In Inquisition the villain was the premise and the source of all the problems which i find ridiculous since that is not how reality should work . . .I don't think this narrative formula is particularly brilliant.
I think I located your problem!
It was a pretty consistent situation across the game that there was too much bread and not enough meat.
But keep in mind that DA2 had very much the opposite problem--no real strong uniting thread to tie the story together.
I think it didn't help much that most of the side stuff was introduced completely in text with no real build-up . . . so there was no payoff either.
And, frankly, Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts was a fiasco. Gaspard, Celene, Briala all should have had as much build up as Loghain and Arl Howe. Instead they were just FLOP "Okay here they are who do you want?" "Uh . . . I don't care."
At least you could ASK Celene, Briala and Gaspard why they deserve support. With the election in Orzammar, I had no real idea what Bhelen or Harrowmont's policies were. It wan't until later that I learned Bhelen was the reformer and Harrowmont the traditionalist.
I actually think that it was set up well in DA:O. If you ask around town, you actually have a pretty good sense of what the two stand for, though it could have been done a lot better. For example, I knew that Blehen was a reformer and a dictator. I picked him despite finding him objectionable because the dwarven society was so absurdly awful and tyrannical anyway.
Loghain at the battle of Ostagar was where all the wardens met him and that was it until the Landsmeet. The buildup after Ostagar the warden had no privy. The warden had no knowledge of the information in the cutscenes with Teagan, Anora and Howe. The only warden with any connection or history to Howe was the Cousland warden. Why is the player given a cutscene showing Howe and Loghain hiring an assassin?
I am always of the opinion that the player should have no more knowledge than the protagonist in the game. So IMHO opinion Origins got it wrong.
In my opinion DAi got it right with Gaspard, Celene and Briala. The Inquisitor had no history with any of these people. Nor should the player have any foreknowledge other that which can be gleamed from the quest or information from the advisors.
The villain does not have to be the entirety of the story. Some of DAI had nothing to do with Corypheus. Dorian's personal quest had nothing to do with Corypheus. Solas personal quest has nothing to do with Corypheus. Vivienne's quest has nothing to do with Corypheus. The Fallow Mire, Crestwood had very little to do with Corpheus. Bull's personal quest was only tangentially involved with Corypheus. What in the romance plotlines had anything to do with Corypheus?
I actually think that it was set up well in DA:O. If you ask around town, you actually have a pretty good sense of what the two stand for, though it could have been done a lot better. For example, I knew that Blehen was a reformer and a dictator. I picked him despite finding him objectionable because the dwarven society was so absurdly awful and tyrannical anyway.
it also worked for a non-dwarven noble on a meta level because outsiders and the lay people understand dwarven politics so poorly, but I'm not sure if that was an intentional move or not
I could only find the one somewhat pushy merchant who supported Bhelen because he promised the most trade. Everyone else was like "Oh, that Bhelen's a dick who killed his pop", and his introduction didn't help matters. How was I supposed to know he would extend rights to the casteless?I actually think that it was set up well in DA:O. If you ask around town, you actually have a pretty good sense of what the two stand for, though it could have been done a lot better. For example, I knew that Blehen was a reformer and a dictator. I picked him despite finding him objectionable because the dwarven society was so absurdly awful and tyrannical anyway.
At least you could ASK Celene, Briala and Gaspard why they deserve support. With the election in Orzammar, I had no real idea what Bhelen or Harrowmont's policies were. It wan't until later that I learned Bhelen was the reformer and Harrowmont the traditionalist.
Then you shoulda paid more attention while questing in Orzammar. Everyone has an opinion and you can learn a lot by talking to the shop owners and various quest givers. Before I even left for the Deep Roads I knew Bhelen was the forward thinking but brutal dictator, while Harrowmont was the staunch traditionalist.
it also worked for a non-dwarven noble on a meta level because outsiders and the lay people understand dwarven politics so poorly, but I'm not sure if that was an intentional move or not
I think at some point you actually have to convey this information to the player. While there's something to be said for differing perspectives based on race, there's a need to actually get players to understand your setting. I think POE has the best example for how not do to this one - there's a series of persuade options right at the start of the game that just don't make any sense without pre-existing knowledge of the setting. I
I could only find the one somewhat pushy merchant who supported Bhelen because he promised the most trade. Everyone else was like "Oh, that Bhelen's a dick" and his intro didn't help matters.
You also find the letter form his castleless lover if you break into his room. People also talk about how Bhelen might shake up the caste system, though I can't recall where. The shaperate tells you about his plan to usurp power from the Assembly.
In Inquisition the villain was the premise and the source of all the problems which i find ridiculous since that is not how reality should work,it was basically the whole world against Corypheus while in DAO and DA2 the villains were not the sources of all the issues they were just problems to solve along the road.
Corypheus and Solas were the alpha and omega of DAI,they were the only carriers of this game.
I don't think this narrative formula is particularly brilliant.
^ It's such a shame that none of that is emphasized in the narrative. I suppose it might be more realistic that way, that is, the hero is going along and running into these obstacles and only finds out later that they're all connected. At the same time, that lack of emphasis hurts his characterization as the primary villain.
I hated how the vast majority of Origins had nothing to do with the main plot.
When I watch a movie, I don't expect 90% of it to be unrelated to the storyline. Same with games.
I think both DAO and DAI got the presentation a bit wrong.
For example, I too never understood the difference between Bhelen and Harrowmont aside from basics of how Bhelen intends to murder and cheat his way to power and that Harrowmont is a representative of the inflexible Old Guard. Some more info would be appreciated.
