414 réponses à ce sujet

[Nefla]

But that's a good thing in this specific instance. Depending on your course through WEWH, your Inquisitor can reasonably -- though wrongly -- come to the conclusion that Celene is an incompetent who should be allowed to die. It's a lot more interesting this way.

It's not interesting for me. IMO it's just poor characterization. It would be one thing if she was shown to be a great political schemer but she lacked military knowledge or didn't care about the day-to-day lives of her people or what have you but that wasn't the case (at least in my eyes).

[AlanC9]

Because it isn't... personal? You've talked about this before, and I've never really followed it. There are all sorts of things that I don't experience ITRW that are nevertheless important facts.

We may have a disagreement about how RPGs should present information. I don't like seeing stuff that my PC didn't see if it would influence my PC's decision-making. Bio games occasionally cross this line.

[Big I]

I don't mind having a new protagonist every game. I just much prefer having a single protagonist that carries over.

 

By the end of Mass Effect 3 I cared more about Shepard than I have about any other video game protagonist. And because I cared about Shepard, I cared about the people around him and the world he lived in. I was invested in curing the genophage and saving the geth. I cared about saving Jack and Grunt during their missions. I really, really cared about stopping the Reapers and saving the galaxy.

 

In Dragon Age there are a lot of things I don't care about, even after three games. I don't care, even a little, about Kirkwall. DA:O made me care about Ferelden, but DA:I didn't make me care about Orlais. I didn't really care about stopping Corypheus because he seemed fairly useless as a threat. I spent a lot of time becoming invested in the Inquisiton as an organisation, but since Trespasser neuters or destroys it I guess that was a waste.

 

Imagine if the Warden had been the protagonist of all three games. A hero who saves the world in DA:O, gets sucked into political nonsense in the Free Marches in DA2, and then has to rally the south in DA:I to save the world again from an ancient and powerful monster. Now that sounds like something I'd have loved.

[Witch Cocktor]

I prefer a new protagonist every time if the last protagonist's story has come to some kind of closure.

I worry for DA4 and how the Inquisitor is going to be involved, and I'm already set up to be disappointed. 

[BansheeOwnage]

I don't mind having a new protagonist every game. I just much prefer having a single protagonist that carries over.

 

By the end of Mass Effect 3 I cared more about Shepard than I have about any other video game protagonist. And because I cared about Shepard, I cared about the people around him and the world he lived in. I was invested in curing the genophage and saving the geth. I cared about saving Jack and Grunt during their missions. I really, really cared about stopping the Reapers and saving the galaxy.

 

In Dragon Age there are a lot of things I don't care about, even after three games. I don't care, even a little, about Kirkwall. DA:O made me care about Ferelden, but DA:I didn't make me care about Orlais. I didn't really care about stopping Corypheus because he seemed fairly useless as a threat. I spent a lot of time becoming invested in the Inquisiton as an organisation, but since Trespasser neuters or destroys it I guess that was a waste.

 

Imagine if the Warden had been the protagonist of all three games. A hero who saves the world in DA:O, gets sucked into political nonsense in the Free Marches in DA2, and then has to rally the south in DA:I to save the world again from an ancient and powerful monster. Now that sounds like something I'd have loved.

Well said. Games with recurring protagonists and characters make me care about them deeply (if done well, of course), ME in particular. Obviously this won't be the case for everyone, but it is for me. I want to be invested, because then the story means more. If it means more, I enjoy it more. Pretty straightforward really.

[Dai Grepher]

I'll just put this out there first. Anyone who wants to see the (ex)Inquisitor again in the main role should not demand it for the next game, they should demand an expansion adventure or DLC quest of Inquisition with the (ex)Inquisitor in the main role.

With that out of the way, I prefer a new protagonist for every new installment. A new game gives a new opportunity for a new custom character.

Now, I wasn't always for this. When I finished Origins I was moved by the whole game, and I felt a connection with my custom character. Then I got to import into Awakening, and my choices carried over perfectly. And I got to continue playing as my character. New adventures for my character. Great. Amgarrack and Witch Hunt, while a little off the wall, we're both extra adventures that I enjoyed. So when DA2 was announced I was excited to see my Origins/Awakening character return for yet another game. When I found out that it was a different protagonist, I was angry. I swore I would not buy the game. More information revealed that the character wasn't even that customizable. It was from one background. That made it feel like BioWare's character to me, and sure enough I was right. So I didn't buy DA2. I didn't plan to play it either, but one of my friends got bored with his copy before even entering the Deep Roads, and so he gave me his copy.

