414 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Here's my take on this:

 

I like varying protagonists because there is a high probability that a returning protagonist will acquire canonical traits I don't like over time, if they didn't have them to start with. Where it's not intentional, the reason is most likely that writers use certain tropes without reflecting about their impact on roleplaying. If the protagonists change, I won't be stuck with one I don't like, or came to dislike, for several games. 

 

I also like varying protagonists because I like multiple viewpoints. I prefer to read books with several POV characters rather than a single protagonist. After all, I want to see all of this fictional world, and one viewpoint won't be able to cover it all.

[In Exile]

If you had experienced that history in a previous game playing as Anderson, it might be.

And there it is - the actual complaint. Yes, I know this is the real reason for the argument, and not some point of principle on narratives. And for the record Anderson has a book. It came first. We could also use the force awakens as an example

[Alaric]

I'm honest opinion, I like the idea of new characters throughout the DA games; not only do we get to see different areas of Thedas through a different set of eyes each time, we're also not restricted by the role previous characters have played in prior games.

For instance, I like knowing that my Warden sacrificed himself to defeat the Archdemon, like Garahel before him and the people of Thedas respect that and talk about it keenly. The same thing happens if he survives of course; but the ultimate sacrifice seems incredibly noble, rather than risking the sake of everyone in Thedas on the off-chance that the child is not going to be used for sinister purposes because the Warden doesn't want to die. 

I'm also quite fond of the the knowledge that if my Grey Warden lives; he/she will be roaming Thedas in search of a cure for the Calling; there is so much potential there.

The same goes for Hawke and how DAII sets up DA:I.

As for returning Companions; I love it. Through them, I can see first-hand how the actions of Hawke or the Warden have affected their lives, and through that, see how they then interact with Thedas.

Each experience is new and fresh, and I like that; I feel that having the same character repeatedly - although being great for character development in the eyes of some - would sort of be like beating a dead horse with a stick. This is just my outlook, and it's great to see what other people think!

[CronoDragoon]

And then there is this example:

The Fade-sacrifice/Hawke decision only really has any impact to us because we know all of the characters from previously. The Inquisitor just met them, but it's clear that Bioware only made the choice because they relied on our feelings as players to make it impactful. I doubt it would have been very important to people who only played DA:I and were not exposed to any supplementary material.

 

This trend is not a good thing.

 

It's not a good thing. It's a great thing. It's something that's uniquely possible in a continuous world state with different PCs, and I'd like to see more of it.

[Nefla]

And there it is - the actual complaint. Yes, I know this is the real reason for the argument, and not some point of principle on narratives. And for the record Anderson has a book. It came first. We could also use the force awakens as an example

Anderson was never the protagonist. It's a simple idea guys: protagonist is introduced, protagonist starts story, protagonist finishes story. Trespasser isn't a conclusion, it's a "call to action." The difference between Star Wars and DA:I is that with episode 6 Luke, Leia, Han, etc...get a conclusive ending to their story. There is no cliffhanger ending where Lando, tells them he has been manipulating everything and plans to change his name to Snoke and take over the galaxy and they begin working to stop him only to switch to a new protagonist for episode 7. Episode 7 introduces a new plot and a new conflict with the new protagonist. It didn't introduce a new plotline and have the old heroes start working towards it only to switch heroes.

 

It's not a good thing. It's a great thing. It's something that's uniquely possible in a continuous world state with different PCs, and I'd like to see more of it.

Not giving a character adequate development/characterization, having a huge disconnect between the protagonist and the player (not to mention new players vs old players), having a parade of pointless fanservice cameos rather than taking the time to flesh out new characters is "great?" Well...um congratulations I guess. DA4 is guaranteed to have a ton of that.

[Secret Rare]

It's not a good thing. It's a great thing. It's something that's uniquely possible in a continuous world state with different PCs, and I'd like to see more of it.

I dunno what criteria you are applying in order to praise the disjunction between the Inquisitor and the player that occurs on several instances during the main plot like in the here lies the Abyss and the well of sorrow(  since you have no real reason to distrust Morrigan beyond your meta knowledge of DAO)  and all of this because there are many   old characters for a new protagonist.

