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...
Not exactly a tangent since the stories are most likely the defining reason people want or don;t want a new PC. Feel free to talk about this some more, i would be interested in an elaboration.
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/
I prefer rotating protagonists, not least because I both abhor the world (galaxy) revolving around a single PC and because I think it makes for better stories to rise to prominance rather than be super-mega-awesome-accomplished from the start.
But really, what I also appreciate is the changing of the guard and the companions. With a reoccuring protagonist, you kneecap your companion cast and love interests with the expectations of cameos and returns. And while you could Perma-Death your companions and LIs as a matter of plot to prune the cast, I doubt Bioware would.
Given that Bioware has a pretty bad showing of actually planning plot, let alone character arcs, across games, I'd rather avoid a series of nigh-immortal canon buddies I may not like and focus on letting new companions and new LI's abound. Cameos can have their place (Varric) without being shoehorned in despite their developments (Mass Effect).
The way you're describing that link is a little bit misleading. They didn't decide to have new PCs every time when they were making DA:O because they weren't thinking about sequels at all.
i'm OK with new PCs every time. The hard part about doing sequels is accounting for choices. A new PC lets you shed some of the baggage.
I noticed. I'm trying to think of another way to phrase it. What i mean is that there are people who say they have "always" intended to use a new PC, but that can't really be true if they didn't think what was going to happen after Origins. That doesn't really take away from them if they're dead set on it after they made Origins. They know what they're doing more than i could
People want all choices to matter and get all upset when the choices in the end don't differ from each other completely. In order to have a smoother transition from PC to PC, they need to be able to account for choices, hence the limited difference no matter what you do.
Not exactly a tangent since the stories are most likely the defining reason people want or don;t want a new PC. Feel free to talk about this some more, i would be interested in an elaboration.
Well, since you asked.... 
I feel like the old myths and legends of Thedas should have remained old myths and legends. Making them "real" turns them from a part of the setting to a part of the story, and it eliminates a certain amount of diversity, I suppose you could say, in how you can approach characters, both from a player and non-player sense. After Trespasser, there is 0 reason to treat belief in the elven pantheon as legitimate (I honestly got the impression in the previous games that the Dalish didn't really consider them anything more than fables anyway, but DAI simultaneously indicated that they were both legitimately revered and then swept the carpet out from under it anyway). The same way, for instance, that they said they wouldn't confirm/deny the Maker, because it weakens the characters of people like Leliana, who are defined in part by their faith. Not to mention the whole "the religion was wrong and/or evil all along!" is such a tired trope in RPGs. I like(d) the ambiguity of there being no (readily apparent) holy power of Everlasting Goodness, nor the idea that "Satan" was secretly behind it all the whole time!, either.
And like I said, it's all about the present, for me. In the first Dragon Age game, as your original post noted, there was no real plan for a sequel, so everything relevant to the story was wrapped up nicely. Sure, there were still outside threats to be considered like the idea of a Qunari invasion, or treatment of the Mages, but those were just part of the setting that could be dealt with if a future game was ever made, but didn't really have to be to make the story make sense. And "mysteries" like where the Darkspawn came from or what Flemeth's deal was, similarly, weren't important. The Darkspawn were there, they had to be stopped. Why they were there was immaterial. And personally, I thought that was great.
And then starting with Awakening, we gradually saw a buildup of loose ends, and it just got more and more convoluted with time. Corfishystix showing up in Legacy and throwing everything for a loop made me interested in the truth, sure, but I feel like since then, I feel like the games have been moving in the wrong direction. It's become less and less about great heroes rising to the occasion and doing great things that will move the world into a new age, and more about fixing things that got torqued up ten thousand years ago or some such, yet just now need to be conveniently dealt with.
As far as Dragon Age goes, new protagonist all the way.
Well, since you asked....
Thanks a bunch for the long reply.
I agree with the direction changing a lot. I always knew religion would play into it eventually though, the Elven one especially. It has always been a trope of the game. "Look at all the poor wickle elves who can't do anything for themselves", and the lack of knowledge on the Dalish made me think that would come up sooner or later.
In fact, even the Darkspawn are intrinsically linked to the religions of Thedas. The elves think it was the humans fault, and the humans blame the mages who think it's just an excuse made by the Chantry to abuse them. The religion has always been a theme, so it was really only a matter of time before they exploited that.
