414 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

When the Inquisitor said we will find people to stop Solas that to me was a huge hint that not only we would have a new PC but that the Solas conflict would come towards the end of the game. I dont think the new pc would be a agent of the Inquisition because of that line also. Cant find what you already have and how do you find someone who is worthy to take down a being powerful as Solas. You find someone who has already proven themselves. This wont be like a Duncan Origins type deal searching different origins who are worthy to be apart of the Inquisition. I think the best route would be to focus on the issues and events in the north first. To establish the culture and conflicts they already have with a new rising hero. Stopping a full blown Qunari Invasion and helping Dorian or whoever reform Tevinter would not only establish the new PC and there companions to Thedas but it would show the Inquisitor they found there guy/girl. Not just anyone can be picked to stopped Solas so having a new PC focus on the new lore and events that is about to unfold would be the perfect person for the Inquisitor to trust with such a task. Ideally that person would have more trust in Tevinter then the Inquisitor who while a hero for stopping the breach I doubt they are seen as highly in Tevinter as they are the south. But having a new PC who has just proved themselves in the first two acts of the game and Dorian being a first hand witness with that little crystal Dorian has to contact the Inquisitor that can appear in grand fashion to set the tone for the final act of the game. Stopping Solas and his elf uprising.

 

Yeah i see it as far more likely and far more preferable to give the new PC the space and agency to be their own person rather than cutting them off at the knees by forcing them to be an agent from the start of the game. The Qunari will hopefully be a major issue for the new PC to face if the game is set in Tevinter.

If in last act the inquisitor's comes involved that would make more sense

[vertigomez]

I would rather they focus on the qunari and Tevinter, with the elfy stuff more in the background but still intertwined and relevant to the plot. We had sooooo many lore bombs about the ancient elves in DAI, that I'd rather not have the focus of the game be... even more ancient elves. This gives the revelations time to affect the world: we can find out who's in the loop (so to speak), who's suppressing or controlling the new information, who Solas is manipulating, etc. But the focus is still on the more immediate threat of a Qunari invasion. Or Tevinter's reformation.

[ArcaneEsper]

Not gonna lie, I like the new protagonist route. Relatively less baggage, and I enjoy the character creation aspect, also the fact that it feels cartoonish when there's a huge conflict to resolve but the same person is the only one capable of doing so. But, Bioware messed up with Trespasser. Their sequel bait's execution turned it into Inquisitor bait instead and that's a problem.

I haven't really voiced this opinion of mine but Trespasser was really premature. It was too huge a blip in the Inquisitor's story especially considering the base game's story lacked a whole lot of impact in comparison. And on top of that I feel Solas was revealed too early. The series has been centred around Southern Thedas, thus far and now that we get to move on and actually see more of what Thedas has to offer we have this huge lore bomb dropped on us and a sense of urgency to deal with the threat.

I'm just kind of wondering at this point if Bioware really is that clueless, because as much as I'd prefer to have a new PC for DA4, Trespasser really screwed up with trying to tie things up. The Inquisitor can't have nothing to do with the resolution of the Solas plot but their appearence would then beg the question of why they couldn't have been playable in the first place, the same as Hawke, really.

[Dorrieb]

Warning: Long rambling to follow. Will take a while to get to the point and it may not be worth it. Don't say you weren't warned!

 

Anyway, I've been thinking about this a little further, trying to organise it into some semblance of order:

 

Firstly, every storytelling form assumes a narrative point of view, right? For example, 'Sandra felt a pang of concern for Will, whose loneliness made everything seem hopeless to him. Meanwhile, in Beijing, Su Lin enjoyed some truly delicious ice cream.' This is written in the third person from an Omniscient point of view: the unseen narrator knows what everyone is doing and feeling, wherever they are. We know that Sandra is concerned, Will is lonely, and Lin likes her ice cream.

 

'Sandra felt a pang of concern for Will, who seemed depressed. She pulled out her phone and called Su Lin, in Beijing. 'Hi, Lin, whatcha doing?' she said. 'Hi, Sandra. Not much, just having some ice cream.' This is also written in the third person, but from Sandra's point of view: we only see and know what Sandra knows. She can see that Will looks depressed and guesses, correctly, that he is, but he might have indigestion for all she knows. She can't know that Lin is eating ice cream in Beijing until Lin tells her, and she doesn't know whether it's delicious or kind of blegh. The narrative is limited and coloured by Sandra's perception.

