414 réponses à ce sujet

[Smudjygirl]

I know that this topic is probably getting on many people's last nerve, but i'm genuinely interested in what people think about the system Bioware has going.

 

I'm not thinking of any previous protagonist in particular, so please don't assume i'm trying to start an "Inquisitor for DA4" thread, because there are plenty of those out there.

 

What i'm interested in are the major reasons you agree or disagree with the strategy of a new PC every game, and what you would change if given the choice.

 

I know that there are people who think that it was decided "since origins" that this is the way they would do it, but other sources suggest that it was actually decided later to have a new PC in each game http://gameranx.com/...be-a-franchise/

EDIT: I mean to say that they had not really had the chance to decide on the direction after Origins, since they didn't foresee it's success. I'm not implying they would have used the Warden again if they knew they would be as successful as they were, simply that it seems the future of the series was undecided.

Feel free to discuss why you wanted or want any of the previous protagonists back, but try and explain your thoughts in as much detail as possible.

 

Again., sorry for another topic like this, but i would love to know what you think and feel about this formula.

[Andrew Lucas]

For me, I would prefer a set protagonist; I must admit, I haven't really got engaged with one in DA since the Warden, and his/her story still is kinda unfinished, nowadays I start a DA game aware that the PC will only last one game and boom - that's it. Move on.

I would prefer the Shepard approach, before playing ME3 I was with the "Wow, this will be the last game with Shepard and all the characters he/she got to know," kinda of mindset, meaning I was much more invested with him/her.

But hey, this is Dragon Age, it's one of the things that makes it unique - I guess, I made my peace with it.

[Dobbysaurus]

I'd prefer a different protagonist in every game. That way I can bang a new LI in each game.

 

If it's the same protagonist then I have to be faithful to my LI throughout the games. The temptations are too many when new LI's are introduced but yet I have to be faithful to my one true love. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I am not a fan of the new protagonist every game setup Bioware has for the Dragon Age franchise. It gives less time to connect with the characters and limits the storytelling potential. 

[In Exile]

I much prefer the new protagonist. It allows the game to really keep the same spirit as the previous one without carrying too much baggage. It doesn't force you to carry over preexisting relationships, you control the cast of characters, and you get a lot of room to explore new perspectives and backgrounds.

You also avoid scope creep. If I just beat super mega evil unicorn god, do I have to now fight ultra mega super evil unicorn double god just to feel threatened?

[Ghost Gal]

I'm not a fan, personally. It's hard getting attached to new protagonists because you know they're going to be gone next game.

[Seraphim24]

You also avoid scope creep. If I just beat super mega evil unicorn god, do I have to now fight ultra mega super evil unicorn double god just to feel threatened?

 

That sounds like a flavor at Baskin Robbins flavor gone wrong or something..

[HuldraDancer]

I'd prefer the new protagonist every game a little more if the ones from the last games were actually let go of. I of course can't speak for others but I personally would be so much happier about the games if there wasn't some dialog or mentions of your old heroes. Maybe I'm in a minority of this but lines like 'The warden went poof' in DA2 or 'the warden if off to cure the calling and traveling now' just kind of make me tempted to kill my old protags at least then I'd know they'd be left in flipping peace. Now if mentions like that stopped (which I'm sure they won't and honestly given the route that Trespasser hinted at for the next game it wouldn't make much sense to drop it) I'd be much more happy about the new protag every game as it is now. Sure give us one to hold onto until they are ready to be let go.

 

Sorry if I explained myself poorly I have a terrible habit of that.

[nightscrawl]

The link you posted is dead, OP.

 

[edit]

Remove the closing parenthesis.

Now that I've read it, there is nothing in that piece to suggest that Bioware EVER intended to use a singular protagonist. It is only about Dragon Age continuing as a franchise, and not about a particular character. That they were unsure that the franchise would continue and so made DAO to be more or less a closed game does not also mean that they would have planned on a continuing character if they had been assured of continuation.

