4632 réponses à ce sujet

[Nimlowyn]

Corypheus, Mythal, Solas et al may be very powerful, but that doesn't mean they don't operate within limits.

[Mistic]

I wouldn't call upgrades or changes to gameplay mechanics a "lack of consistency" - if we go that route than many games in the series "lacked consistency" that way, including TES series or Witcher.

 

Actually, you're right: TES was a prime example of lack of consistency. Some people even forget there were games before Morrowind (and now many will forget that there were games before Skyrim). After Daggerfall, they even had to make a mash-up of the widely different endings canon so they could continue the story.

 

I do like it too... but I have Elder Scrolls series to look at the history of continent through completely fresh eyes. With Dragon Age I do enjoy the continuity and the fact that we can look at the story from different angles, but not necessarily entirely new ones, or that far removed in terms of time or space. I always liked multiple PoV stories (like ASOIAF), but I do like returning to old friends as well and see how they changed or not over the course of time, or how they behave in new environments.

 

My problem with TES is what you point out as DA's strength: the continuity. With DA, I can see that my different protagonists have an impact in the overarching history of Thedas, even if the actual details remember by the rest are tiny in comparison to the railroaded scenarios. But I don't mind, it still gives me the feeling "my Warden/Hawke/Inquisitor was there". With TES? Not at all.

 

Some familiarity is always good, and I think DA is reaching a good balance (although it isn't there yet).

 

Hence I'd like to see my Inquisitor back, even if not in the main seat. The way the story is lead so far screams of their return - and I'd be very glad if they'd return in a story told through multiple-PoV, double-protag perspective, because I see many fantastic ways the story could be told that way, including possible dissociation from old/new hero's mindset and gaining new perspectives that way.

 

I'm afraid I'm not fond of the "dual protagonist" idea for DA4. It risks cheapening the new DA4 protagonist for an old PC that not all may like (remember all those "the Inquisitor is boring/lacks personality" threads?) and whose story may be over for others. Anime viewers may understand it as the "Kira Yamato in Gundam Seed Destiny" effect.

[Seraphim24]

What's the expression? Never trust a man/woman not to bring their own dragon to a dragon fight?

[Ellawynn]

 

I wouldn't call upgrades or changes to gameplay mechanics a "lack of consistency" - if we go that route than many games in the series "lacked consistency" that way, including TES series or Witcher.

 

But yes, I think they meant plot direction/focus AND game as a whole. Aside from devs quoted we also have David Gaider saying in one of recent interviews that DAI was supposed to be twice as long in terms of story length. And guess what... another half of that story hasn't been cut. It still exists and is now in new lead writer's hands.

 

 

I do like it too... but I have Elder Scrolls series to look at the history of continent through completely fresh eyes. With Dragon Age I do enjoy the continuity and the fact that we can look at the story from different angles, but not necessarily entirely new ones, or that far removed in terms of time or space. I always liked multiple PoV stories (like ASOIAF), but I do like returning to old friends as well and see how they changed or not over the course of time, or how they behave in new environments.

Hence I'd like to see my Inquisitor back, even if not in the main seat. The way the story is lead so far screams of their return - and I'd be very glad if they'd return in a story told through multiple-PoV, double-protag perspective, because I see many fantastic ways the story could be told that way, including possible dissociation from old/new hero's mindset and gaining new perspectives that way.

 

But there's a difference between expanding on mechanics and gameplay, and just re-doing them outright - and Dragon Age mostly axed everything they had in Origins to go in a more ARPG-y direction with 2. The only mechanic that I'd say is really emblematic of Dragon Age is the fact that they did away with a morality meter and instead rely entirely on companion approval. That's pretty the only somewhat unique mechanic that's lasted throughout the series - but can you honestly say you have a good idea of what DA4 will be like, gameplay-wise? Will they give in to the Origins' die-hards and go back to RTS? Forget it and go entirely ARPG? Keep on with Inquisition's attempt at open-world? Return to DA2's smaller confined story (And maybe actually do something with the time progression potential)? Go back to Origin's string of linear areas?

 

Because, if we leave aside RPG staples like leveling and equipment systems, the only thing I can say with reasonable certainty is "We'll have companions, and they'll probably have opinions on things. Also romances, because of course romances." I can't say much beyond that, because BioWare's constantly re-imagining the gameplay instead of refining it. 

 

 

 

 

I agree that much of DA:I's design was an over-correction for DA2's criticism, completely in line with Bioware style, but I don't think the bolded is accurate. Their original plan didn't have multiple races (or at least not dwarves and qunari) and they only added those once they got an extension. So in that case it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to DA2, because if it was they would have included it from the start.

 

Similarly, Isabela is the only DA2 companion in multiplayer, and she was added months after release, most likely as an incentive for people to try the MP/stick with it, since it was failing. Again, it wasn't planned from the start. Although the lack of DA2 companion cameos could still be a knee-jerk reaction, I don't know.

 

 

No, but people didn't like being restricted to human in DA2, and it was a common criticism of Inquisition prior to the extension (And the addition of other races) was announced. Really, you could take the extension in general as bowing to audience criticism, given how happy people seemed to be when they announced that they'll be taking another year, and how many people blamed (Rightly, I'd say) DA2's quality on the short development time.

 

And given how many Origins companions got cameos (Morrigan even got a major role - although she was probably always going to show up in a major role. I imagine that, like Solas and Flemeth, she's one of those meta-plot characters that were always slotted to show up repeatedly.) the complete lack of DA2 companions besides Varric is a bit... conspicuous. And this in a game that would've lent itself so well to Merril or Fenris popping up with a small side-quest, like what they did with Michel or... Dalish Mage chick from Masked Empire who's name escapes me (Mihris?). You can even see it in how everyone resoundingly condemns Anders and his actions (Despite DA2 itself seeming to go for a grayer approach) and OOC madness like Evil Prince Sebastian deciding to raze Kirkwall despite knowing that Anders isn't even there.

 

And it's for those reasons that I am pretty pleased with the mixed opinions on Solas - because if they were mostly negative, I imagine BioWare would overcorrect (Again) and make him into some... well, something OOC (And let's just leave it at that.) I don't have any opinion one way or the other about Anders, but I gotta have some sympathy for his fans who have to see one of their favorite characters slammed so much. And I'd hate to be in the same position with Solas come DA4, all because the haters were louder than the fans.

[midnight tea]

Actually, you're right: TES was a prime example of lack of consistency. Some people even forget there were games before Morrowind (and now many will forget that there were games before Skyrim). After Daggerfall, they even had to make a mash-up of the widely different endings canon so they could continue the story.

 

The issue with people "forgetting" about older TES games isn't "lack of consistency" as much as gaps between titles. It's been 5 years since Skyrim was released, and there's no new title on the horizon.

 

It's also one of reasons people wonder now how long it'd take BW to release DA4, especially if they're going to create a close continuation of DAI - the longer it takes, the more people will forget about the series and the story, save those who are invested in it, as we are, but we're a small margin of buyers.

It's inevitable, especially with the number of releases we get today. People keep forgetting about older titles - you think many people remember that BW also created such  popular games as Baldur's Gate, KOTOR or Jade Empire?

 

I'm afraid I'm not fond of the "dual protagonist" idea for DA4. It risks cheapening the new DA4 protagonist for an old PC that not all may like (remember all those "the Inquisitor is boring/lacks personality" threads?) and whose story may be over for others. Anime viewers may understand it as the "Kira Yamato in Gundam Seed Destiny" effect.

 

With the way the story is told as of now, the "cheapening" would be inevitable anyway - there's just no way in hell they'd play a larger role in the story than Inquisitor, who at the end of (even Trespasser) is a Thedosian demigod and significant political power on the continent.

Plus, so far the "final showdown" is implied to happen between Solas and Inky, not to mention that it's strongly implied in last scene of the DLC that the new PC will likely be an agent of Inquisition. So we'd literally be playing pawns of Inquisitor, or ultimately we'd be working towards *them* succeeding in their struggle against Solas.

 

Now, for me, it's not a problem - I've already mentioned that it was pulled off pretty nicely in Oblivion, where the character is important because they serve as a connective tissue between Martin Septim and his fate. Whether an agent or not, I fail to see how this could threaten new PCs agency - IMO It really depends of how well the story is written, no matter of the scenario.

 

As for "all those" threads about boring Inquisitor - it's not really that relevant. Most people who play DA4 wouldn't know much about past protags (or prominent NPCs) anyhow, yet that didn't stop BW from re-introducing them.

I also didn't really see "all those" 'Inquisitor is boring' threads, because most of them actually died pretty fast, not to mention that I don't see many of them popping up after Trespasser... which, from what I know, was a pretty goddamn popular DLC. People wouldn't play it almost a year after game's release if they didn't care for their characters, who - at the very end - was not only given new conflict and stakes, but possibly new role as well.