Hawke wasn't our character. It was BioWare's. So DA2 is more like Leliana's Song. We are playing a character that BioWare defines for the most part.

Then in Inquisition we got a new setting and a new chance to make a character that was truly ours. I spent 3 hours in the character creator just seeing what I found appealing for my new character. I think I spent another hour trying to decide on a name. At the end of it I was excited to see my character come to life in the cutscene.

So as long as we get to create the character, and the character has various backgrounds to choose from (or at least one highly interesting human background), then I prefer that new games have new protagonists. And when I think about why I changed my mind, it's actually because of Hawke and DA2. It's like that broke the series away from my demand to just continue the Hero's adventures.

I want to see my Hero of Ferelden again, and I even want to see "my" Champion of Kirkwall again as default in appearance as she is, and I liked seeing her in Inquisition, and I want to see my Inquisitor again, but not as the protag of a new game. I want them to appear in their own adventures released as well-written DLCs.

[Nefla]

Because it isn't... personal? You've talked about this before, and I've never really followed it. There are all sorts of things that I don't experience ITRW that are nevertheless important facts.

We may have a disagreement about how RPGs should present information. I don't like seeing stuff that my PC didn't see if it would influence my PC's decision-making. Bio games occasionally cross this line.

In part, but does it matter? You don't understand what I like and I don't understand how others could like to be told things rather than see them and experience them. Everyone has their own preferences and we're never going to argue each other into having different ones. I want the storytelling in my games to be as good as any book or movie or TV show. I don't want to be told "your character just had their village destroyed and now they want to get revenge on the evil guy responsible" and then shoo-ed away to go kill some things. Make me believe it. Make me care.

 

I wasn't talking about seeing things the protagonist doesn't see. I want both myself and the protagonist to experience something, not one or the other. I wanted Celine to actually come up with something clever at the ball, I wanted to see a slice of Hawke's life in Lothering so I could really feel the loss when it was gone. If people are starving and dying I want to see it and not just be told about it, I want to get to know people outside the Inquisition itself, etc...

[Inkvisiittori]

This is what Mike Laidlaw said in 'Mark Darrah on the conclusion of Dragon Age II' thread (year 2012):

 

Q: Will I play my... {protagonist here]... again?

A: Again, reiterating something from a few months back, our goal is that new major installments in the DA games will have new protagonists and, generally, tell new stories. It's safe to assume we'll do that for "The Next Thing™", and then we'll evaluate again. Starting over with new characters provides us a chance to tell new stories in the place and time of the Dragon Age, rather than just one character's story.

 

 

Now, personally, I got this kind of empty feeling after finishing DAI. I was so invested in my character, I loved her and her story, and just thinking that this is the end was sad. After investing so much time in creating her it just feels sad to think I won't be able to play her again. Especially because I think one game is not enough and her story isn't really over. I do like to create new characters, but after a while it can get tiresome. Just when you love your characters you have to let them go and start all over again from nothing. I don't want Dragon Age to be like Mass Effect, but I just think that the Inquisitor deserves another game because there is so much of her story that is not yet finished.

 

I felt the same way after Origins. I was so disappointed when I found out that I couldn't play DA2 as my Warden. Now I'm okay with not being able to ever again play him because it's been ten years since DA:A, and we have the Inquisitor now. Wardens story is over and I'm happy with the way they have been treated by Bioware so far, but for the Inquisitor it very much feels like DAI was only the beginning. Drinking from the Well of Sorrows, loss of their arm and did they also lose the Anchor or is it still part of them somehow - there is so many questions that have not yet been answered. So, yes I would like to continue the next game as my Inquisitor (but I admit I have also already started planning my possible new characters for DA4, just in case...)

 

If the Inquisitor is not the main character, then I would at least want DA4 to have dual-protagonist system, so that we can get a proper ending to Solas & Inquisitors stories. The personal conflict between them is really interesting and has potential to make DA4 one of the best games Bioware has ever made. Compelling 'villain' with deep personal connection to the 'hero' - that's what all great stories need. If you are Solas friend, rival, or lover it will likely have a great impact on what kind of story it's going to be - just think of the possibilities! Also Solas is ancient elven god... if he has to be stopped then who could do it better than the Inquisitor? She knows his magic better than anyone AND has already killed two 'gods.'