[Abyss108]

It's not a good thing. It's a great thing. It's something that's uniquely possible in a continuous world state with different PCs, and I'd like to see more of it.

 

How is it a good thing to have the main character make big impactful choices about things they have no reason to care about, whilst relying on the player to care about it? That's just trying to make the player stop role-playing as the character they have. Thats the opposite of what a roleplaying game should try to achieve.

[CronoDragoon]

Not giving a character adequate development/characterization, having a huge disconnect between the protagonist and the player (not to mention new players vs old players), having a parade of pointless fanservice cameos rather than taking the time to flesh out new characters is "great?" Well...um congratulations I guess. DA4 is guaranteed to have a ton of that.

 

I don't know who you are referencing with the first part. As for the second part, a disconnect between protagonist and player is a neutral event. It can be a mistake or it can be an intentional way to leverage the player's unique perspective to make them feel a certain way about a plot event.

 

Your last point is a false dichotomy. You can bring back old characters and flesh out new ones. I think you'd have difficulty defending any assertion that DAI does not introduce strong new characters. In the same vein, always introducing new characters just for the sake of it is pointless. The Fade decision is not made stronger merely by having two Stroud-type characters as opposed to Hawke and Alistair.

 

 

How is it a good thing to have the main character make big impactful choices about things they have no reason to care about, whilst relying on the player to care about it? That's just trying to make the player stop role-playing as the character they have. Thats the opposite of what a roleplaying game should try to achieve.

 

I don't buy into the obsession with role-playing. What matters is the holistic experience of the game. If breaking role-playing can provide a better experience, then in principle I'm for it.

[Sah291]

How is it a good thing to have the main character make big impactful choices about things they have no reason to care about, whilst relying on the player to care about it? That's just trying to make the player stop role-playing as the character they have. Thats the opposite of what a roleplaying game should try to achieve.

I agree... But I don't dislike the concept. I think a better execution would be having your former protagonist come into conflict with your current one somehow.

So say Hawke showed up and opposes the Inquisitor for some reason, because of choices you made. Or the Inquisitior shows up as an ally in DA4 but betrays you or one of your companions depending on how you decide to deal with Solas, etc. Or what if you lost Varric if you let Hawke die. That sort of thing.

What is missing is a reason for the characters to be involved/engaged in the situation, as well as the player.

[Abyss108]

I don't know who you are referencing with the first part. As for the second part, a disconnect between protagonist and player is a neutral event. It can be a mistake or it can be an intentional way to leverage the player's unique perspective to make them feel a certain way about a plot event.

 

Your last point is a false dichotomy. You can bring back old characters and flesh out new ones. I think you'd have difficulty defending any assertion that DAI does not introduce strong new characters. In the same vein, always introducing new characters just for the sake of it is pointless. The Fade decision is not made stronger merely by having two Stroud-type characters as opposed to Hawke and Alistair.

 

 

 

I don't buy into the obsession with role-playing. What matters is the holistic experience of the game. If breaking role-playing can provide a better experience, then in principle I'm for it.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by holistic experience, but the moment you do this you completely break immersion in the plot. The player is no longer following the plot, but is thinking about whether making the choice they really want to make, makes any sense with what the characters would logically do.

 

I agree... But I don't dislike the concept. I think a better execution would be having your former protagonist come into conflict with your current one somehow.

So say Hawke showed up and opposes the Inquisitor for some reason, because of choices you made. Or the Inquisitior shows up as an ally in DA4 but betrays you or one of your companions depending on how you decide to deal with Solas, etc. Or what if you lost Varric if you let Hawke die. That sort of thing.

What is missing is a reason for the characters to be involved/engaged in the situation, as well as the player.

 

I'd be semi-fine with that as long as I am actually playing as both characters, and it's not that Bioware has taken one away from me and chosen what they guessed my previous character would do based off one or two binary flags from the keep.