 

'Will saw a pang of concern for him cross Sandra's face, but he could not bring himself to acknowledge it, overwhelmed as he was by the void of loneliness into which he had fallen, making everything seem pointless and grey. He wondered what Lin was doing in Beijing, perhaps enjoying some truly delicious ice cream?' Also third person, but this time from Will's point of view.

 

'I felt a pang of concern for Will. He seemed depressed, or maybe he just had a tummy ache. Anyway, I wanted to talk to Su Lin in Beijing, so I pulled out my phone and called her. 'Hi, Sandra!' she said. 'Hi, Lin, how are you?' 'Good, how are you? I was just enjoying some truly delicious ice cream.'' This is Sandra's point of view, but written in the first person, making it more personal, less distanced.

 

And then there's the second-person point of view. This is very rare, and with good reason, because the narrative voice tries to put the audience itself into the role of the main character, which is very difficult, if not impossible to pull off. No one likes being a puppet in someone else's puppet show. Leaving Sandra, Will, and Lin for a moment, this could be a story written in the second person:

'You pinch a baby to make it cry, then you cross the street to kick a puppy, and you poop in your pants.'

What? No! I wouldn't do anything like that!

'You argue with the text, protesting that you are not the kind of person who does things like that, even though you totally are.'

No I'm not.

'Well I'm writing this, so you are.'

What the hell do you know? Screw you.

 

Role-playing games get around this by sharing narrative duties between the DM and the player(s). The DM controls all external events, but the player identifies as the protagonist, controlling their actions, reactions, and feelings. Bad DMs often forget this and try to wrest control of their character away from the players.

'You can't bring yourself to sell the halfings as fertiliser.'

'Oh, yes I can.'

'No, you think about doing it, but your conscience won't let you.'

'Like hell it does.'

'You kind of like the stout and respectable little fellows, you begin to think that they're adorable.'

'No, no! They are vermin! Death to all!'

 

Or, 'You decide to sacrifice yourself for the good of all mankind, overcome by a sense of melancholy for all the friends you'll leave behind, all the fields you will never walk again, and yet with a satisfying sense of fulfillment and ultimate surrender to a destiny that...' 'Look, bad DM, if you want to end this with an unwinnable situation of 'rocks fall, everyone dies', that's one thing, but at least don't tell me that I'm supposed to like it!'

 

Getting back to Sandra, Will, and Lin: 'You are Sandra. Will seems depressed. Do you a) feel a pang of concern for him, b ) ask him what is wrong, or c) ignore him?' ('B)

Will says, 'The loneliness in my heart is a weight that crushes my soul with the banality of existence.' Do you a) comfort him, b ) ignore him, c) tell him to stop being such a drama queen.' ( C)

You may call Su Lin in Bei Jing now. Do you, yes or no?' 'YES.

'Hi Sandra,' says Lin. Do you, a) say 'Hi', b ) ask her if she has Prince Albert in a can, c) say, 'Hi, Lin. Are you by any chance enjoying some truly delicious ice cream?'

 

That's a second-person (you) point of view from the perspective of Sandra the character. What if we switch between all three?

 

'Will seems depressed. Do you, a) feel a pang of concern for him, or b ) not?' A.

Sandra looks concerned for you. Do you, a) say nothing, b ) say, 'My loneliness is a void, etc. etc', c) say, 'I ate a dead cat.' C.

Your phone rings. It's Sandra. Do you, a) refuse the call, b ) answer, 'Hi, Sandra.' ( B )

What do you say to Su Lin? a) 'Will ate a dead cat', or b ) 'Are you in Beijing, enjoying some truly delicious ice cream? B

How do you respond? a) 'Yes, it is truly delicious.', or b ) 'No, it's really crap ice cream that tastes like dead cat.'

 

I dunno, does that really work for anyone? None of them ever get to be 'your' character, they are just 'the' characters, aren't they? Although the story is fascinating, I wouldn't call it role-playing.

[AresKeith]

I doubt the new PC would be recruited into the Inquisition, being associated with them through Dorian (and possibly Harding) probably to deal with Solas maybe

 

Right. What I was thinking is that at some point Bio may have intended something where the Inquisitor wouldn't be all that involved with the plot in future -- one of the most famous people in Thedas isn't really a great choice to run a secret organization. But then they realized that having the Inquisitor say "KMAG YOYO" and run off to join the Red Jennies, or whatever, didn't really work.

