414 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

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.

 

I agree completely. I want the ability to define my character from the ground up, not be supplied with a family and the suggestion that I should care about them. Consequently, the mage origin in DAO is my favorite for how bare it is in terms of previous connections. I don't even like the suggestion that Jowan and the PC are friends (yes, I do get that you can be an ass to him after you finally get a chance to speak).

 

Also -- I don't know if they could do this -- it would be interesting to have quests or dialogues based on the choices in previous quests or dialogues. As an example, let's take the Josephine/Inquisitor dialogue wherein you discuss your past. A Trevelyan can define the sort of relationship that they have with their family (I don't know about the other origins). Wouldn't it be fun to have a quest further on that took advantage of your response in that dialogue? If you responded that your relationship with them is poor, a further quest later on might be more negative in nature (think the tone of Dorian's personal quest). The opposite is true for a positive response.

[nightscrawl]

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.

 

I think this is exactly right. We have the origin stories which introduce us to (almost) every strata of Thedosian society, excepting poor humans and Qunari. Then we journey to quest hubs for each of those races and learn about their culture while completing the primary objective.

 

Even though the devs were unsure that the franchise would continue, the whole game really seems to be built as an introduction to Thedas, touching on every single issue that the setting has to offer.

[House Lannister]

I would prefer a new character each game. It wouldn't really work that well Dragon Age as the focus is the world and mythology.

A singular character worked for Mass Effect as there was little emphasis on the world as the focus was primarily on The Reapers, not the world itself. Now the Reaper threat has been contained, it was time to move on a new character with Andromeda.

With how Trespasser ended, it was heavily implied the inquisitor would be involved somehow and DA4 will be set in Tevinter. It could work if we were the Inquisitor again but I would rather have the freedom to choose a new class and race.

[Mistic]

With how Trespasser ended, it was heavily implied the inquisitor would be involved somehow and DA4 will be set in Tevinter. It could work if we were the Inquisitor again but I would rather have the freedom to choose a new class and race.

 

Given that the Inquisitor pointed out the necessity of finding people Solas doesn't know, they may be involved, but it's clear that the protagonist is going to be someone new. And this time, with in-universe justification (probably tired of the bazillion times somene says "But the history of my Warden isn't finished!", "My Hawke would do that", etc.).

[Heimdall]

I think this is exactly right. We have the origin stories which introduce us to (almost) every strata of Thedosian society, excepting poor humans and Qunari. Then we journey to quest hubs for each of those races and learn about their culture while completing the primary objective.

Even though the devs were unsure that the franchise would continue, the whole game really seems to be built as an introduction to Thedas, touching on every single issue that the setting has to offer.

They even managed to build in introductions to Tevinter (Slavers+Ruins mostly) and the Qunari (Sten).

I really think this was to the detriment of the rest of the plot, in part because it made Loghain and the AD feel weak as villains because they had so little presence.

[vertigomez]

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.

I didn't mind that, honestly. Loghain and the AD were a bother, but circumstances were the villain. I'd prefer something like that to the sort of 'epic rivalry' I think people are/were hoping would happen with Inquisitor/Solas and Hawke/Corypheus.

Unless I'm just reading this the wrong way.

[Nefla]

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.

Same here! I liked feeling like my character was part of the world and had a life before rather than someone who just washed up on a beach with no past and no connections (like TES).

 

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.

Wanting to get to know a little of your character, what is normal for them, where they come from and what their life was before the Call to Action is not the same as wanting to experience their entire life from birth. If DA:O had started at Ostagar and you were simply told in dialogue or in an introductory paragraph during character creation (the way DA:I did it) that your character was a dwarf noble who had one brother kill the other and betray you it would not be anywhere near the same as playing that Origin yourself.

 

 

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.

The only Origin I can see as undermining the plot is the Dwarf Noble since you have unfinished business that doesn't involve the Wardens or the Human land. DA:O and DA:I had the same "motivation" for the plot: save the world from evil things that are trying to kill it. There are no personal stakes. I would say the premise of both games is weak but for me DA:O more than made up for it with characters, world building and roleplay and DA:I didn't.

 

 

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.

Well I consider the majority of DA:I's story to be weak, so I definitely wouldn't call pre-Haven an "origin done right." It's a random nobody with no past and no connections washed up on a beach, granted a special power out of nowhere and told to save the world. I don't know who they are, what kind of person they are, how the Call to Action could have affected their personality. You clearly don't care about these things but I do. DA:I started with an action and combat sequence that I didn't care about. I felt zero tension about my surroundings being destroyed or the random dead troops because I didn't know anything about any of them. It was just a thin excuse for the game to send me to go kill stuff and see moar action.