[CronoDragoon]

I'm not sure what you mean by holistic experience, but the moment you do this you completely break immersion in the plot. The player is no longer following the plot, but is thinking about whether making the choice they really want to make, makes any sense with what the characters would logically do.

 

By holistic experience, I mean that I consider role-playing as only one tool that contributes to the player's overall experience with the story. The presence or absence of role-playing does not by its nature lessen or strengthen my enjoyment of a particular plot piece. It all depends on context.

 

I disagree that appealing to the player necessarily breaks immersion. In the example I gave of choosing a Divine, I still picked based on who my Inquisitor thought would make the best Divine. But the choice was only as emotional as it was because it leveraged Dragon Age's unique storytelling to appeal to the player, as well. Now, others players might well take into account their own preferences separate from the character. But I think the objection about breaking role-playing doesn't really apply there, since such a person probably does not value the strict adherence to player-character coherence that a hardcore role-player does in the first place.

[Abyss108]

By holistic experience, I mean that I consider role-playing as only one tool that contributes to the player's overall experience with the story. The presence or absence of role-playing does not by its nature lessen or strengthen my enjoyment of a particular plot piece. It all depends on context.

 

I disagree that appealing to the player necessarily breaks immersion. In the example I gave of choosing a Divine, I still picked based on who my Inquisitor thought would make the best Divine. But the choice was only as emotional as it was because it leveraged Dragon Age's unique storytelling to appeal to the player, as well. Now, others players might well take into account their own preferences separate from the character. But I think the objection about breaking role-playing doesn't really apply there, since such a person probably does not value the strict adherence to player-character coherence that a hardcore role-player does in the first place.

 

Sure, it's only one part of enjoying the plot, I'd agree with that. But it's a major one in a role playing game that values it like Bioware does.

 

I disagree about your point that a strict role player doesn't care about this - I'm a strict roleplayer, and because it looks like Bioware is creating this situation for the next game, I won't purchase it. This could not have had any more of an effect on me.

[CronoDragoon]

I disagree about your point that a strict role player doesn't care about this - I'm a strict roleplayer, and because it looks like Bioware is creating this situation for the next game, I won't purchase it. This could not have had any more of an effect on me.

 

I said the opposite, though: "such a person" was in reference to "those who allow their own preferences to affect decisions" not "those who object to breaking role-playing."

 

My point was that the meta-conflict can have real meaning and emotion to me even though I didn't take it into account when making character decisions. The choice is still coherent from the character's point of view: it's not like the Inquisitor doesn't understand why someone is deciding to stay back and fight the Fade demon. That's why I don't think it breaks role-playing. But there is an additional dimension added that enhances my enjoyment of the experience.

 

So, bringing this back to Banshee's original criticism: she sees it as a punishment for those starting with DAI. I see it as a reward for series veterans.

[Ieldra]

Not giving a character adequate development/characterization, having a huge disconnect between the protagonist and the player (not to mention new players vs old players), having a parade of pointless fanservice cameos rather than taking the time to flesh out new characters is "great?" Well...um congratulations I guess. DA4 is guaranteed to have a ton of that.

(1) There are quite a few new characters in DAI, and there is no reason why every character needs to be new.
(2) Those who played the earlier games will mostly appreciate seeing the old characters again, while they will be new for those who start with DAI. Everyone wins. Or nearly everyone, given your dissatisfaction.
(3) Varying protagonists and recurring NPCs are different things.

I understand your dissatisfaction with the outcome of Trespasser and the lack of a conclusive ending for the Inquisitor's story, but really, I have no idea what your problem with recurring NPCs is. Characters hold the story together, and not just the protagonist. Without recurring characters, the DA games would be a set of disconnected stories and each game would start at zero. Recurring characters are almost indispensible for a multiple-volume story.

[Dorrieb]

And there it is - the actual complaint. Yes, I know this is the real reason for the argument, and not some point of principle on narratives. And for the record Anderson has a book. It came first. We could also use the force awakens as an example

 

That is a point of narrative principle. And no, of course the book didn't come first. You're confusing the narrative chronology with the real life chronology.