 

I'd say the whole Red Jenny thing is after the Inquisitor does eventually retire

[vertigomez]

Warning: Long rambling to follow. Will take a while to get to the point and it may not be worth it. Don't say you weren't warned!
 
Anyway, I've been thinking about this a little further, trying to organise it into some semblance of order:
 
Firstly, every storytelling form assumes a narrative point of view, right? For example, 'Sandra felt a pang of concern for Will, whose loneliness made everything seem hopeless to him. Meanwhile, in Beijing, Su Lin enjoyed some truly delicious ice cream.' This is written in the third person from an Omniscient point of view: the unseen narrator knows what everyone is doing and feeling, wherever they are. We know that Sandra is concerned, Will is lonely, and Lin likes her ice cream.
 
'Sandra felt a pang of concern for Will, who seemed depressed. She pulled out her phone and called Su Lin, in Beijing. 'Hi, Lin, whatcha doing?' she said. 'Hi, Sandra. Not much, just having some ice cream.' This is also written in the third person, but from Sandra's point of view: we only see and know what Sandra knows. She can see that Will looks depressed and guesses, correctly, that he is, but he might have indigestion for all she knows. She can't know that Lin is eating ice cream in Beijing until Lin tells her, and she doesn't know whether it's delicious or kind of blegh. The narrative is limited and coloured by Sandra's perception.
 
'Will saw a pang of concern for him cross Sandra's face, but he could not bring himself to acknowledge it, overwhelmed as he was by the void of loneliness into which he had fallen, making everything seem pointless and grey. He wondered what Lin was doing in Beijing, perhaps enjoying some truly delicious ice cream?' Also third person, but this time from Will's point of view.
 
'I felt a pang of concern for Will. He seemed depressed, or maybe he just had a tummy ache. Anyway, I wanted to talk to Su Lin in Beijing, so I pulled out my phone and called her. 'Hi, Sandra!' she said. 'Hi, Lin, how are you?' 'Good, how are you? I was just enjoying some truly delicious ice cream.'' This is Sandra's point of view, but written in the first person, making it more personal, less distanced.
 
And then there's the second-person point of view. This is very rare, and with good reason, because the narrative voice tries to put the audience itself into the role of the main character, which is very difficult, if not impossible to pull off. No one likes being a puppet in someone else's puppet show. Leaving Sandra, Will, and Lin for a moment, this could be a story written in the second person: 'You pinch a baby to make it cry, then you cross the street to kick a puppy, and you poop in your pants.' What? No! I wouldn't do anything like that! 'You argue with the text, protesting that you are not the kind of person who does things like that, even though you totally are.' No I'm not. 'Well I'm writing this, so you are.' What the hell do you know? Screw you.
 
Role-playing games get around this by sharing narrative duties between the DM and the player(s). The DM controls all external events, but the player identifies as the protagonist, controlling their actions, reactions, and feelings. Bad DMs often forget this and try to wrest control of their character away from the players. 'You can't bring yourself to sell the halfings as fertiliser.' 'Oh, yes I can.' 'No, you think about doing it, but your conscience won't let you.' 'Like hell it does.' 'You kind of like the stout and respectable little fellows, you begin to think that they're adorable.' 'No, no! They are vermin! Death to all!'
 
Or, 'You decide to sacrifice yourself for the good of all mankind, overcome by a sense of melancholy for all the friends you'll leave behind, all the fields you will never walk again, and yet with a satisfying sense of fulfillment and ultimate surrender to a destiny that...' 'Look, bad DM, if you want to end this with an unwinnable situation of 'rocks fall, everyone dies', that's one thing, but at least don't tell me that I'm supposed to like it!'
 
Getting back to Sandra, Will, and Lin: 'You are Sandra. Will seems depressed. Do you a) feel a pang of concern for him, b ) ask him what is wrong, or c) ignore him?' ('B)
Will says, 'The loneliness in my heart is a weight that crushes my soul with the banality of existence.' Do you a) comfort him, b ) ignore him, c) tell him to stop being such a drama queen.' ( C)
You may call Su Lin in Bei Jing now. Do you, yes or no?' 'YES.
'Hi Sandra,' says Lin. Do you, a) say 'Hi', b ) ask her if she has Prince Albert in a can, c) say, 'Hi, Lin. Are you by any chance enjoying some truly delicious ice cream?'
 