I myself am not too bothered by Solas' reckoning. And in fact, by telling us he is responsible for the vail, he somewhat disproves the Chantry beliefs. For people like Leliana, they will always find a way to reconcile truth with religion.
But i get what you're saying. The sense of impending doom in the contemporary events was good enough for the story, without convoluted and arbitrary stories coming into play.
As far as Dragon Age goes, new protagonist all the way.
Is there any particular reason for this? Why do you prefer it that way?
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.
We're getting all of this in DA4 even if the entire game focuses exclusively on Solas. This is why I struggle with the position that we need to have the same protagonist carry over. Because there really isn't a connection at all to the previous plot. Dropping hints about a new plot, or hinting at a new antagonist, is not tying the previous character to a new one.
Hawke didn't need to be in DA:I just because Hawke met Corypheus first.
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.
Being told information definitely works for a lot of people but sadly not for me. I'm all about the details, the personal connections and so on. If a game simply tells me something I won't believe it or care. If it's in any way important they have to show it, to build it up, develop it and make it real for me otherwise it's just nothing. I believed Grand Admiral Thrawn(Star Wars) was a master of strategy, tactics, and manipulation because his actions were described to me, they occurred as part of the story. I didn't believe Empress Celine as a brilliant strategist/manipulator despite being told she was by a few characters because her actions didn't reflect that and we never got to experience any of her supposed brilliance. DA:O didn't have this problem for me because there was nothing for them to fall back on as "oh the player already knows this from ____ so we don't have to show it or develop it." DA2 and DA:I had too much of this IMO. We're told for example that elves are oppressed second class citizens and yet we never see it or experience it. They relied on you knowing about the oppression of elves from DA:O.
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...
The idea of a protagonist and antagonist with a personal connection is very interesting to me at least. So is the antagonist being someone we know, someone who's not just another generic "evil guy." I also love the idea of being able to play a character who has to deal with not only a fall from grace/power but with the physical and emotional loss of a limb. I see a lot of potential there.
We're getting all of this in DA4 even if the entire game focuses exclusively on Solas. This is why I struggle with the position that we need to have the same protagonist carry over. Because there really isn't a connection at all to the previous plot. Dropping hints about a new plot, or hinting at a new antagonist, is not tying the previous character to a new one.Hawke didn't need to be in DA:I just because Hawke met Corypheus first.
I think there are many people who put Solas' story in a completely different level as Cory. You know with the friendship/enemy/lover routes and the fact the Inquisitor is already aware of him and what he is doing. Many, like myself, got very invested in Solas' story. And he was always something of an antagonist. He helps you to help himself, but his goals were always truly at odds with the Inquisitor.
Personally i would rather have the Inquisitor deal with Solas, because i want a Magister or Tevinter slave to deal with the Qunari. Because i consider these stories to be dependent on each other to be strong and make sense. (You, and indeed Bioware, may completely disagree)
We're getting all of this in DA4 even if the entire game focuses exclusively on Solas. This is why I struggle with the position that we need to have the same protagonist carry over. Because there really isn't a connection at all to the previous plot. Dropping hints about a new plot, or hinting at a new antagonist, is not tying the previous character to a new one.Hawke didn't need to be in DA:I just because Hawke met Corypheus first.
Oh we'll definitely get some new things but too many old things will carry over. When I say I want those new things, I want ONLY new things (the location is the only thing that can be the same). If I have a new protagonist I don't want any of the old protagonist's companions or any NPCs they knew or their arch enemy or the plotline they were involved in. I want it completely separate or I want a continuation with the same protagonist. Shoving in a ton of old characters with no relation to the new setting or the new protagonist just seems like excessive fanservice.
Trespasser opened up a new plot with a personal connection between the current protagonist and the future antagonist.
The connection between Hawke and Corypheus was pretty much nothing. The connection between Hawke and the mage-templar war would have been strong and if the game had been about that instead of another generic evil guy trying to destroy the world it would have been about a million times better in my eyes.
My position is that I have very strong likes and dislikes and at one point I had enough faith in BioWare to think "maybe they could take what I consider a sub-par setup and really make it great" but those days are over.
Many, like myself, got very invested in Solas' story.
And you'll be able to continue that story, just with a different protagonist.
For me, that is not preferable. But that actually depends on what they have planned. I prefer new PC's with none of the baggage from the last PC. Especially since DA2 to Inquisition did not work well with someone else solving another PC's mess.