 

Reading about Anderson in a novel is not like playing as Anderson in a game. Or at least it isn't for some people, such as myself, and arguably shouldn't be. The argument is that role-playing games are not novels or movies, and should be experienced differently. Whether that is a rule or just one option is certainly up for debate, but don't pretend that it's not a valid question.

 

As I said before, half the people don't understand what the other half is talking about. Surely after all this discussion you at least understand why some people see a narrative problem, even if you don't?

[Abyss108]

I said the opposite, though: "such a person" was in reference to "those who allow their own preferences to affect decisions" not "those who object to breaking role-playing."

 

My point was that the meta-conflict can have real meaning and emotion to me even though I didn't take it into account when making character decisions. The choice is still coherent from the character's point of view: it's not like the Inquisitor doesn't understand why someone is deciding to stay back and fight the Fade demon. That's why I don't think it breaks role-playing. But there is an additional dimension added that enhances my enjoyment of the experience.

 

So, bringing this back to Banshee's original criticism: she sees it as a punishment for those starting with DAI. I see it as a reward for series veterans.

 

I don't consider having the main character of a story act out of character and nonsensical to be fun or a reward, no. I don't consider the game spending 150 hours getting me to care about a character, and then telling me to play a character who has no possible reason to care about them and every possible reason to want them dead, fun or a reward.

 

Now I just hate the game for making me care about someone by giving me the option to play a character and viewpoint that does, but then snatching that viewpoint away from me the very moment it becomes important and telling me that no, I don't actually get to play that.

[Dorrieb]

I don't buy into the obsession with role-playing. What matters is the holistic experience of the game. If breaking role-playing can provide a better experience, then in principle I'm for it.

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Does it matter whether it's role-playing or not?

 

All I can say is that to some of us it does matter. It's cool that it doesn't matter to you, but to a lot of others it does, and I would point out that DA is sold as 'a high-fantasy role-playing game', from a company with a long history of bringing us role-playing games. It's not an unreasonable expectation.

[In Exile]

It's not a good thing. It's a great thing. It's something that's uniquely possible in a continuous world state with different PCs, and I'd like to see more of it.

It's one of the most true to life things Bioware had ever done. Hawke is - and we know this - someone's lover, child, friend, etc., but may well die (as she did in one my PTs) because my Inquisitor thought that Stroud (of all people!) would be more valuable as a tool to unite the Wardens following up on their fall. And in another case Alistair was sent off to his death, because some random Grey Warden, even one who fought then AD, isn't worth as much as someone who survived Corypheus (and may be able to do more to stop him rather than be a tool controlled by him).

[In Exile]

It's not a good thing. It's a great thing. It's something that's uniquely possible in a continuous world state with different PCs, and I'd like to see more of it.

It's one of the most true to life things Bioware had ever done. Hawke is - and we know this - someone's lover, child, friend, etc., but may well die (as she did in one my PTs) because my Inquisitor thought that Stroud (of all people!) would be more valuable as a tool to unite the Wardens following up on their fall. And in another case Alistair was sent off to his death, because some random Grey Warden, even one who fought then AD, isn't worth as much as someone who survived Corypheus (and may be able to do more to stop him rather than be a tool controlled by him).

[Mistic]

That is a point of narrative principle. And no, of course the book didn't come first. You're confusing the narrative chronology with the real life chronology.

 

Actually, Mass Effect: Revelation was published on May 7, 2007 and the first Mass Effect game was released on November 20, 2007. So, in this case, narrative and real-life chronology match.

 

It's one of the most true to life things Bioware had ever done. Hawke is - and we know this - someone's lover, child, friend, etc., but may well die (as she did in one my PTs) because my Inquisitor thought that Stroud (of all people!) would be more valuable as a tool to unite the Wardens following up on their fall. And in another case Alistair was sent off to his death, because some random Grey Warden, even one who fought then AD, isn't worth as much as someone who survived Corypheus (and may be able to do more to stop him rather than be a tool controlled by him).

