270 réponses à ce sujet

[Abyss108]

Who says they won't, even if they're doing it off screen?  In fact, has the next installment even been greenlighted yet that people can point at that and say "See, BioWare lied to us", or is this just some desperate attempt at an argument for bringing the Inquisitor back?  You see, if all we got was the Inquisitor passing information to, say, Dorian, through that little crystal they told us about in Tresspasser, then the Inquisitor is indeed working to stop/save Solas, depending on what information they pass along.  We don't even know if there will be a next game yet, and already people are claiming stuff in the end was a lie.  What's going to happen when the game's announced?  What's going to happen if the Inquisitor is set up as Charlie from Charlie's Angels, and you hear him/her, but never see them?

 

I'm not claiming it was a lie.  Other people have claimed it was a lie, and that it is OK for it to be completely ignored and for the Inquisitor to do absolutely nothing.

[robertthebard]

I'm not claiming it was a lie.  Other people have claimed it was a lie, and that it is OK for it to be completely ignored and for the Inquisitor to do absolutely nothing.

Oops, I guess I missed something reading through all this, it's all running together now.  All the "bring back the protagonist threads" are starting to look the same.

 

Although this one did have a twist, with the Envy Demon HoF...

[jlb524]

All the "bring back the protagonist threads" are starting to look the same.

Lol no kidding.

Poor Hawke needs a thread though.

[GoldenGail3]

Lol no kidding.
Poor Hawke needs a thread though.

Hawke had a cameo... So....

[jlb524]

Hawke had a cameo... So....

Psssh ya in like one game but I want more.

[nightscrawl]

I didn't make a gun example, I quoted one of the most highly rated writors of all time. 

 

https://en.m.wikiped...i/Anton_Chekhov

 

Sigh... I know you quoted Chekhov originally. By "your example" I was referring to the extended description you gave when you said, "But if the camera zooms in on one particular gun, whilst omnious music plays, and the characters talk about how important it is that they are going to use that gun for a specific event, and then in the next scene talk again about how that gun will be used for a specific event, and then that event occurs with no mention of the gun, your audience is going to be very confused," which I assumed to be your words.

 

You gave a descriptive example of the narrative adding weight to the depiction of a gun. The quote from Chekhov is not so detailed, as I tried to point out with my response. He ONLY says, "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story," and describes its mere presentation as set dressing by saying, "that there is a rifle hanging on the wall." He did NOT go into the sort of detail that you went into with your example. My original response to the gun post was based on Chekhov's own, less-detailed phrasing. As written, I still support my initial statement. But I do agree that in your example of an extended description of a gun that it would indeed be absurd to put so much emphasis on a device only to never see it again.

 

I really can't clarify any more than this. If there is still some confusion, or you still think I am being obtuse, then we'll just have to part ways on understanding.

[Kakistos_]

Morrigan is connected to Flemeth
(you said this for the 20th times by now)and i gave the same answer 20th times.
Does suppose to mean something for the Inquisitor?
Does it matter for my mission?
Answer no
Why the Inquisitor should care about her personal conflict?
So saying that Cullen is a writer pet because he is there for fan service while at the same time Morrigan isn't because of her personal subplot is bias and hypocrisy.
The inquisitor and the new players don't need to know her conflict with Flemeth because it is not necessary to defeat Cory.

2 -3resolved don't even mention the OGB from now on

4
She is still a writer pet ,the fact that Leliana is overused does not change the fact that Morrigan is a writer pet like Leliana.

She is in DAO and is unkillable unlike all the others companions

She is in Wh and has plot armor against the warden

She is in DAI and has plot armor against the dragon

Of course Wot does not count because you said so OK,very fair

She is the narrator for the vanilla game.

She is a writer pet.

The End

I disagree. Morrigan's connection to the overall plot has been established since DA:O. No, she wasn't necessarily "needed" for the Inquisitor to defeat Corypheus but she did play Dragon sized part. But Corypheus and the Inquisitor are and never where the endall of the Dragon Age series and hardly the only significant plots. Morrigan, Flemeth, The Inquisitor, Solas, Corypheus are all connected by common threads that have been drawn since the series began.

[robertthebard]

I hope everyone's HOF gets killed offscreen.

But...  Mine's already dead.  Does she have to get killed again?

[Kakistos_]

Holy **** TheKomandorShepard got better at posting in english?! Nice.

 

On topic, i'd prefer it if the HoF remained in retirement. I don't want the devs to waste any time in addressing the HoF's save import baggage because it's possible that the other areas of the game's narrative would be given less attention, and are left underdeveloped as a result.