Is there any particular reason for this? Why do you prefer it that way?
For Dragon Age, I think it's better that we get new protagonists in different starting positions from around Thedas. It's the smoothest way to transition the player from one story to the next, and it allows for fresh roleplaying possibilities with the new protagonist perspective.
For Dragon Age, I think it's better that we get new protagonists in different starting positions from around Thedas. It's the smoothest way to transition the player from one story to the next, and it allows for fresh roleplaying possibilities with the new protagonist perspective.
I see. Those are good reasons. Thank you for the response (
)/
I prefer a new protagonist each game. Since many (probably most) Inquisitors have an emotional connection to Solas, my preferred set-up for DA4 would be dual protagonists. We'd play as a new character most of the time, but control the Inquisitor during a few key scenes.
The reason I prefer a new protagonist is that I don't really want to carry a lot of emotional baggage forward into each new game. So far, three of my five Inquisitors are in committed relationships by the end of the game - one is even married! - and I have little hope that DA4 would give my 'canon' Inquisitor the chance to respond adequately to Blackwall's death if she were the main protagonist again. The only one that might benefit from being the main character in future is my Solas-mancing Lavellan, and then only because I'd like her to be able to move on with someone new and rub Solas' face in it when they meet up again.
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.
The thing is, the cliffhanger from the end of Trespasser establishes Solas as the primary instigator behind the world of Thedas as we've come to know it. If the theories are correct, then the entirety of the first game was just a fraction of a side effect caused by what he did. In which case, every other storyline is utterly dwarfed (pun not intended) by his significance. Even if the next game goes off on more of a tangent, things will eventually have to loop back to the guy who started everything with one apocalyptic catastrophe and now intends to end it with yet another apocalyptic catastrophe.
The only one that might benefit from being the main character in future is my Solas-mancing Lavellan, and then only because I'd like her to be able to move on with someone new and rub Solas' face in it when they meet up again.
I'm not a Solas-mancer, but I can certainly see this desire. However, I'm not sure how much romance content we are likely to get for the Inquisitor in the next game, if they are indeed in it. The primary reason for this is that, aside from the huge mess for Solas-mancers, it would be disproportionately unfair to have a great deal of content for the Solas and (probably) the Dorian romanced Inquisitors. I say this as a Dorian-mancer myself. I just don't see them offering a great deal of content in that area.
Now, that's not to say that a Solas-mancer won't see closure of some kind, but it might only be as alternate romance dialogues for a scene that every Inquisitor will take part in, like the final Trespasser scene.
You have the problem of new potential LI, and most Inquisitors being stuck without a way to break up with the DAI LI. Dorian would likely be the only one with a breakup option, since I doubt the game will allow you to send a "Dear John/Jane" letter, and we're not likely to see Solas regularly. Some Inquisitors are married. I suppose they could give the Inquisitor the option to cheat, which would be an interesting concept if presented as cheating (not something I would do, but it's an option), but I don't see them doing this either.
I love having a new protagonist in each game since it curbs my restartitis. So I can continue the story line and still play around with 2-3 different character concepts over the course of the story.
And there is less chance of continuity breaks with my characters between games. So they can't pacify Tildren McMurderknife and force him to let obviously hindering shems live. And I don't have to recreate my characters faces on a different engine, which is very nice for someone who can't recreate the same things twice (and lack of mods between games becomes less annoying).
And I can romance different people, so it doesn't get stale. And the character doesn't need to get ability amnesia between games to keep them from attaining their emperor god status. And the character doesn't have time to get boring, so they are constantly funky fresh.
And it's not as annoying if the protagonist of one game is particularly boring or annoying, since I'll be playing a new one in the next game and that one might be awesome. Or they might be worse and I'll learn to love the boring old lug from the game before.
And that's alot of ands.
But tl;dr I like having a new protagonist between each games because I like playing with different character concepts.
I'm not a Solas-mancer, but I can certainly see this desire. However, I'm not sure how much romance content we are likely to get for the Inquisitor in the next game, if they are indeed in it.
Well, yeah, that's why I want a new protagonist, or at the very least a new co-protagonist who does the romancing part of the game.
The Mass Effect series handled this poorly, and I'd prefer not to see a repeat.
I didn't believe Empress Celine as a brilliant strategist/manipulator despite being told she was by a few characters because her actions didn't reflect that and we never got to experience any of her supposed brilliance.
Retour en haut