[In Exile]

In part, but does it matter? You don't understand what I like and I don't understand how others could like to be told things rather than see them and experience them. Everyone has their own preferences and we're never going to argue each other into having different ones. I want the storytelling in my games to be as good as any book or movie or TV show. I don't want to be told "your character just had their village destroyed and now they want to get revenge on the evil guy responsible" and then shoo-ed away to go kill some things. Make me believe it. Make me care.

 

I wasn't talking about seeing things the protagonist doesn't see. I want both myself and the protagonist to experience something, not one or the other. I wanted Celine to actually come up with something clever at the ball, I wanted to see a slice of Hawke's life in Lothering so I could really feel the loss when it was gone. If people are starving and dying I want to see it and not just be told about it, I want to get to know people outside the Inquisition itself, etc...

 

Then can't make you believe it. It's impossible. That's the fundamental aspect of an RPG - games don't determine your motivation for you. They can't make you believe it, and they can't make you care. DA:O, for example, can't make the give a **** about being a Grey Warden or even want to save Ferelden. I either buy into that premise or go play a different game. 

[MaxQuartiroli]

I like to have different protagonists for every game, but I'd like it way more if every protagonist didn't have to clean the garbage left behind by his predecessors

[cindercatz]

@OP

I've gone into this topic at length a number of times. So, as succinctly as I can put it, I believe the new protagonists approach along with tight continuity has fantastic potential, unique potential. But I also believe they've thus far chosen not to pursue that, and that's resulted in seriously dimenishing my enthusiasm and expectations for their approach and the property as a whole. I want to see protagonists recur throughout the series along with other characters the story would naturally call for, one way or another, while our primary perspective moves to a new character each game. But they've never invested in making that work to its highest potential, and some of the high position devs have basically expressed contempt and incredulity at the idea, so the current approach has lost most of its appeal to me. We at least need to see origins make a comeback if what we're really going to get are basically stand alone installments, like a Final Fantasy or something. Each game may as well be in another world for the most part, and some people only really want to see that go on the same way, so I don't have any expectation they're really going to make it work anymore.

So I'm disappointed in the series as far as that goes. I don't see them really trying to reach out and make it special. Sorry for the down note. I do hope they improve on the single game protagonists and what we can do with them, though. I do see the effort there.

[Eelectrica]

I like the new PC approach. My favorite parts of an RPG are at the beginning, building a new character up from nothing.

That can still be done I suppose with a set character, but building a new character up for me is more interesting.

[cindercatz]

In part, but does it matter? You don't understand what I like and I don't understand how others could like to be told things rather than see them and experience them. Everyone has their own preferences and we're never going to argue each other into having different ones. I want the storytelling in my games to be as good as any book or movie or TV show. I don't want to be told "your character just had their village destroyed and now they want to get revenge on the evil guy responsible" and then shoo-ed away to go kill some things. Make me believe it. Make me care.

I wasn't talking about seeing things the protagonist doesn't see. I want both myself and the protagonist to experience something, not one or the other. I wanted Celine to actually come up with something clever at the ball, I wanted to see a slice of Hawke's life in Lothering so I could really feel the loss when it was gone. If people are starving and dying I want to see it and not just be told about it, I want to get to know people outside the Inquisition itself, etc...

Yes, well said. There's this nonsense resignation that the games could never meet those expectations among some of the devs that've commented on this, like it's just an innate limitation of the medium. But it's not. They just haven't prioritized those things.

[In Exile]

@OP

I've gone into this topic at length a number of times. So, as succinctly as I can put it, I believe the new protagonists approach along with tight continuity has fantastic potential, unique potential. But I also believe they've thus far chosen not to pursue that, and that's resulted in seriously dimenishing my enthusiasm and expectations for their approach and the property as a whole. I want to see protagonists recur throughout the series along with other characters the story would naturally call for, one way or another, while our primary perspective moves to a new character each game. But they've never invested in making that work to its highest potential, and some of the high position devs have basically expressed contempt and incredulity at the idea, so the current approach has lost most of its appeal to me. We at least need to see origins make a comeback if what we're really going to get are basically stand alone installments, like a Final Fantasy or something. Each game may as well be in another world for the most part, and some people only really want to see that go on the same way, so I don't have any expectation they're really going to make it work anymore.

So I'm disappointed in the series as far as that goes. I don't see them really trying to reach out and make it special. Sorry for the down note. I do hope they improve on the single game protagonists and what we can do with them, though. I do see the effort there.

 

I don't get your ask. You say that you want to see protagonists "recur" - but what does this mean? And how can Bioware do it without totally overriding any kind of player agency and choice with respect to those characters in any iteration?

 

And origins are awful - Bioware has shown in DA:O that they absolutely cannot write a story with them, and that, if anything, they actively undermine their own plot with them. And at best, as executed, Origins at misallocation of resources even when really good. 

[cindercatz]

I don't get your ask. You say that you want to see protagonists "recur" - but what does this mean? And how can Bioware do it without totally overriding any kind of player agency and choice with respect to those characters in any iteration?

And origins are awful - Bioware has shown in DA:O that they absolutely cannot write a story with them, and that, if anything, they actively undermine their own plot with them. And at best, as executed, Origins at misallocation of resources even when really good.

Disagree about Origins and origins in general. The origin segments were *the* reason I cared about my Wardens. They were part of my creation process, the underpinning of who my characters were, and what and who they cared for, as well as a far, far more personal introduction to the different aspects of the game's world. Neither of the other games has given me much reason to care about anything outside the immediate party. 2 actually succeeded there more than Inquisition, but it took a while, not good. The origins are probably the main reason I loved the first game, when you get down to it. They were foundational in the best sense.

Recurring protagonists, I've gone into a lot more detail before, which you've probably seen. But in short, we have the mechanisms available now to determine who these characters are in detail, how their personalities are presented, their specific stances and general motivations, their circumstances at the time. And of course their voices and appearance. The actual expense in any given circumstance isn't that great. They're just not making use of that capability because they don't value it enough. They just don't want to do it.

And beyond that, there's no reason we couldn't have multiple perspective characters when called for, like a dlc style bit (or actual dlc). We could have easily had that with the Warden in Inquisition. There's a way, however much control people want, but there's no will on the dev side.

[Aren]

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

 

That doesn't really matter when the baggages are brought forward by the DA keep in terms of previous Npc and previous choices, so you have a new protagonist that is detached from those elements and this isn't necessarily a good thing.

Now if they would just abolish cliffhangers and resolve issues within the same game so that each of them will be more self-contained  i would agree.

[thebigbad1013]

I like having a new protagonist in each game, for a number of reasons. For one it allows for much more variety in terms of story and setting, giving the player the opportunity to play characters with vastly different backgrounds and life experiences. Second, I do think it would strain credibility quite a bit, at least for me, if the Warden, after saving the world from the blight (and assuming the warden even survived the experience) went on to become the Champion of Kirkwall, and then saved the world again--again after leading the Inquisition. To me it is much more believable that each of these things have been accomplished by three different people rather than one and the same.

 

Also, I haven't had any problems whatsoever when it comes to connecting with and caring about my characters just because I know it will be a different protagonist in the next game--far from it, in fact, as there are characters in Dragon Age that I care about more than any of the characters in Mass Effect, which is not to say that I don't care about anyone in Mass Effect because I certainly do.

 

I personally hope they continue with a new protagonist for the next game.

[Sah291]

Disagree about Origins and origins in general. The origin segments were *the* reason I cared about my Wardens. They were part of my creation process, the underpinning of who my characters were, and what and who they cared for, as well as a far, far more personal introduction to the different aspects of the game's world. Neither of the other games has given me much reason to care about anything outside the immediate party. 2 actually succeeded there more than Inquisition, but it took a while, not good. The origins are probably the main reason I loved the first game, when you get down to it. They were foundational in the best sense.

I agree, though we don't necessarily need origins, or a full blown prologue (as in DA2). The same thing can be done by adding in more interesting side quests, with story/subplots, and choices...there were more of these in both Origins and DA2.

Side quests don't necessarily need to effect the outcome of the main story quest, but better if they tie in somehow with the main narrative/theme... and they go a long way in defining your character and creating character development for them.

[Nefla]

Then can't make you believe it. It's impossible. That's the fundamental aspect of an RPG - games don't determine your motivation for you. They can't make you believe it, and they can't make you care. DA:O, for example, can't make the give a **** about being a Grey Warden or even want to save Ferelden. I either buy into that premise or go play a different game. 