 

It also makes you think that Stroud was also someone's lover, child, friend, etc. He has less connection to the player than Hawke or Alistair, but for the Inquisitor they are all the same. Ok, almost the same; you can argue that Hawke being Varric's best friend is a better connection. Still, there's that: for your PC in DA:I, your previous PC is reduced to, at best, your follower's best friend.

 

I understand why some people may find it underwhelming. However, I like it. Every time, it forces me to change my point of view. A role-playing challenge, so to speak. It helps to have a deeper and more complete vision of Thedas, I think, instead of the characters, which may be the intended effect. Of course, if you don't agree with that effect, it can be a pain. At this point, I guess it's a matter of narrative tastes.

[Nefla]

I understand your dissatisfaction with the outcome of Trespasser and the lack of a conclusive ending for the Inquisitor's story, but really, I have no idea what your problem with recurring NPCs is. Characters hold the story together, and not just the protagonist. Without recurring characters, the DA games would be a set of disconnected stories and each game would start at zero. Recurring characters are almost indispensible for a multiple-volume story.

I'm fine with a past character showing up again if it makes sense. For instance I had no problem with Teagan or Cyrill Prosper showing up in Trespasser as representatives of their countries. A returning character here and there where it makes sense and where the story has a strong reason for them to be there is fine by me but when it's so excessive like it was in DA:I it has 3 main effects:

 

1) It makes the world feel very small. (Are you sure we're in a completely different country and involved in a different story because all the same people are showing up on our doorstep...)

2) It makes you wonder where the previous protagonist is and why you're playing a new protagonist at all. If their spouse, their kid, and several of their friends show up but they are nowhere to be seen you're just left thinking "what gives?"

3) They rely on the development and relationship building they did in the books/comics/previous game and often don't bother to flesh the returning character out in the new game or build a relationship between the old character and the new PC. Celine, Gaspard, Briala, and Fiona all relied on me having read the books, the problem is...I didn't read the books. Those characters were just undeveloped cardboard cutouts to me. Even characters I'd liked before felt like shallow shadows of themselves (Leliana, Varric, Hawke, Morrigan).

 

There was zero reason for Varric to be in this game at all, he was pure fanservice (plus if he stayed with Hawke for over a decade, why would he randomly decide to follow some new person in a different country around instead?) as was Cullen. Leliana keeps getting bumped up in importance so they can keep shoehorning her into each game (writer's pet) but I wish she'd just stayed in DA:O. The story would have been better if a new warden that wasn't Loghain/Alistair/Stroud and was part of Clarel's forces was the one to help us. They'd be closer to the situation, maybe we could even have rescued them from being sacrificed and that's how we find out about the nutso wardens rather than Hawke randomly shows up and takes you to a cave where you talk to the cameo character (why were they in a cave instead of going with Hawke to Skyhold..?).

 

I wanted Dragon Age to be a set of separate stories (or an actual continued story with the same protagonist). Wasn't "Thedas" supposed to be the protagonist anyway? The more they re-use the same characters, the less room there is for new characters with new perspectives and new cultures (thus helping to flesh out Thedas). DA isn't really one story, it's pretty much a mess of 3 separate stories in separate places with separate protagonists only to be sloppily stuck to each other with unresolved background plot points and forcing the last person's companion on the next person.

 

I know that there are a lot of people that just want to see their favorite characters back and will be happy no matter the circumstances and that's fine but I don't feel that way. I want what makes the best and most coherent story.

 

Not that it matters anymore.

[Dorrieb]

Actually, Mass Effect: Revelation was published on May 7, 2007 and the first Mass Effect game was released on November 20, 2007. So, in this case, narrative and real-life chronology match.

 

I stand corrected, but it makes no difference to the argument, does it?

[Mistic]

I stand corrected, but it makes no difference to the argument, does it?

 

It depends, I guess.

 

I understand that the matter of debate was if using a new character with no connection to the past villain is a good move. In Exile could legitimately argue that a person who first experienced the Mass Effect universe through the book could say it was unsatisfying to use Shepard instead of Anderson in the games.