 

 

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.

I don't. I found Corypheus to be utterly useless and generic.

 

I think this is exactly right. We have the origin stories which introduce us to (almost) every strata of Thedosian society, excepting poor humans and Qunari. Then we journey to quest hubs for each of those races and learn about their culture while completing the primary objective.

 

Even though the devs were unsure that the franchise would continue, the whole game really seems to be built as an introduction to Thedas, touching on every single issue that the setting has to offer.

Being introduced to all the new cultures, lore, etc...was one of my absolute favorite parts of DA:O and to me that aspect was really lacking in DA2 and DA:I.

[Dabrikishaw]

They even managed to build in introductions to Tevinter (Slavers+Ruins mostly) and the Qunari (Sten).

I really think this was to the detriment of the rest of the plot, in part because it made Loghain and the AD feel weak as villains because they had so little presence.

The Archdemon was never going to have a character as long as it couldn't talk, and the way Loghain is hyped and propped by people here I'd think some are of the opinion he was a strong antagonist.

[BansheeOwnage]

Same here! I liked feeling like my character was part of the world and had a life before rather than someone who just washed up on a beach with no past and no connections (like TES).

You know, in the D&D MMO Neverwinter, you literally start the game by washing up on a beach. And in ESO, you get picked up by a ship after floating in the ocean after the intro and wake up on shore. I don't know if you thought of either of those, but I thought it was funny.

[straykat]

The Archdemon was never going to have a character as long as it couldn't talk, and the way Loghain is hyped and propped by people here I'd think some are of the opinion he was a strong antagonist.

 

I thought he was well done.. I just wish the Civil War gave him a bigger part in the mid parts of the game. Or rather, I wish there had been an actual Civil War.

[Nefla]

You know, in the D&D MMO Neverwinter, you literally start the game by washing up on a beach. And in ESO, you get picked up by a ship after floating in the ocean after the intro and wake up on shore. I don't know if you thought of either of those, but I thought it was funny.

I didn't lol but It's not uncommon and I hate it

[straykat]

It is common.. and pretty much a conscious joke for TES. You're always a prisoner waking up there.

 

But I expect better from this series.

[BansheeOwnage]

It is common.. and pretty much a conscious joke for TES. You're always a prisoner waking up there.

 

But I expect better from this series.

You might want to change that "expect better" to "expected better" seeing as how that's exactly how DA:I starts

[sniper_arrow]

I agree completely. I want the ability to define my character from the ground up, not be supplied with a family and the suggestion that I should care about them. Consequently, the mage origin in DAO is my favorite for how bare it is in terms of previous connections. I don't even like the suggestion that Jowan and the PC are friends (yes, I do get that you can be an ass to him after you finally get a chance to speak).

 

Also -- I don't know if they could do this -- it would be interesting to have quests or dialogues based on the choices in previous quests or dialogues. As an example, let's take the Josephine/Inquisitor dialogue wherein you discuss your past. A Trevelyan can define the sort of relationship that they have with their family (I don't know about the other origins). Wouldn't it be fun to have a quest further on that took advantage of your response in that dialogue? If you responded that your relationship with them is poor, a further quest later on might be more negative in nature (think the tone of Dorian's personal quest). The opposite is true for a positive response.

 

I don't know.

 

The real reason why I wanted to see the origin-type scenario is because I'd like to know what life in Tevinter is really like, as oppose to the stories we hear from other people like Dorian and Fenris. If we get a Qun-origin, maybe we can get insights on how the Qunari society really works.

[Mistic]

If DA:O had started at Ostagar and you were simply told in dialogue or in an introductory paragraph during character creation (the way DA:I did it) that your character was a dwarf noble who had one brother kill the other and betray you it would not be anywhere near the same as playing that Origin yourself.

 

I'm trying to imagine it and the result is depressing    Even a silent Warden feels much more alive with their origin played than a blank slate thrown into that situation.

 

Definitely in the "pro-origins" camp myself.

[straykat]

You might want to change that "expect better" to "expected better" seeing as how that's exactly how DA:I starts

 

Well, that's what I mean.

 

But it's a very persistent feeling. I "expect"... and keep on expecting

[AlanC9]

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.

That's an odd way to phrase it, though I don't know if this reflects real confusion or is just an unfortunate turn of phrase. Just to clarify, I was expressing a preference for experiencing what my character experiences, and for not experiencing things my character doesn't experience. It's certainly not a general preference for being told stuff over experiencing stuff.

I suppose this means that our substantive dispute reduces to how much restriction should be put on the writing of plots, in order to make sure that the PC sees everything instead of being told about anything. (I vote for zero restriction.)

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.

Though movies and TV shows typically don't restrict themselves to one character's POV.

And "make me care," as In Exile said, is not a realistic goal. It's also very confused in the case of WEWH. Why should my Inquisitor have "cared" about Celene? Or am I just confused about who the "me" is there?

[Heimdall]

The Archdemon was never going to have a character as long as it couldn't talk, and the way Loghain is hyped and propped by people here I'd think some are of the opinion he was a strong antagonist.

No, but it could have been built up more as a threatening force (Imagine if we had seen more with it and the darkspawn laying waste to Ferelden throughout the plot?).  As it is, it was just sort of there, mostly...

[Heimdall]

I'm trying to imagine it and the result is depressing    Even a silent Warden feels much more alive with their origin played than a blank slate thrown into that situation.

 

Definitely in the "pro-origins" camp myself.

Me too, with the caveat that future attempts should be more connected to the central plot.

[Nefla]

And "make me care," as In Exile said, is not a realistic goal. It's also very confused in the case of WEWH. Why should my Inquisitor have "cared" about Celene? Or am I just confused about who the "me" is there?

It's a realistic goal in that their previous games did make me care. Me as in the player, though the game should at least attempt to make the player care about what the character cares about.

 

Why should we be doing anything in a game that we don't care about? And Celine's lack of characterization was just an example. When you don't flesh out the details, when you don't build your characters, when you don't show things happening and let the character be a part of it then you end up with a world that feels dead, characters that feel like cardboard cutouts, and a plot that's disjointed and watered down. WEWH as an example, for me it was just nothing. The idea of uncovering a mystery and stopping an assassin was an interesting one but the execution was very poor. For one, the evidence is very easy to find and the keys are lying around out in the open (which also serves to make these "masterminds" look even more simple-minded). For another, it's over quickly and we never really get to use our brains. You have a bunch of characters introduced right then and there and we are told things about their supposed prowess but never shown it and never made to care about them in any way (I don't like them, I don't hate them, I am not curious about them, I don't care what happens to them) and then the only time one of them appears again is in the arbor wilds just standing around at the camp. I feel like the "solve a mystery" idea gets tossed out when you get to the segregated combat part and fight a bunch of trash mobs as usual. As I've said before, I find the very reason for the inquisitor being there to be extremely weak. Celine getting assassinated has no bearing on whether Corypheus is defeated or not. The only factor there is whether the inquisitor is alive to seal the breach and whether the inquisition figures out how to kill Corypheus. So to sum up:

 

-I'm not at the ball for compelling story reasons

-I'm not there for intrigue, stealth, solving a difficult mystery, etc...

-I'm not there for a fun self-contained quest

-I'm not there to meet interesting characters or learn new and interesting lore

-I'm definitely not there for the combat

 

So why am I there? Because the game tells me I have to be "because I said so." Anyway, this will be my last reply on the subject since we've gotten way off topic from "should there be a new protagonist each game?"

[Nefla]

Me too, with the caveat that future attempts should be more connected to the central plot.

I think they could definitely do a single playable origin for all classes/races (with some differences), have it be a good introduction, but also have it connected to the later plot. Ex: you start as a member of a pirate crew or something like that.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I am not a fan of the origins stories, and were one of my least favorite parts of Dragon Age: Origins ironically enough. Having extensive origin stories like that ruin roleplayability for me since it eliminates any mindset or history that doesn't fit the origin. Thankfully I believe it was David Gaider who said that they won't be doing origin stories anymore, and instead they aim to have what you chose to play as be reacted more throughout the game rather than concentrated in only a couple parts. 

[sjsharp2011]

Personally I'm neutral and can see the benefits of both. I think for me it depensd on the story and whatever the writers feel  works best for that story should be the way it is done Personally I think the ME trilogy ewas great but I'm equally impressed with what Bioware has done with DA also. I do prefer Masss effect over DA though but that's moer down to the fact I prefer sci fi stories over fantasy ones but both have their place.

[Nefla]

I am not a fan of the origins stories, and were one of my least favorite parts of Dragon Age: Origins ironically enough. Having extensive origin stories like that ruin roleplayability for me since it eliminates any mindset or history that doesn't fit the origin. Thankfully I believe it was David Gaider who said that they won't be doing origin stories anymore, and instead they aim to have what you chose to play as be reacted more throughout the game rather than concentrated in only a couple parts. 

That's an interesting prospect, how long ago was this?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

That's an interesting prospect, how long ago was this?

A couple years ago I think. I can't remember a specific time. Sorry.