You're taking this too literally. They can never be sure how someone is going to take their work but they can put in the care and attention to developing a character, fleshing out a scenario, etc...rather than just telling you.

[In Exile]

You're taking this too literally. They can never be sure how someone is going to take their work but they can put in the care and attention to developing a character, fleshing out a scenario, etc...rather than just telling you.

But that's all subjective. A game has to give you a premise - it can't just start from birth and give you the infinite latitude you get IRL. Even the origins in DAO had you accepting a basic premise about your role and background in the world. That's just the nature of the RPG.

And the big problem with origins - and I'll circle back to this point later today - is that they give you motivations that don't tie in with the plot at all and actually go so far as to actively undermine it.

There is a way to do them right, but when done right they don't actually feel like an origin because they're so strongly tied to the main plot (as they should be). Everything pre-Haven is an origin story for the Inquisitor. That's the character we play. Not Bob Trevelyan from Ostwick - that part of your past is much like your past with your mother in the CE origin.

I think in Your Heart Shall Burn and In Hushed Whispers taken together show - not tell - a great story about the Elder One as a villain. But that's a YMMV.

[Milan92]

I like it. It makes the world feel more alive.

[In Exile]

Disagree about Origins and origins in general. The origin segments were *the* reason I cared about my Wardens. They were part of my creation process, the underpinning of who my characters were, and what and who they cared for, as well as a far, far more personal introduction to the different aspects of the game's world. Neither of the other games has given me much reason to care about anything outside the immediate party. 2 actually succeeded there more than Inquisition, but it took a while, not good. The origins are probably the main reason I loved the first game, when you get down to it. They were foundational in the best sense.

Recurring protagonists, I've gone into a lot more detail before, which you've probably seen. But in short, we have the mechanisms available now to determine who these characters are in detail, how their personalities are presented, their specific stances and general motivations, their circumstances at the time. And of course their voices and appearance. The actual expense in any given circumstance isn't that great. They're just not making use of that capability because they don't value it enough. They just don't want to do it.

And beyond that, there's no reason we couldn't have multiple perspective characters when called for, like a dlc style bit (or actual dlc). We could have easily had that with the Warden in Inquisition. There's a way, however much control people want, but there's no will on the dev side.

The origins actively undermine the basic premise of the game, which is that you identify with and accept the role of a Grey Warden. This is just further made out by the way Ostagar works.

Rather than establish the threat of the darkspawn or your relationship with the Grey Wardens, the Origins tie your character strongly to the background and local issues pertaining to your origin. Issues that fall to the wayside for most of the game.

At Ostagar you have no relations with the GWs as an order and you take part in the joining under the threat of immediate execution.

Rather than be able to craft a character, the origins introduce a multitude of identities and plots that are fundamentally at odds with the basic premise of the game.

Rather than introduce me to the world, the Origins introduced me to a plot and conflict that the game immediately abandoned and didn't care about. Racist humans exploiting elves? Nope! Not the plot. Fascist templars oppressing mages? Nope! Not the plot. Oppressive caste system forcing your family into poverty? Nope! Not the plot.

Really the closest we get to the game exploring your origin are the two noble plots - and of these the Cousland origin is generally ignored for most of the game, whereas the Aeducan one has a confusing and incoherent ending.

As to recurring protagonists, you're just wrong. The game can't get my values right. Hell, DAA couldn't even get my character right.

[Dabrikishaw]

I admit that the Origins didn't line up too well with the "fight the Darkspawn" premise. Only the Dalish Elf had to become a Grey Warden because of the Darkspawn in their origin, but outside the "Paragon of Her Kind" main quest you didn't deal with the Darkspawn in the main story all that much.

[Heimdall]

I admit that the Origins didn't line up too well with the "fight the Darkspawn" premise. Only the Dalish Elf had to become a Grey Warden because of the Darkspawn in their origin, but outside the "Paragon of Her Kind" main quest you didn't deal with the Darkspawn in the main story all that much.

In general DAO often felt like it existed purely to provide a snapshot of Thedas' society, honestly. Most of the primary quests were only tangentially related to Loghain and the darkspawn.

[Donquijote and 59 others]

I like it. It makes the world feel more alive.

Of course,well too bad that the npc are always the same