That's a second-person (you) point of view from the perspective of Sandra the character. What if we switch between all three?
 
'Will seems depressed. Do you, a) feel a pang of concern for him, or b ) not?' A.
Sandra looks concerned for you. Do you, a) say nothing, b ) say, 'My loneliness is a void, etc. etc', c) say, 'I ate a dead cat.' C.
Your phone rings. It's Sandra. Do you, a) refuse the call, b ) answer, 'Hi, Sandra.' ( B )
What do you say to Su Lin? a) 'Will ate a dead cat', or b ) 'Are you in Beijing, enjoying some truly delicious ice cream? B
How do you respond? a) 'Yes, it is truly delicious.', or b ) 'No, it's really crap ice cream that tastes like dead cat.'
 
I dunno, does that really work for anyone? None of them ever get to be 'your' character, they are just 'the' characters, aren't they? Although the story is fascinating, I wouldn't call it role-playing.

Interesting! (No sarcasm intended.) I'm not sure I follow, so correct me if I'm wrong, but... is the issue that we go back and forth between a more-or-less omniscient point of view to the limited perspective of any given protagonist? So I, as a player, know who Solas is even if this new character doesn't. I, as a player, know what Anders used to be like even if Hawke doesn't. Meta knowledge versus in-character knowledge?

[Dorrieb]

Interesting! (No sarcasm intended.) I'm not sure I follow, so correct me if I'm wrong, but... is the issue that we go back and forth between a more-or-less omniscient point of view to the limited perspective of any given protagonist? So I, as a player, know who Solas is even if this new character doesn't. I, as a player, know what Anders used to be like even if Hawke doesn't. Meta knowledge versus in-character knowledge?

That's part of it, but I'm personally more concerned with distance.

 

Think about it like this: the omniscient point of view is a god's-eye view: you see and know everything, but you are situated far above it.

 

The third person point of view following a protagonist is closer to the action, as if you were piggybacking on the character's shoulder. You are limited to that character's point of view, but it's more personal.

 

The first person point of view puts you right inside the character, a bit like in 'Being John Malkovich', maybe. It's still limited by what the character sees and feels, but it's even more personal than the 3rd person viewpoint (and difficult to do).

 

The second person viewpoint tells you that you are the protagonist, and is as personal as it gets. Outside of role-playing games, only the most daring writers even attempt it, and I'm not sure it really works. They have to convince you that it's 'you' doing this and 'you' feeling that when you have no say in the matter, and that takes some fancy writing. In role-playing games it works because you do have a say in the matter (or at least the sustainable illusion of it).

 

Role-playing games are necessarily presented in second-person narrative. It's always, 'you see a gazebo', 'you hear an approaching wagon', 'you awake inside a cage', you. You who? You the character, obviously, not you the real life person. The character is referred to as 'you' because, for purposes of the game, you inhabit that character. The story feels personal because the events in it happen to you, or at least to an identity that you can temporarily believe in as 'you'.

 

When you switch me from one viewpoint to a different one, you break the illusion that that identity was 'me' (which of course, it never was, it was just an illusion). I am now witnessing the story from a distance, rather than living it from up close. That's how most novels, movies, tv programmes and so on tell their stories, but I don't think it works in a role-playing game. In a role-playing game, I'm supposed to have a 'me'. Does that make sense?

 

When Hawke turned up in DA:I, am I the only one who felt like I was in Freaky Friday *? To see a character you've inhabited (or had the illusion of inhabiting) acting and speaking in ways you would not necessarily have chosen were you still in control of her, while inhabiting a completely different character was one of many disconcerting (and distancing) moments.

 

* Or pick any body-switching comedy you like. I like Thorne Smith's 'Turnabout', but a lot of people have never heard of it, so I chose another reference.

[vertigomez]

That's part of it, but I'm personally more concerned with distance.
 
Think about it like this: the omniscient point of view is a god's-eye view: you see and know everything, but you are situated far above it.
 
The third person point of view following a protagonist is closer to the action, as if you were piggybacking on the character's shoulder. You are limited to that character's point of view, but it's more personal.
 
The first person point of view puts you right inside the character, a bit like in 'Being John Malkovich', maybe. It's still limited by what the character sees and feels, but it's even more personal than the 3rd person viewpoint (and difficult to do).
 
The second person viewpoint tells you that you are the protagonist, and is as personal as it gets. Outside of role-playing games, only the most daring writers even attempt it, and I'm not sure it really works. They have to convince you that it's 'you' doing this and 'you' feeling that when you have no say in the matter, and that takes some fancy writing. In role-playing games it works because you do have a say in the matter (or at least the sustainable illusion of it).
 
Role-playing games are necessarily presented in second-person narrative. It's always, 'you see a gazebo', 'you hear an approaching wagon', 'you awake inside a cage', you. You who? You the character, obviously, not you the real life person. The character is referred to as 'you' because, for purposes of the game, you inhabit that character. The story feels personal because the events in it happen to you, or at least to an identity that you can temporarily believe in as 'you'.
 
When you switch me from one viewpoint to a different one, you break the illusion that that identity was 'me' (which of course, it never was, it was just an illusion). I am now witnessing the story from a distance, rather than living it from up close. That's how most novels, movies, tv programmes and so on tell their stories, but I don't think it works in a role-playing game. In a role-playing game, I'm supposed to have a 'me'. Does that make sense?
 
When Hawke turned up in DA:I, am I the only one who felt like I was in Freaky Friday *? To see a character you've inhabited (or had the illusion of inhabiting) acting and speaking in ways you would not necessarily have chosen were you still in control of her, while inhabiting a completely different character was one of many disconcerting (and distancing) moments.
 
* Or pick any body-switching comedy you like. I like Thorne Smith's 'Turnabout', but a lot of people have never heard of it, so I chose another reference.

Okay, I see what you're saying now!

It might just depend on one's roleplaying style, and how much self-inserting they tend to do with their PCs. I always viewed Hawke (and the Warden, but obviously they didn't show up in DAI...) as characters of their own rather than "me", so the freakiness was mitigated somewhat, whereas for other people they really didn't like not being in control of what Hawke did or said.

[Heimdall]

That's part of it, but I'm personally more concerned with distance.

 

Think about it like this: the omniscient point of view is a god's-eye view: you see and know everything, but you are situated far above it.

 

The third person point of view following a protagonist is closer to the action, as if you were piggybacking on the character's shoulder. You are limited to that character's point of view, but it's more personal.

 

The first person point of view puts you right inside the character, a bit like in 'Being John Malkovich', maybe. It's still limited by what the character sees and feels, but it's even more personal than the 3rd person viewpoint (and difficult to do).

 

The second person viewpoint tells you that you are the protagonist, and is as personal as it gets. Outside of role-playing games, only the most daring writers even attempt it, and I'm not sure it really works. They have to convince you that it's 'you' doing this and 'you' feeling that when you have no say in the matter, and that takes some fancy writing. In role-playing games it works because you do have a say in the matter (or at least the sustainable illusion of it).

 

Role-playing games are necessarily presented in second-person narrative. It's always, 'you see a gazebo', 'you hear an approaching wagon', 'you awake inside a cage', you. You who? You the character, obviously, not you the real life person. The character is referred to as 'you' because, for purposes of the game, you inhabit that character. The story feels personal because the events in it happen to you, or at least to an identity that you can temporarily believe in as 'you'.

 

When you switch me from one viewpoint to a different one, you break the illusion that that identity was 'me' (which of course, it never was, it was just an illusion). I am now witnessing the story from a distance, rather than living it from up close. That's how most novels, movies, tv programmes and so on tell their stories, but I don't think it works in a role-playing game. In a role-playing game, I'm supposed to have a 'me'. Does that make sense?

 

When Hawke turned up in DA:I, am I the only one who felt like I was in Freaky Friday *? To see a character you've inhabited (or had the illusion of inhabiting) acting and speaking in ways you would not necessarily have chosen were you still in control of her, while inhabiting a completely different character was one of many disconcerting (and distancing) moments.

 

* Or pick any body-switching comedy you like. I like Thorne Smith's 'Turnabout', but a lot of people have never heard of it, so I chose another reference.

I see what you mean, though I feel I should say that I, and I assume many others, tend to roleplay in the third person.  I didn't inhabit my Hawke except in the way an actor might inhabit a character they are playing, or perhaps more like a director directing an actor's performance.

[BansheeOwnage]

I think you answered your own question. They needed to make the Inquisitor as useless as they could, i guess. I think the "issue" was the mark making them far to important, even if they got rid of the Inquisition.

It seems that way, which to me is bad storytelling. It's contrived.