The entire game will have to deal with save import "baggage". The two former protagonists' "baggage" didn't affect the narrative in DAI, why would it in DA4? The Inquisitor's decisions will arguably have a large impact DA4 despite the high possibility of a new protagonist. I fail to see why a Warden cameo would be any more of a challenge than Hawke's was or the Inquisitor's will be.

 

Bringing back a silent protagonist in a fully voiced encompassed universe? Yeah, that'll work. 

I'm fine with my HoF fading away into the Abyss. Shepard? Not so much.

Adding a voice to a previously silent protagonist is not without precedent.

[Addictress]

Nah, the HoF is done. It would be most tasteful if they remained in DAO only. Even the nostalgia would increase that way.

[Abyss108]

Sigh... I know you quoted Chekhov originally. By "your example" I was referring to the extended description you gave when you said, "But if the camera zooms in on one particular gun, whilst omnious music plays, and the characters talk about how important it is that they are going to use that gun for a specific event, and then in the next scene talk again about how that gun will be used for a specific event, and then that event occurs with no mention of the gun, your audience is going to be very confused," which I assumed to be your words.

 

You gave a descriptive example of the narrative adding weight to the depiction of a gun. The quote from Chekhov is not so detailed, as I tried to point out with my response. He ONLY says, "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story," and describes its mere presentation as set dressing by saying, "that there is a rifle hanging on the wall." He did NOT go into the sort of detail that you went into with your example. My original response to the gun post was based on Chekhov's own, less-detailed phrasing. As written, I still support my initial statement. But I do agree that in your example of an extended description of a gun that it would indeed be absurd to put so much emphasis on a device only to never see it again.

 

I really can't clarify any more than this. If there is still some confusion, or you still think I am being obtuse, then we'll just have to part ways on understanding.

 

In my extended example, replace "gun" with "Inquisitors says they will stop Solas" and it's equally absurd.

 

You have an entire scene of build up with Solas to that statement, at the very end of the game, the camera zooms to you making one of two choices, the choices have the extra "decision text" above them, which has always been shown previously in the game to show you are about to make an important decision, not just make an ambient choice for characterisation, the music swells up to epic proportions as you make the statement, the next scene has dialogue referencing how important this is going to be as you make another decision about the Inquisition, which has the decision text above it explicitly explaining to you how this will affect the choice from the previous scene, and then the very final scene of the game has the epic music playing again whilst you pour over a map planning what you said, as another character brings up reasons this might not work, but you defend it, and the very final line of the game is you once again stating that you will stop/save Solas.

[nightscrawl]

^ I never denied that, I only stated that a RPG dialogue option is different than a passage or scene in a passive media because of the role-play factor. That's all. I am NOT disagreeing with your premise.

[Abyss108]

^ I never denied that, I only stated that a RPG dialogue option is different than a passage or scene in a passive media because of the role-play factor. That's all. I am NOT disagreeing with your premise.

 

OK, fair enough. I'm probably getting confused between so many different people posting. Sorry!

 

Not sure I agree it's different though. To use your example with Josephine talking about your family, whether it's hard-writen in a passive form such as a book, or whether it's a choice you picked in an RPG, it's serves the same purpose to give the character background and establish their history with the viewer. That's needed in both an RPG and a book.

 

Now, it's certainly harder to do some things with the protagonist in an RPG, but I still think it should be the eventual aim, and if an irrelevant background choice is made to sound important for certain characters but isn't delivered on its bad writing.

[TheKomandorShepard]

In my extended example, replace "gun" with "Inquisitors says they will stop Solas" and it's equally absurd.

 

You have an entire scene of build up with Solas to that statement, at the very end of the game, the camera zooms to you making one of two choices, the choices have the extra "decision text" above them, which has always been shown previously in the game to show you are about to make an important decision, not just make an ambient choice for characterisation, the music swells up to epic proportions as you make the statement, the next scene has dialogue referencing how important this is going to be as you make another decision about the Inquisition, which has the decision text above it explicitly explaining to you how this will affect the choice from the previous scene, and then the very final scene of the game has the epic music playing again whilst you pour over a map planning what you said, as another character brings up reasons this might not work, but you defend it, and the very final line of the game is you once again stating that you will stop/save Solas.

 

Choices as i said in dragon age games have very little to almost none value as they don't matter in sequels in the slightest, in the end if there will be decision to redeem or kill solas, it will be in new pc hands not in Inquistor's despite Inquistor said so. Inquistor might just have just said s/he will stop Solas in Trespasser because it wouldn't make sense if s/he didn't as guy is trying blow up the world and devs wanted offer you another meaningless choice for roleplaying reasons, map secene was more of set up for new protagonist than declaration that Inquistor will return.Then that writers set up something doesn't mean it will turn up in case , bioware did that before with Hawke and HoF disappearance and there is more examples like Mage-Templar war that was set up to be huge issue and turns out to be small part of next game or just a lots of harvesters that were never brought back again.    

[nightscrawl]

OK, fair enough. I'm probably getting confused between so many different people posting. Sorry!

 

Not sure I agree it's different though. To use your example with Josephine talking about your family, whether it's hard-writen in a passive form such as a book, or whether it's a choice you picked in an RPG, it's serves the same purpose to give the character background and establish their history with the viewer. That's needed in both an RPG and a book.

 

Now, it's certainly harder to do some things with the protagonist in an RPG, but I still think it should be the eventual aim, and if an irrelevant background choice is made to sound important for certain characters but isn't delivered on its bad writing.

 

The key is whether the choice is "made to sound important." Sometimes choices are there just to allow the player to RP, to respond in a positive or negative way, or state something about the PC. There are many such choices in the game. I happen to think that there should be more such choices in the game; choices that are not significant, but allow the player to add nuance to their character that doesn't have to be relegated only to head-canon. My Trevelyan has a good relationship with his family, and I was pleased that I was able to state so in that conversation. I want more moments like that.

 

This started because you were remarking on the narrative weight of the Inquisitor's remarks at the end of Trespasser, and I agree that the game does make them significant. I probably shouldn't have injected myself into the conversation, as I wasn't really trying to address the whole Inquisitor issue in the first place. I was mainly concerned with Chekhov's quote and how it applied to writing in general.

[Fishy]

No. Because the HoF is like Arnold in Conan the barbarian and bringing him back would feel like  Conan 2011 with Momoa. Something was taken away and never will come back. The magic is gone.

 

Bioware  has been.  The Golden era of bioware is gone. Please let it be - Paul. 

[lynroy]

They were JOKING.

This is the BSN, we don't get jokes. We take them seriously.

[GoldenGail3]

Psssh ya in like one game but I want more.

Warden 0

Hawke 1

I think that's the score currently, although I'm happy with the Warden's 0 to be honest, a lot less complicated.

[nightscrawl]

This is the BSN, we don't get jokes. We take them seriously.

 

To be fair, a random Tweet posted out of context, or however it was delivered, is a poor medium for such humor. This is similar to David Gaider's misunderstood, and misrepresented, remark that the game took place over three years. People see a thing, repost it, it spreads like wildfire, and suddenly people believe that the Warden is going to ride into the next game on a newly-found gryphon (see: Last Flight), completely immortal, having the power to melt all darkspawn with lasers shooting out of their eyes, Cyclops-style.

 

Some of the Bioware devs have failed, time and time again, to understand the power and influence of their words, wherever they are posted. At least Mark Darrah has there wherewithal to have a Reasons we may not answer your question post pinned to the top of his Twitter.

[Abyss108]

The key is whether the choice is "made to sound importantnuance, sometimes choices are there just to allow the player to RP, to respond in a positive or negative way, or state something about the PC. There are many such choices in the game. I happen to think that there should be more such choices in the game; choices that are not significant, but allow the player to add nuance to their character that doesn't have to be relegated only to head-canon. My Trevelyan has a good relationship with his family, and I was pleased that I was able to state so in that conversation. I want more moments like that.

 

This started because you were remarking on the narrative weight of the Inquisitor's remarks at the end of Trespasser, and I agree that the game does make them significant. I probably shouldn't have injected myself into the conversation, as I wasn't really trying to address the whole Inquisitor issue in the first place. I was mainly concerned with Chekhov's quote and how it applied to writing in general.

 

I agree with everything you say, we need more options like that! Chekrovs Gun doesn't apply if a choice establishes character and adds nuance because that content is there for an important purpose. I'd actually say establishing character and background is the most important part of a narrative. Removing characterization isn't removing unimportant details, its the opposite, it's removing details that are actually important for understanding the characters. Its only an issue if that choice is then contradicted, or if that information was presented in a way that implied it would be important in the larger narrative when it isn't.

 

Eg. Your character talking about their family is fine. But if your character talked about how their sister was super important and said they were going to get them to join the Inquisition and put them in charge of something, but then this is never mentioned again, it's a problem. 

[turuzzusapatuttu]

This thread, again?

 

Ok.