 

 
I'll go with this instead:

As much as people might try to conflate the DA series with Mass Effect (understandably, I suppose, as it's two different projects from the same company), Dragon Age is not a trilogy. DAO and DA2 were self-contained stories that each contributed towards the greater arc of Thedas' history, and any future game(s) would likely be the same. If someone is expecting to play the same character over multiple titles, they're looking in the wrong place-- as we never suggested that would ever be the case. My hope is that we do the imported states more effectively, and use them in more significant ways (whether it be about these particular characters or not), with regards to the ongoing history of Thedas that the player is impacting by way of their choices.

As for myself, I generally prefer the idea of the new protagonist and was fine that the Warden did not carry over into DA2, or that Hawke did not carry over (as playable) into DAI. However, I don't feel that the Inquisitor's story is resolved would like to see them in the next game in some capacity.

 

Now, don't go arguing with me about this or that reason. That is how I feel about MY Inquisitor and nothing anyone says will change my opinion. Someone else may feel differently about their own Inquisitor, and that's fine too.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 09 mars 2016 - 12:29 .

[Wulfram]

I think a new character every game works OK if you make sure to give the protagonist a complete feeling story in each game, and don't tie the stories together too much.

DAO felt pretty complete, unless perhaps you were a Morrigan romancer, though DAA added some gratuitous "to be continued" stuff that we could have done without.

I don't think DA2 had too many problems with having a new protagonist, really. Except for disappearing the Warden at the end. But otherwise there was no real sense that the Warden should have been there, so it was OK.

However, DA2 felt rather like a prequel for a story that never happened. So them only having one game is kind of annoying.

DAI spent a lot of time trampling all over a lot of the things that could be important to the Warden's life, so their absence on a flimsy pretext was rather jarring.

Trespasser ended on what felt like a great big "To Be Continued" that'll probably be a pain in DA4

[BansheeOwnage]

Here is a post I made just after Trespasser was released, since it's the best version of my thoughts that I've written, and I'd write it worse if I tried again :

 

I don't like having new protagonists each game, for many reasons, but here are the main ones:

 

1. Character-whiplash. It's jarring, disappointing, and unsatisfying to build up your character for an entire game, as well as their relationships to their companions, then just when you get to know everyone, have them taken away and replaced with a new cast and a new character to try to shape from scratch, knowing you probably won't develop them as much as you'd like to since their story will end in the same game.

 

2. It's worse for developing the universe. A lot of people cite the "Thedas is the protagonist" argument during this debate, but in my opinion, having the same protagonist and most of the same cast across multiple games allows the world to actually come to the forefront, not the other way around. If you have to build a new character and their relationships each game, a lot of the focus has to be on that, not the world in general. I found in Mass Effect, I could appreciate the evolving galaxy just fine, and probably more, because Shepard didn't need to be built-up each game. Not only that, but I get sick of my character knowing progressively less and less compared to the player. I don't want to ask all of these questions I should know the answers to.

 

3. And obviously this will avoid the problems of unsatisfying character returns, whether that be for ex-protagonists or old companions you just wish you could talk to with those ex-protagonists. I want to talk to Alistair as the Warden. I want to hang out with Varric as Hawke. I want to confront Solas as the Inquisitor. Otherwise, so much impact is lost.

 

4. It's easier for the devs. They seem to tire quickly of people missing their characters and wanting them to appear again, but this time, they can't possibly be surprised when people want the Inquisitor to show up again, and people can't be blamed for it, I don't think.

 

[Smudjygirl]

The  link wasn't dead 2 minutes ago, and i can still get on it when i find it on google. If anyone is interested, if you looked up "Dragon age was never intended to be a franchise" you should find it.

 

[Wulfram]

The  link wasn't dead 2 minutes ago, and i can still get on it when i find it on google. If anyone is interested, if you looked up "Dragon age was never intended to be a franchise" you should find it.

Link isn't dead, its just got the close bracket stuck to it.

[Smudjygirl]

Link isn't dead, its just got the close bracket stuck to it.

Many thanks dear chap

[Nefla]

I would be all for a new protagonist each game if with each game we also got:

 

-A new setting (as in a different region, city, country, time period, etc...)

-New NPCs

-New companions

-A new plotline

-A new antagonist

 

I hate playing a new character with no connection to the previous game's events or characters but still having so many returning companions, NPCs, plotlines, etc...either do a new story with new protagonist or do a continuing story with the same protagonist. Make up your mind BioWare.

[nightscrawl]

I would be all for a new protagonist each game if with each game we also got:

 

-A new setting (as in a different region, city, country, time period, etc...)

-New NPCs

-New companions

-A new plotline

-A new antagonist

 

I hate playing a new character with no connection to the previous game's events or characters but still having so many returning companions, NPCs, plotlines, etc...either do a new story with new protagonist or do a continuing story with the same protagonist. Make up your mind BioWare.

 

This is what I thought was great about DA2 starting with the destruction of Lothering. We've been to Lothering in DAO, we know what happens to it, so while our Warden is off in Redcliffe or wherever, this is what happens.

[Smudjygirl]

Now that I've read it, there is nothing in that piece to suggest that Bioware EVER intended to use a singular protagonist. It is only about Dragon Age continuing as a franchise, and not about a particular character. That they were unsure that the franchise would continue and so made DAO to be more or less a closed game does not also mean that they would have planned on a continuing character if they had been assured of continuation.

 

I never said that it means they would have used the Warden again. The fact that Origins was made to be a self contained game suggests otherwise. But it also does not suggest that they had always intended to use a different protagonist every time, since (to me) the article suggests that they were fumbling around in the dark after Origins.

[DomeWing333]

I was okay with it going from Origins to DA2 since Origins was pretty self-contained. Going from DA2 to Inquisition was still okay, but I couldn't help but feel like Hawke still had some story in him/her. Inquisition to DA4 is the one I'm a bit concerned about since the major conflict is still so heavily tied to the Inquisitor. I personally don't want the Inquisitor to continue being the protagonist, but story-wise, I feel like they need to be involved a lot more than The Warden and Hawke were in their sequels.

[Lazarillo]

I think, at least in regard to the "the hero of DA4 should be the Inquisitor again" approach, it makes the rather hasty assumption that the cliffhanger from the end of Trespasser will be the major driving force behind the plot of the next game.  But...look what happened to the cliffhanger from the end of DA2 that looked like it would be the major driving force behind the plot of the next game at the time.

 

I also think that the sheer number of unresolved threads and obvious hooks for future sequels was Inquisition's weakest point.

 

With both of those things in mind, I like seeing new protagonists in each game, because it's a helpful way to see a new story in each game.  Similar to Nefla's comments above, though I personally don't mind some overlap, as the "small world" aspect can be kind of fun.  But ultimately, my interest in Thedas is the rich setting, for the most part, and seeing the variety of stories that can be done with it.  I don't want some overall driving plot for the series as a whole (especially not the plot as presented by Inquisition), and at a certain point, even if they did keep re-using the same protagonist, that would probably get a little suspension-of-disbelief-y anyway, in the sense of "why do interesting things only keep happening to this person?"

[Nefla]

This is what I thought was great about DA2 starting with the destruction of Lothering. We've been to Lothering in DAO, we know what happens to it, so while our Warden is off in Redcliffe or wherever, this is what happens.

For me the assumption that the player has played previous games and/or read the EU is one of the most frustrating aspects. I feel like they rely on that assumption instead of doing much if any real development. As a player of DA:O I'd only gotten to see Lothering from the Warden's outside perspective, not Hawke's local perspective. I didn't get to see how the family's life was like in any way and I didn't feel anything about "leaving" it in DA2. A new player wouldn't get to see it or know anything about it at all.

[Nefla]

I think, at least in regard to the "the hero of DA4 should be the Inquisitor again" approach, it makes the rather hasty assumption that the cliffhanger from the end of Trespasser will be the major driving force behind the plot of the next game.  But...look what happened to the cliffhanger from the end of DA2 that looked like it would be the major driving force behind the plot of the next game at the time.