[midnight tea]

But there's a difference between expanding on mechanics and gameplay, and just re-doing them outright - and Dragon Age mostly axed everything they had in Origins to go in a more ARPG-y direction with 2. The only mechanic that I'd say is really emblematic of Dragon Age is the fact that they did away with a morality meter and instead rely entirely on companion approval. That's pretty the only somewhat unique mechanic that's lasted throughout the series - but can you honestly say you have a good idea of what DA4 will be like, gameplay-wise? Will they give in to the Origins' die-hards and go back to RTS? Forget it and go entirely ARPG? Keep on with Inquisition's attempt at open-world? Return to DA2's smaller confined story (And maybe actually do something with the time progression potential)? Go back to Origin's string of linear areas?

 

Because, if we leave aside RPG staples like leveling and equipment systems, the only thing I can say with reasonable certainty is "We'll have companions, and they'll probably have opinions on things. Also romances, because of course romances." I can't say much beyond that, because BioWare's constantly re-imagining the gameplay instead of refining it. 

 

To be honest I don't really care that much how the DA4 would be like gameplay-wise. In fact I'm looking forward for something new - because that *was* the staple of DA games so far: they like to experiment and change things! And the one thing that binds everything together - and what people return to - is the story, characters and the universe.

[Ellawynn]

To be honest I don't really care that much how the DA4 would be like gameplay-wise. In fact I'm looking forward for something new - because that *was* the staple of DA games so far: they like to experiment and change things! And the one thing that binds everything together - and what people return to - is the story, characters and the universe.

 

But... we just established that experimentalism is exactly the issue? It leads to situations like DA is in right now, carrying around the baggage of Origins and DA2, with each new game being constantly (And usually unfavorably) compared to it's first installment, and constantly cycling through fans because one game builds an expectation that the sequel fails to fulfill. 

 

And people can't return to the story and characters because those things are never the same either. Even the universe has cycled through different tones and continuities. 

[Shechinah]

 You can even see it in how everyone resoundingly condemns Anders and his actions (Despite DA2 itself seeming to go for a grayer approach) and OOC madness like Evil Prince Sebastian deciding to raze Kirkwall despite knowing that Anders isn't even there.

 

 

I do not recall there being much approval of Anders' decisions in Dragon Age II from the in-universe characters: I think all of the companions seemed to hold negative opinion of what he did and neither Orsino's tone in his parting remark nor his facial expression seemed to hold anything positive or neutral towards Anders. The only exception I can remember is Isabella's comment but that may come down to the difficulty I have in interpreting it; "Bold plan, well, I thought so."

 

It is not surprising that a lot of mages condemn Anders and his actions considering he can be used as an confirmation example of a lot of people's fears towards magic and free mages. Anders also wanted to force mages into conflict regardless of whether or not they wanted to or were properly prepared or resourced for it.  

 

I am also not sure why you see Sebastian making towards Kirkwall as out-of-character considering it was what he said he'd do in Dragon Age II if you spared Anders; "No! You cannot let this abomination walk free. He dies, or I am returning to Starkhaven. And I will bring such an army with me on my return that there'll be nothing left of Kirkwall for these maleficarum to rule." 
 

[midnight tea]

But... we just established that experimentalism is exactly the issue? It leads to situations like DA is in right now, carrying around the baggage of Origins and DA2, with each new game being constantly (And usually unfavorably) compared to it's first installment, and constantly cycling through fans because one game builds an expectation that the sequel fails to fulfill. 

 

I don't see the experimentation as an issue. HOW they experiment can be an issue, and in case of DA some of those experiments were good, bad or mixed bag. The DA is a big experiment on gaming field anyhow, with it being built so it either rewards or sometimes requires for people to not just get familiar with the story from past games, but a great deal of auxiliary material as well, so I'm all for being a series that always strives to do or try something new, *even if* the only thing binding it is the overarching story and the specific way they write it or their characters.

 

 

And people can't return to the story and characters because those things are never the same either. Even the universe has cycled through different tones and continuities. 

 

But the overarching story and eventual goal they're working towards is a constant. And it's been in works since the very beginning. Gaider even said (in interview for VGS) that DA2 served as an in-between chapter between DAO and events in DAI, because they felt they needed something separating them; a bit of a breather before we get to the main conflict and the story tightening. And so far it does appear to be happening - I mean, so long as w pay attention to the bigger picture.

[Illegitimus]

It is a weak point if it make him vulnerable and disrupted is invincibility  no matter how powerful it seem to be.

He knew that the well of sorrow was magical knowledge  and could have been used against him. brought his dragon it served his convenient defeat.

 

 

So then the smart move would have been to have left his horcrux off on it's own?  What do you think would have happened then?

[Ellawynn]

I do not recall there being much approval of Anders' decisions in Dragon Age II from the in-universe characters: I think all of the companions seemed to hold negative opinion of what he did and neither Orsino's tone in his parting remark nor his facial expression seemed to hold anything positive or neutral towards Anders. The only exception I can remember is Isabella's comment but that may come down to the difficulty I have in interpreting it; "Bold plan, well, I thought so."

 

It is not surprising that a lot of mages condemn Anders and his actions considering he can be used as an confirmation example of a lot of people's fears towards magic and free mages. Anders also wanted to force mages into conflict regardless of whether or not they wanted to or were properly prepared or resourced for it.  

 

I am also not sure why you see Sebastian making towards Kirkwall as out-of-character considering it was what he said he'd do in Dragon Age II if you spared Anders; "No! You cannot let this abomination walk free. He dies, or I am returning to Starkhaven. And I will bring such an army with me on my return that there'll be nothing left of Kirkwall for these maleficarum to rule." 
 

 

DA2 (In my opinion at least) seemed to be going for a regrettable-but-necessary view to Anders actions, leaving it up to the player if he was right or not. Everything after seems to portray Anders and his uprising as a bunch of senseless violence - the EU novels even go so far as to retcon the Kirkwall uprising as starting the rebellion. Instead it just lead to a vote for independence that was voted down. Quoth the wiki: "Despite this, the College of Enchanters, meeting for the last time in Cumberland before being disbanded in 9:38, voted against secession from the Chantry at the urging of Senior Enchanter Wynne." The rebellion was later started by a different uprising and vote.

 

Not to mention the ending narration shows the mages are.. if not approving, at least moralized by the events of Kirkwall. That sentiment doesn't seem to have been carried over into Inquisition.

 

And on Sebastian - fair enough, I didn't realize that he was threatening Kirkwall for no good before Inquisition. Still seems ridiculously OOC to me (Although you could also argue that Sebastian didn't really have a character to be outside of in the first place.)

[Seraphim24]

The problem here is culturally constrained standards of morality and ethics. It's easy to justify Solas as being simply another product of X or Y logic predominating in X or Y system. Even Anders as crazy as as is sounds could probably be manipulated to fit some archaic standard of necessity. 

 

Dragon Age and Bioware as a whole is often engaged in a tumult for and against these standards, but they never really seem keen to abandon them totally, hence the cycle continues. 

[midnight tea]

DA2 (In my opinion at least) seemed to be going for a regrettable-but-necessary view to Anders actions, leaving it up to the player if he was right or not. Everything after seems to portray Anders and his uprising as a bunch of senseless violence - the EU novels even go so far as to retcon the Kirkwall uprising as starting the rebellion. Instead it just lead to a vote for independence that was voted down. Quoth the wiki: "Despite this, the College of Enchanters, meeting for the last time in Cumberland before being disbanded in 9:38, voted against secession from the Chantry at the urging of Senior Enchanter Wynne." The rebellion was later started by a different uprising and vote.

 

Not to mention the ending narration shows the mages are.. if not approving, at least moralized by the events of Kirkwall. That sentiment doesn't seem to have been carried over into Inquisition.

 

Well, naturally... I mean, it's an all-out war, people are dying, so many mages are probably forced the re-evaluate events in Kirkwall. Power of hindsight and all.

[Sah291]

But the overarching story and eventual goal they're working towards is a constant. And it's been in works since the very beginning. Gaider even said (in interview for VGS) that DA2 served as an in-between chapter between DAO and events in DAI, because they felt they needed something separating them; a bit of a breather before we get to the main conflict and the story tightening. And so far it does appear to be happening - I mean, so long as w pay attention to the bigger picture.

To be honest, I really don't mind all the changes and experimentation in game play, combat mechanics, design, art style, tone, etc... I expect that sort of thing....it's been a long time since Origins came out. Original DA fans are getting older, and they want to appeal to new players and younger millennials...I can see that in DAI. I don't think it was all just a matter of over correction.

I'm more concerned about the overall stroy and lore being consistent and having continuity. I'd prefer more consistentcy with returning protagonists (if they are going to contiune to bring back villains, companions, and NPCs, from previous games), but that's more for story reasons. So for that reason I'm hoping to see the Inquisitor back, if they continue the Solas plot line.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I'm more concerned about the overall stroy and lore being consistent and having continuity. I'd prefer more consistentcy with returning protagonists (if they are going to contiune to bring back villains, companions, and NPCs, from previous games), but that's more for story reasons. So for that reason I'm hoping to see the Inquisitor back, if they continue the Solas plot line.

But the rule, Sah. One does not simply ignore the "New Protagonist Every Game" rule. Clearly that is what is the most important thing is in video games. 

[midnight tea]

But the rule, Sah. One does not simply ignore the "New Protagonist Every Game" rule. Clearly that is what is the most important thing is in video games. 

 

... Sort of a missed sarcasm, especially considering that we know now that Hawke was *at least* considered to be a recurring protagonist.

[Macha'Anu]

I wonder if we are going to kill him in the next Dragon Age game because of his "popularity" we cannot just "simply' kill him i wonder how Bioware is going to pull that one of.  

I still think they will make it an option. or they will make him redeemable with the right choices and someone else takes over where he failed or your choices simply kill him. After all there are world states where Alistair is dead and Logain lives vise versa and world states where anders lives and fenris is dead and vise versa. The thing i love the most about bioware is how your choices determine the ending. though at this point it would be interesting to see how it goes.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

... Sort of a missed sarcasm, especially considering that we know now that Hawke was *at least* considered to be a recurring protagonist.

Considered sure, but the rule prevailed and they weren't. 

[Sah291]

But the rule, Sah. One does not simply ignore the "New Protagonist Every Game" rule. Clearly that is what is the most important thing is in video games.

Haha. Yeah. But I think that rule only really exists on this forum in our minds... In reality, I bet it's never been so set in stone.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Haha. Yeah. But I think that rule only really exists on this forum in our minds... In reality, I bet it's never been so set in stone.

Well, in a recent interview Patrick Weekes said how he loved how Dragon Age does that, so even if not set in stone it seems it won't be going away. Unfortunately. 

[Ellawynn]

To be honest, I really don't mind all the changes and experimentation in game play, combat mechanics, design, art style, tone, etc... I expect that sort of thing....it's been a long time since Origins came out. Original DA fans are getting older, and they want to appeal to new players and younger millennials...I can see that in DAI. I don't think it was all just a matter of over correction.

I'm more concerned about the overall stroy and lore being consistent and having continuity. I'd prefer more consistentcy with returning protagonists (if they are going to contiune to bring back villains, companions, and NPCs, from previous games), but that's more for story reasons. So for that reason I'm hoping to see the Inquisitor back, if they continue the Solas plot line.

 

Maybe.... Actually, to be specific, I don't think the general... capricouness of DA is entirely attributable to over correction. Maybe the changes between DA2 and Inquisition largely are. But I think, between DA2 and Origins, it's mostly due to a change in management - Brent Knowles left BioWare and the studio was taken over by EA. 

 

Regardless, DA2 seems to begun BioWare's fall from grace - ME3 pushed it further and Inquisition, despite the hope that it would redeem the studio, seems to have gotten a somewhat mixed reaction. If chasing millennials is the reason for that, well, perhaps that wasn't the best decision - and I say that as someone who would probably be called a millennial. 

[Abyss108]

Well, in a recent interview Patrick Weekes said how he loved how Dragon Age does that, so even if not set in stone it seems it won't be going away. Unfortunately. 

 

 

I love how Dragon Age does that, it's one of my favourite things about the series, but I'd still make the Inquisitor return. 

[Sah291]

Well, in a recent interview Patrick Weekes said how he loved how Dragon Age does that, so even if not set in stone it seems it won't be going away. Unfortunately.

Most likely, yeah.

But of course, he's the lead writer, he's going to say what things he likes and not dwell on what they might have done or planned to do but didn't.

It's pretty obvious they considered Hawke at some point though, they even wrote it right into the game. And maybe even the Warden. Cassandra says something like "you're not what we wanted but you're what we got..." or something like that. In the scene where she is telling the Inquisitor how she respects them.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I love how Dragon Age does that, it's one of my favourite things about the series, but I'd still make the Inquisitor return. 

I don't like how DA does that. Limits storytelling potential. We just have to look at the current situation to see that. 

[Abyss108]

I don't like how DA does that. Limits storytelling potential. We just have to look at the current situation to see that. 

 

 

It it depends on the story. I don't see why Inquisition would have been better if it had been about my Warden. It would have been much worse for me - it would have felt strange and out of place that my Warden was apparently the single most important person in Thedas who just happened to stumble upon every world shattering event that ever happened. I would have missed out on all the Elf stuff as I didn't have any reason to play an Elf in Origins (I heard about Elfy stuff in the plot before making my Inquisition character). I would have missed the entire Solas romance, which made the game what it was for me - and I don't even like romance! It would have been a much worse game for me if it had a returning protagonist. I would have had all those limits on my experience.