[Mistic]

When you switch me from one viewpoint to a different one, you break the illusion that that identity was 'me' (which of course, it never was, it was just an illusion). I am now witnessing the story from a distance, rather than living it from up close. That's how most novels, movies, tv programmes and so on tell their stories, but I don't think it works in a role-playing game. In a role-playing game, I'm supposed to have a 'me'. Does that make sense?

 

When Hawke turned up in DA:I, am I the only one who felt like I was in Freaky Friday *? To see a character you've inhabited (or had the illusion of inhabiting) acting and speaking in ways you would not necessarily have chosen were you still in control of her, while inhabiting a completely different character was one of many disconcerting (and distancing) moments.

 

I see, that's a valid point. Nevertheless, as vertigomez and Heimdall say, it depends a lot on the way role-playing is addressed by the DA player. As Heimdall, I tend to see my DA characters in the third-person.

 

The metaphor of 'directing a film' would be the best way to explain that. I can't fundamentally change the script, nor I can decide about all the casting possibilities, but I can choose the lead, decide which lines or tone would be best in each scene and add my personal touch on the story. There are even major twists I can plan if the writers offer me the chance, although I know the producer will try to do some damage control before the next release.

 

All in all, I think we should accept the "different protagonist in each game" as a staple of the series that makes it recognizable. Like the prisoner in TES or not repeating the same world or characters in the numbered main Final Fantasy games. And I'm pretty sure players will be so attached to the new PC in DA4 that they will complain about leaving them behind as much as it has happened for the Warden, Hawke and, now, the Inquisitor.

[Dorrieb]

Okay, I see what you're saying now!

It might just depend on one's roleplaying style, and how much self-inserting they tend to do with their PCs. I always viewed Hawke (and the Warden, but obviously they didn't show up in DAI...) as characters of their own rather than "me", so the freakiness was mitigated somewhat, whereas for other people they really didn't like not being in control of what Hawke did or said.

 

 

I see what you mean, though I feel I should say that I, and I assume many others, tend to roleplay in the third person.  I didn't inhabit my Hawke except in the way an actor might inhabit a character they are playing, or perhaps more like a director directing an actor's performance.

 

 

I see, that's a valid point. Nevertheless, as vertigomez and Heimdall say, it depends a lot on the way role-playing is addressed by the DA player. As Heimdall, I tend to see my DA characters in the third-person.

 

I would argue that what you're doing there isn't role-playing, but just, well, 'playing'. Not that that is a bad thing, but it's something different.

 

It's a very interesting point, though. That might account for the radically different opinions on the relative merits of DA:O, DA2, and DA:I, as well as the (ahem) slight altercation over the ending to a certain other game that caused some heated argument a few years ago. Half the people just don't understand what the other half is even talking about.

[Mistic]

I would argue that what you're doing there isn't role-playing, but just, well, 'playing'. Not that that is a bad thing, but it's something different.

 

I suppose that depends on the definition on role-playing, doesn't it?

 

"What will you do?" is the question that the game asks us, but it's not the same answering with "my character will do this" or with "I will do this". Video games like DA turn players into more than actors. They are directors and a bit of writers too. If players can't see the distance between themselves and their characters, there's there's a high chance that they will end up playing as themselves, not as their characters.

 

Compare a video game like DA with a video game like Half-Life or Portal. In the later, the game practically expects a complete blending between player and character. That's the second-person narrative taken to its limit. Dragon Age, and Mass Effect too, feel more cinematic in that regard.

[Dorrieb]

I suppose that depends on the definition on role-playing, doesn't it?

 

"What will you do?" is the question that the game asks us, but it's not the same answering with "my character will do this" or with "I will do this". Video games like DA turn players into more than actors. They are directors and a bit of writers too. If players can't see the distance between themselves and their characters, there's there's a high chance that they will end up playing as themselves, not as their characters.

 

I don't know about that. I'll give you an example: In DA:Origins I played as a city elf (whom I consider as 'my character'). When confronting Caladrius, the Tevinter slaver who was taking the elves, I neither accepted his deal nor allowed him to leave: nothing less would do than his brutal, violent death. I was an angry elf. I was feeling it.

 

A few months later I played again, this time as a human noble. I decided to let him go, it seemed cruel not to. After all, he was there legally, he had been invited by the official authorities to do what he was doing, and the problem was sorted anyway. I was, as you say, at a 3rd person remove from the human noble character. My city elf's name was Ariani. I don't remember the name of my human noble, Something Cousland, probably.

 

We tend to choose and create characters that express feelings and thoughts that we want to express ourselves, but that's not the same thing as playing as ourselves. Much of the fun of role-playing is in the opportunity for self-expression. I don't know how we could define role-playing, but surely it involves playing a role?

[vertigomez]

It's a very interesting point, though. That might account for the radically different opinions on the relative merits of DA:O, DA2, and DA:I, as well as the (ahem) slight altercation over the ending to a certain other game that caused some heated argument a few years ago. Half the people just don't understand what the other half is even talking about.

I think you're right about this. Couple of crappy examples here, but there are people who want a happy ending because they feel like they - as a player - earned it, and there are people who want a happy ending because they think it makes for a nice character arc. There are people who choose their favorite romance based on who they're attracted to and there are people who choose their favorite romance based on who they think their PC would like, or what kind of story they want to tell.

We tend to choose and create characters that express feelings and thoughts that we want to express ourselves, but that's not the same thing as playing as ourselves. Much of the fun of role-playing is in the opportunity for self-expression. I don't know how we could define role-playing, but surely it involves playing a role?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else but I think what I do qualifies as roleplaying. But for me it's a bit like Justice hitching a ride on the Anders train (Lawd forgive me for that comparison): I see through his eyes and influence his decisions, but he's still a character in the wider world of Thedas. I'm just a passenger with a lot of say-so as to our destination and the route we're gonna take to get there.

[Mistic]

I don't know about that. I'll give you an example: In DA:Origins I played as a city elf (whom I consider as 'my character'). When confronting Caladrius, the Tevinter slaver who was taking the elves, I neither accepted his deal nor allowed him to leave: nothing less would do than his brutal, violent death. I was an angry elf. I was feeling it.

 

A few months later I played again, this time as a human noble. I decided to let him go, it seemed cruel not to. After all, he was there legally, he had been invited by the official authorities to do what he was doing, and the problem was sorted anyway. I was, as you say, at a 3rd person remove from the human noble character. My city elf's name was Ariani. I don't remember the name of my human noble, Something Cousland, probably.

 

That's not a matter of thinking in first or third person. It's that the role felt more or less satisfying. The same as actors don't enjoy equally every part they play (yet approach their job with the same technique), we don't have to feel the same way with different characters.

 

I, for example, had a completely different experience. My first playthroughs were as a City Elf and a Mage. They were mostly to explore options, I was new to RPG back then, and I was choosing mostly what I felt was right in every situation. But I wasn't enjoying it, because the result was a mess of characters that were never me nor themselves.

 

On the other hand, one day I decided to play as a Dalish Elf just because I was bored, but this time I decided to actively see the situation from my character's point of view, thinking on what they would feel was right, not I. That meant a reflection on their values, possible experiences, religion, etc. New ideas appeared that I hadn't considered before, I understood the in-game characters and situations better, and actions and words were one. The result was a character that felt more coherent, more independent, more alive. I enjoyed the hell out of that playthrough and that Warden has become ever since my personal canon.

 

It's role-playing, but it's a more thoughtful kind of role-playing. More like writers consciously putting themselves in their characters' shoes to write the story, if you must. Contrary to the Half-Life or Portal examples I mentioned before, which use a different narrative perspective, the DA games, especially the first one, allow it greatly.

 

We tend to choose and create characters that express feelings and thoughts that we want to express ourselves, but that's not the same thing as playing as ourselves. Much of the fun of role-playing is in the opportunity for self-expression.

 

It is indeed one of the great points of role-playing, but not the only one. Role-playing can be used as well to know other people, to put ourselves in their shoes, to understand what moves them, something that can't be done in real-life.

[Dorrieb]

 Role-playing can be used as well to know other people, to put ourselves in their shoes, to understand what moves them, something that can't be done in real-life.

 

 

Can't be done in real life?

[Sah291]

Can't be done in real life?

Heh, I think they just mean you can't literally become someone else and experience life from their perspective, but stories can help us imagine it.

Personally, what is tough for me is hoping around protagonists, while there are still reoccurring characters I've already gotten to know showing back up...it creates a gap between what I know as the player, and what my character is supposed to know. I didn't like not being able to confront Cory as Hawke, for example. I understand why, but I would prefer if they didn't make a habit of it.

It's interesting to think about Thedas as the real protagonist, from a literary standpoint. But from a game standpoint, Thedas is not a character, and not a playable persona.

[Dorrieb]

Heh, I think they just mean you can't literally become someone else and experience life from their perspective, but stories can help us imagine it.

Personally, what is tough for me is hoping around protagonists, while there are still reoccurring characters I've already gotten to know showing back up...it creates a gap between what I know as the player, and what my character is supposed to know. I didn't like not being able to confront Cory as Hawke, for example. I understand why, but I would prefer if they didn't make a habit of it.

It's interesting to think about Thedas as the real protagonist, from a literary standpoint. But from a game standpoint, Thedas is not a character, and not a playable persona.

 

Right. I would say that a better way to understand the viewpoints of people who are not like you is to go out and meet lots of different people and talk to them

 

But never mind. The point is that some of us do need to immerse ourselves in our characters, and IF you do then all of this character-hopping is off-putting. If you don't, then I can see how you wouldn't mind.

 

What that means for me, personally, is that I'm not even sure yet if I'll be interested in DA4. I'm not desperate to find out what new threat imperils the increasingly silly world of Thedas or what new messiah will arise once again to save us all. I bought DA2 and DA:I months after they came out, only after knowing more or less what to expect. I'm not sorry that I did, and I had a few hours of fun, but neither was a memorable experience.

 

They don't feel like the continuation of a series to me. They seem like isolated games which just happen to be set in the world of Thedas, and therefore to be judged on their own merits and not in comparison with one another. That being the case, what is there to bring me back to Thedas, and not to some other world instead? I'll probably end up back there anyway, but the excitement and anticipation just aren't there. The announcement of a new DA game, with a new protagonist, means no more to me than the announcement of a game set anywhere else, where I'll also play as a new protagonist!

[AlanC9]

They don't feel like the continuation of a series to me. They seem like isolated games which just happen to be set in the world of Thedas, and therefore to be judged on their own merits and not in comparison with one another.

Note that this is exactly what Bio has always said the Dragon Age series is. And it's not unheard of in RPGs --TES being the most obvious example.

[vertigomez]

Right. I would say that a better way to understand the viewpoints of people who are not like you is to go out and meet lots of different people and talk to them

But never mind. The point is that some of us do need to immerse ourselves in our characters, and IF you do then all of this character-hopping is off-putting. If you don't, then I can see how you wouldn't mind.

What that means for me, personally, is that I'm not even sure yet if I'll be interested in DA4. I'm not desperate to find out what new threat imperils the increasingly silly world of Thedas or what new messiah will arise once again to save us all. I bought DA2 and DA:I months after they came out, only after knowing more or less what to expect. I'm not sorry that I did, and I had a few hours of fun, but neither was a memorable experience.

They don't feel like the continuation of a series to me. They seem like isolated games which just happen to be set in the world of Thedas, and therefore to be judged on their own merits and not in comparison with one another. That being the case, what is there to bring me back to Thedas, and not to some other world instead? I'll probably end up back there anyway, but the excitement and anticipation just aren't there. The announcement of a new DA game, with a new protagonist, means no more to me than the announcement of a game set anywhere else, where I'll also play as a new protagonist!

*shrug* That's something I've always liked. I don't have a favorite game - DAO, DA2, and DAI all allow me to peek through the eyes of a person in Thedas and experience a snapshot of their life, which in turn helps me better understand the various conflicts in the setting.

Not everybody's cup of tea, maybe. But that's what Dragon Age has always been about.

[sniper_arrow]

Note that this is exactly what Bio has always said the Dragon Age series is. And it's not unheard of in RPGs --TES being the most obvious example.

 

One advantage the TES has over DA is the time skip for each new game (one game per century).

[Heimdall]

One advantage the TES has over DA is the time skip for each new game (one game per century).

Before Skyrim, they were all set pretty close together if I recall.

[vbibbi]

One advantage the TES has over DA is the time skip for each new game (one game per century).

I sometimes think larger time gaps would help DA. But I think Bio wants to keep all of the games in the actual Dragon Age, as it's heralded as a time of massive change and upheaval, which will occur throughout the games. But time gaps would help make it feel less like everything major in the history of the world is occurring within 15 years and by a rotating cast of characters.

[Nefla]

Before Skyrim, they were all set pretty close together if I recall.

Didn't Morrowind and Oblivion actually overlap? It's been a long time so I don't remember >.<

 

In any case I do like TES near complete separation when it comes to locations, characters, plots, and in the case of Skyrim timelines.