 

I also think that the sheer number of unresolved threads and obvious hooks for future sequels was Inquisition's weakest point.

I hope they don't make the same mistake with Solas and the Inquisitor that they did with the Mage/Templar "war" . Set up such an interesting plotline and then brush it aside in favor of another generic "save the world from crazy evil guy we don't care about" story.

[Lazarillo]

For me the assumption that the player has played previous games and/or read the EU is one of the most frustrating aspects. I feel like they rely on that assumption instead of doing much if any real development. As a player of DA:O I'd only gotten to see Lothering from the Warden's outside perspective, not Hawke's local perspective. I didn't get to see how the family's life was like in any way and I didn't feel anything about "leaving" it in DA2. A new player wouldn't get to see it or know anything about it at all.

I agree with the sentiment, though in execution, I don't think it's been all that bad.  Just that particular example, say, it doesn't really matter to Hawke's story what Lothering was like in the previous game anyway (and it's not like the town was anything special in Origins, for that matter, either).  Similarly, while I know Inquisiiton had references to novels that I haven't and likely never will read (as I dig fantasy settings in video games, but am a lot more picky about what I enjoy in print), I don't think I really missed anything that was vital to the story of the game.  Sure Cole had one conversation choice where he made a bunch of vague references to a bunch of other people, but he did that anyway, and it wasn't really much other than a little vague background, like Krem talking about the Chargers' old jobs.

[thats1evildude]

I like the current system because it lets me play different classes and races, and take on new love interests without dumping the old ones.

It also avoids the scope creep In Exile mentioned. If you kill a dragon-god, how do you maintain a level of threat to the PC in the next game? Common bandits ain't gonna cut it anymore.

The way around this problem is to knock the PC back down to Level 1 and giving away all their stuff. But if you're doing that, why not just start again with a new character?

[Smudjygirl]

I agree with the sentiment, though in execution, I don't think it's been all that bad.  Just that particular example, say, it doesn't really matter to Hawke's story what Lothering was like in the previous game anyway (and it's not like the town was anything special in Origins, for that matter, either).  Similarly, while I know Inquisiiton had references to novels that I haven't and likely never will read (as I dig fantasy settings in video games, but am a lot more picky about what I enjoy in print), I don't think I really missed anything that was vital to the story of the game.  Sure Cole had one conversation choice where he made a bunch of vague references to a bunch of other people, but he did that anyway, and it wasn't really much other than a little vague background, like Krem talking about the Chargers' old jobs.

 

Some may argue that since Hawke's theme was very closely linked to "family", having a chance to develop those family bonds would have been a nice flair, and would have strengthened their feelings later. For example, 2 minutes in and Bethany dies...how am i supposed to care about that? Mother does nothing but blame me for her mistakes, so what if she dies?

 

I may have helped connections to that aspect of the game.

 

In a similar way, my interactions with my Dalish clan helped me care more about the other Dalish clan.

 

I agree it's not integral, but could help strengthen some of the overarching themes of the game

[Lazarillo]

I hope they don't make the same mistake with Solas and the Inquisitor that they did with the Mage/Templar "war" . Set up such an interesting plotline and then brush it aside in favor of another generic "save the world from crazy evil guy we don't care about" story.

Well, like I said, I don't know that I'd call what they've set up "interesting".  I was really disappointed with how they handled the the elven pantheon, and I'm more interested in Thedas' present than its past.  But I suppose we're starting to go off on a tangent...

 

Personally, what I'd like to see in DA4 is more of a personal story, like we got in DA2.  And sure, that personal story should probably involve the remnants of the Inquisition and the defeat of Solas.  I definitely agree that the idea of some "greater threat" exploiting his actions like Corfishystix did to the Mage/Templar War wouldn't be a good way to resolve things.  But I think the idea that there even needs to be a "greater threat", per se, in the first place, to drive the story is carrying things in the wrong direction from square one.