Similarly, we are asked to decide who'll rule Orlais, but then get precious little information to actually make that choice. The game gave me almost nothing on Celene or Gaspard. I had no idea why there's fighting in the Exalted Plains, what's the main point of contention, etc... That's not how it's supposed to be, I'd like to think.
I think both DAO and DAI got the presentation a bit wrong.
For example, I too never understood the difference between Bhelen and Harrowmont aside from basics of how Bhelen intends to murder and cheat his way to power and that Harrowmont is a representative of the inflexible Old Guard. Some more info would be appreciated.
Similarly, we are asked to decide who'll rule Orlais, but then get precious little information to actually make that choice. The game gave me almost nothing on Celene or Gaspard. I had no idea why there's fighting in the Exalted Plains, what's the main point of contention, etc... That's not how it's supposed to be, I'd like to think.
I think this is a separate issue from the presentation of the main story's villain.
I don't really have a problem with making a decision based on the limited information that my character has available; it's not ideal, but happens in real life as well, and sometimes you have to pick the least worst based on your own perspective. In this case, doing nothing is the absolute worst choice. It's like the South Park bit of making a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich; both terrible choices that we should never have to make, but we have to because we, as the PC, are focused on the bigger picture of saving the damn world.
People can role-play these choices however they please. To me, part of the whole point is that the fact that we, an unaffiliated third party, have to make the shitty choice when we as outsiders should NEVER be put into that position in the first place. It's a plot gimmick, but it also is a way to show just how these sorts of political games can paralyze a nation to its very detriment.
One of the villains I wanted to kill first in DA:O was Loghain and in DA:I Solas after I learn the orb Cory carried was given to him.
In Inquisition the villain was the premise and the source of all the problems which i find ridiculous since that is not how reality should work,it was basically the whole world against Corypheus while in DAO and DA2 the villains were not the sources of all the issues they were just problems to solve along the road.Corypheus and Solas were the alpha and omega of DAI,they were the only carriers of this game.I don't think this narrative formula is particularly brilliant.
Nobody's ever accused Bioware's stories of being brilliant, but I think their formula isn't as one-sided as you think, and it's a compromise between video game conventions and the needs of storytelling:
You have a big bad power somewhere you must defeat, but the story isn't really about them, but about the more human-level problems that must be resolved in order to defeat it. If done well, we'll get a story where the big bad's actions seamlessly integrate with the smaller plots we can resolve in the course of the story, if done not so well, we'll get a story where either the smaller plots feel disconnected or the big bad involves itself with them for no plausible reason.
I think one of the main problems is a big scope combined with the perceived need for a personified antagonistic power. Most of Bioware's big-scope stories have the problem that we can't relate to the main antagonistic powers directly because they're too non-human or beyond our experience in some other way. Then, in order to involve the player emotionally, they get personified in some way and acquire a personal connection with the protagonist, sometimes in a way so obviously contrived that it makes you cringe. DAI actually wasn't that bad in this: you acquire the anchor by accident so your're a natural enemy to Corypheus. Corpyheus' problem was more that he descended into a caricature more and more as the story progressed, which turned him into an implausible antagonist of that scope. DAO escaped that problem. but at the cost that Loghain "usurped" the place of the main antagonist in many players' eyes. DA2 attempted to sidestep the problem by limiting the scope. IMO that part worked exceptionally well, but its other problems dragged DA2 down. Meanwhile, ME3 is a prime example of not only dealing with this badly, but to almost ruin the whole story retroactively by personifying the antagonistic power and making it the main agent of the ending at the same time.
I hated how the vast majority of Origins had nothing to do with the main plot.
When I watch a movie, I don't expect 90% of it to be unrelated to the storyline. Same with games.
A movie is not a game and a game is not a movie. One is a 2-hour long non-interactive medium and the other is an interactive medium with possibly more than a 100 hours of content. It's a really bad point of comparison.
And besides almost everything you did in Origins, whether it's choosing the king of Orzammar, the Arl of Redcliffe, they were all connected to the main plot, they did further the main plot, just not in a direct way.
A movie is not a game and a game is not a movie. One is a 2-hour long non-interactive medium and the other is an interactive medium with possibly more than a 100 hours of content. It's a really bad point of comparison.
And besides almost everything you did in Origins, whether it's choosing the king of Orzammar, the Arl of Redcliffe, they were all connected to the main plot, they did further the main plot, just not in a direct way.
Obviously a game is not a movie. That doesn't change my preference for not having the story spend 90% of the time on a tangent.
I feel that DA:O and DA:I kind of have the same structure.
5th Blight - Corphyeus
Loghain - Samson/Calpernia
Treatises - Close Fade Rifts and Solve local problems
? - Wardens
I am only remarking on structure, not on which is better written parts since Loghain is clearly a better villain than Samson/Calpernia.
DA:2 was all over the place.
I think the clear source of all the problems in Thedas is: everyone.
The villain does not have to be the entirety of the story. Some of DAI had nothing to do with Corypheus. Dorian's personal quest had nothing to do with Corypheus. Solas personal quest has nothing to do with Corypheus. Vivienne's quest has nothing to do with Corypheus. The Fallow Mire, Crestwood had very little to do with Corpheus. Bull's personal quest was only tangentially involved with Corypheus. What in the romance plotlines had anything to do with Corypheus?
Dorian and Alexius were somehow involved with Corypheus with their whole new spell of time travel.
Solas not involved with Corypheus? Where he found the Orb then upon a tree?
Vivienne quest does not pertain the main plot it isn't vital.
Romances are not part of the main plot.
Retour en haut