 

Since Shepard is a beloved protagonist for many players who won't agree with that opinion, some could argue that in the end it's a matter of what works in the final game, not a point of "narrative principle". That unless we argue:

 

1. That being forced to play as Shepard was indeed a disservice to those who read the book first.

2. That such an opinion doesn't count because only a handful would be in that situation (an appeal to popularity).

3. That such an opinion doesn't count because book experience is inferior to game experience.

 

If I'm not mistaken (correct me if I am), I think the later is your case. "Reading about Anderson in a novel is not like playing as Anderson in a game". As you yourself say, whether that it's a rule or just one option is a matter of debate. Which means that, for those who agree with your stance, that Anderson's book came before or after makes no difference to the argument. However, for those who don't agree, the book does indeed make a difference.

 

TL;DR: Do you consider all stories equal? Then the book counts. You don't? Then the book doesn't count.

[Dorrieb]

It depends, I guess.

 

I understand that the matter of debate was if using a new character with no connection to the past villain is a good move. In Exile could legitimately argue that a person who first experienced the Mass Effect universe through the book could say it was unsatisfying to use Shepard instead of Anderson in the games.

 

Since Shepard is a beloved protagonist for many players who won't agree with that opinion, some could argue that in the end it's a matter of what works in the final game, not a point of "narrative principle". That unless we argue:

 

1. That being forced to play as Shepard was indeed a disservice to those who read the book first.

2. That such an opinion doesn't count because only a handful would be in that situation (an appeal to popularity).

3. That such an opinion doesn't count because book experience is inferior to game experience.

 

If I'm not mistaken (correct me if I am), I think the later is your case. "Reading about Anderson in a novel is not like playing as Anderson in a game". As you yourself say, whether that it's a rule or just one option is a matter of debate. Which means that, for those who agree with your stance, that Anderson's book came before or after makes no difference to the argument. However, for those who don't agree, the book does indeed make a difference.

 

TL;DR: Do you consider all stories equal? Then the book counts. You don't? Then the book doesn't count.

 

I'm the last person who would ever suggest that book experience is 'inferior' to game experience. I love books. I read at least 3 every month, and good ones too.

 

But all stories are NOT equal. A novel is not a movie. A tv series is not a comic book. Every medium demands different narrative techniques. A movie is not experienced in the same way as a novel, which is why the adaptation of a story from a book to a movie is not a copy, but a unique work in its own right, based on the original material. People who say that they haven't read X book, 'but they've seen the movie' are simply being ignorant. It's like saying that you've never been to Paris, but you've seen it on TV and you think it's the same thing.

 

When did I say that one was 'inferior'? There are very good movies based on very bad books, and vice-versa, and so too for plays, tv series, comic-books, games, etc. Each is a different art form, experienced differently. They have different relationships of time and space, different approaches to structure and theme, and different connections to the reader / audience.

 

That's why some works are said to be 'unfilmable', like the stories of Jorge Luis Borges, for example. On the other hand, 'Rosencranz and Guildenstern Are Dead' would be a pretty bad novel. It's a play about the nature of reality within a play, it wouldn't work outside of that context. It was adapted into a fantastic movie, and yet the movie is not the play. The movie 'Watchmen' is practically a frame-for-frame reproduction of the comic-book 'Watchmen', and yet it manages to completely miss the point of it. Why? Because Scott Snyder doesn't understand this. Charlie Kaufman does understand it, and that's what 'Adaptation' and 'Being John Malkovich' are all about.

 

What I'm saying is that 'watching John Malkovich' isn't the same as 'being John Malkovich' or 'reading about John Malkovich'. Or in this case, 'being David Anderson'.

 

TL;DR: Why would I bother to explain complex things if I assumed you were too lazy or dull to read them, and provide you with a condescending TL;DR? That would be an insult to your intelligence.

[BansheeOwnage]

 

TL;DR: Do you consider all stories equal? Then the book counts. You don't? Then the book doesn't count.

They didn't say books don't count or are inferior, they said reading one is a lot different from playing an RPG.

 

Edit: