences in that enterprise.  The vashoth being the merc makes sense, but there couldn't be a more generic reason to get a character involved in the events of an RPG.

 

It is true though, they all could use a little more fleshing out. 

[Sah291]

I can buy the vashoth mercenary explanation, but for the elf and dwarf I agree, they would need better explanations

Well a dalish clan I could see caring, since they still practice magic and their clan leaders are mages. So there's that. Dwarves control the lyrium trade, so I could see them being interested in the outcome also. The Vashoth is there as a merc, but there's also political interest there with the Chantry being at odds with the Qunari, not to mention anyone has reason to be interested in how the balance of power shakes out. But you have to sit and think about the lore and come up with reasons on your own, since it is never addressed in the game.

This was either done because the game was meant to be human only at first, or because they were going for a blank slate type character as much as possible.

[Abyss108]

I always though the Elf Keeper was supposed to be an agent of Fen'Harel or something. She does specifically say it will affect elves everywhere which sounds more related to what Solas is doing. In the epilogue you can see Elves that are possibly Dalish following him. 

[Heimdall]

The Dalish was there because their clan was more interactive with humans than the standard and the result of the Conclave could make that relationship more or less dangerous for them (considering if your not very careful with the Lavellan War Table ops the clan gets wiped out by those humans, they were probably right to be concerned enough to send a spy).  As for the Dwarf, many of them are entirely dependent on the Lyrium trade, any decision made at the Conclave between the Mages and Templars (both groups which depend on Lyrium) could have heavy consequences in that enterprise.  The vashoth being the merc makes sense, but there couldn't be a more generic reason to get a character involved in the events of an RPG.

 

It is true though, they all could use a little more fleshing out. 

I get the explanation, but I always felt the Dalish one was particularly weak, particularly in how they even managed to get into the Conclave in the first place.

[CardButton]

I get the explanation, but I always felt the Dalish one was particularly weak, particularly in how they even managed to get into the Conclave in the first place.

Having only one spy in a group of thousands probably helped. 

[In Exile]

I don't mean they should avoid the setting and plot in the start, I mean that I think they should introduce the setting before introducing the crisis point. I like to get a handle on my character's identity before I decide what they would do in a crisis.

The Origins have serious problems when it comes to the wider narrative, but what I enjoyed about them was the introduction to the setting they provided, allowing the player to have a sense of character identity beyond the grey warden identity (The actual identities they encouraged were a detriment to the main plot making sense, I agree). You don't get that at the start of inquisition, it's takes time and effort to develop a sense of your character's identity beyond that of Herald or Inquisitor.

Before you can have a character identity, you need to understand what identities the game permits. This is why I prefer In Media Res as a starting trope. 

 

I understand what you mean - I just disagree with it. You can't introduce a setting that way in an RPG, because we don't have any actual freedom. The second the narrative begins in earnest, the trap draws shut and we are shuttered into a mandatory role. Sometimes the yoke is a bit looser, but loosen it too much and the protagonist ceases to be a part of the world at all. New Vegas - sans that one expansion - is a good example of this problem. The Courier isn't an actual character that's part of the world. Sure, you can have whatever mental fantasy you want to invent as a player - but the actual character of the Courier has no connection or tie to any part of the setting, world, location, characters, or plot apart from the quest MacGuffin. PoE suffers from this design issue as well. 

 

The conflict frames everything about the character you play - it spells out what limits you need to keep in mind as you consider your character concept, and puts out from the start what types of traits you can have. The worst offender here was KoTOR 2. It's a game that loved to reveal background facts about your character - often essential things about formative and definitive moments that could undermine your whole character concept - midway through the game and without much fanfare. 

[In Exile]

Hmm ... the function is a wee bit different if you compare the beginning of the two games.  Don't get me wrong I love both games (for different reasons in some cases, but I do love both), but the Warden's connection to the story had already been established by the time of Ostagar ... Ostagar served to propel story further, but it wasn't intrinsic to the Warden's participation in events.  Plus do you actually remember anyone that mattered beyond King Cailen that was introduced at Ostagar and died at Ostagar? Duncan does't really count as he was introduced beforehand and we barely had a chance to interact with him once there...  

 

The Conclave was intrinsically linked the Inquisitor to the events of the game.  With out that tragedy they would not be the hero of DA:I.  In a weird way the explosion at the Conclave was the Origin story for the Inquisitor, as such it was what was important to the Player Character.  I'd hate to say it but Trevelyan, Lavellan, Cadash, and Adaar's Origins didn't matter to the story of the Inquisitor, because neither the story nor the individuals involved were interested in who they used to be.  "The title overshadowed the name" as Solas so eloquently put it. 

 

Now if this was as a result of lazyness on Bioware's part that really sucks, but if they did it on purpose (or at least use it appropriately even if they didn't) then it could be a really interesting story element if we get the Quizzy back next game because then ... away from the Inquisition ... the player finally has a chance to define who the Inquisitor really is behind the title. 

 

No one at the Conclave matters, and the entire plot up to that point becomes irrelevant following the Big Boom ™. I think introducing the Conclave would bloat the story. Bioware was far, far too minimal with a lot of their most essential story elements - everything about the Orlesian civil war, for instance. But they weren't wrong in cutting, if they even scripted, a part of a conflict that was ultimately a very quickly resolved backdrop to their conflict. 

[BansheeOwnage]

That's splitting hairs. Your background has to be a hook to the part of the plot. In DA:O, the Origin often gave you reasons to actively hate Duncan and wanted to escape from the GWs at the first opportunity, not stick with them. And then Ostagar was a terrible establishing moment, because it doesn't at all follow from it that you'd stick around in Ferelden even if you were a gung-ho GW. 

You're right about a lot of that. I didn't like Duncan much and I didn't like being conscripted and dragged off to have a 50/50 chance of dying. But that just means they could have written it better. What I said about the background not having to directly tie-in to the main plot still stands in my opinion though, since they only connection your background in ME1 had was to give your Shepard a reason to have joined the Alliance. Beyond that, it's just RP stuff. I'm not saying it has to be like that, but it can.

[Heimdall]

@In Exile

Fair enough, you seem to prioritize making sure the player character is shaped by and thus fits the thrust of the plot.

I just think the Conclave could have been done in a way that reinforces that rather than detracts from it and I prioritize opportunities for the player to define their character more. I would characterize the problem with Origins as being in the quality of writing rather than concept.

I would never want something like KoTOR II, that was aweful.

[In Exile]

You're right about a lot of that. I didn't like Duncan much and I didn't like being conscripted and dragged off to have a 50/50 chance of dying. But that just means they could have written it better. What I said about the background not having to directly tie-in to the main plot still stands in my opinion though, since they only connection your background in ME1 had was to give your Shepard a reason to have joined the Alliance. Beyond that, it's just RP stuff. I'm not saying it has to be like that, but it can.

 

Let me try and explain it this way: there's a real and important difference when looking at Shepard. And that difference is the fact that the ME1 (brief) background gives us a justification as to the main plot - why Shepard is not just in the Alliance military, but why Shepard is considered elite. That's key to the ME1 plot, and it can even be a formative experience re: the paragon/renegade system (dumb though it is; and except for sole survivor, which I continue to think is just stupid). 

[In Exile]

@In Exile

Fair enough, you seem to prioritize making sure the player character is shaped by and thus fits the thrust of the plot.

I just think the Conclave could have been done in a way that reinforces that rather than detracts from it and I prioritize opportunities for the player to define their character more. I would characterize the problem with Origins as being in the quality of writing rather than concept.

I would never want something like KoTOR II, that was aweful.

 

It's just that to me, introducing the setting without introducing the conflict creates KoTOR II situations. I like a game that puts its cards on the table for me. I do want opportunities to define my character - but I want to understand, first, what type of character I'm allowed to have. I think an RPG has to start as a kind of inverted funnel. The start of the game has to be very narrow to give us context and explain the limits - and then we can spread out from there. 

[BansheeOwnage]

I'd hate to say it but Trevelyan, Lavellan, Cadash, and Adaar's Origins didn't matter to the story of the Inquisitor, because neither the story nor the individuals involved were interested in who they used to be.  "The title overshadowed the name" as Solas so eloquently put it. 

 

Now if this was as a result of lazyness on Bioware's part that really sucks, but if they did it on purpose (or at least use it appropriately even if they didn't) then it could be a really interesting story element if we get the Quizzy back next game because then ... away from the Inquisition ... the player finally has a chance to define who the Inquisitor really is behind the title. 

You raise an interesting point. If Bioware did that on purpose, I could at least understand their reasoning, even if I don't think it worked well. But if we do get to play as Quizzy again, I look forward to finally fleshing out their character more. That would also retroactively make DA:I more enjoyable, like Trespasser did.

 

No one at the Conclave matters, and the entire plot up to that point becomes irrelevant following the Big Boom ™. I think introducing the Conclave would bloat the story. Bioware was far, far too minimal with a lot of their most essential story elements - everything about the Orlesian civil war, for instance. But they weren't wrong in cutting, if they even scripted, a part of a conflict that was ultimately a very quickly resolved backdrop to their conflict. 

Not quite true, though. Regardless of whether we should get to play it, there were, in many cases, important people to your character at the Conclave. For Trevelyan, (if I'm remembering right) some of their relatives from the Chantry died there. But that doesn't even get mentioned, better yet reacted to.

 

The whole thing is just so impersonal. Like Justinia's death. Everyone goes on and on about it, and I get it, because they knew her. But as a player in a fictional world, all I can say is "That's sad", rather than really feeling anything, and that creates a disconnect. If we got to see Justinia at all, even without interacting with her, that would have at least helped. I guess what I'm trying to say is, all that death, all the destruction - most of it doesn't feel real. Those charred skeletons help, but there is still that "a bunch of people dying that you didn't know is a statistic" problem.

[Heimdall]

It's just that to me, introducing the setting without introducing the conflict creates KoTOR II situations. I like a game that puts its cards on the table for me. I do want opportunities to define my character - but I want to understand, first, what type of character I'm allowed to have. I think an RPG has to start as a kind of inverted funnel. The start of the game has to be very narrow to give us context and explain the limits - and then we can spread out from there.

Hm, I think I see what you mean, but what you describe is actually part of the problem I have with the existing DAI start. It doesn't give the player any context whatsoever to what is going on, the first ten minutes are outright bewildering to anyone that doesn't keep track of the lore and such as closely as you or I. So we end up in a situation where the player is making character driven decisions with hardly a clue of what is going on.

Granted, this issue could have been solved with a short intro cinematic that gave context to the situation as in previous games.

Though the other reason I suggest a Conclave section is because the game keeps expecting you to be affected by the event and the loss of those that died. That's why I think I don't think it would be any more problematic than options already in the game.

[BansheeOwnage]

Let me try and explain it this way: there's a real and important difference when looking at Shepard. And that difference is the fact that the ME1 (brief) background gives us a justification as to the main plot - why Shepard is not just in the Alliance military, but why Shepard is considered elite. That's key to the ME1 plot, and it can even be a formative experience re: the paragon/renegade system (dumb though it is; and except for sole survivor, which I continue to think is just stupid). 

Yeah, I actually meant to mention that too, but I forgot. So... seems like we're on the same page?

[Abyss108]

The game certainly doesn't expect you to care about those that died. I played a character that didn't and there wasn't a single point the game expected me too.