254 réponses à ce sujet

[straykat]

Flemeth wouldn't have been necessary without that contrived setup in Ostagar.

 

She's a Deus Ex Machina. Of course, it's contrived.

 

But Flemeth is a well used version of it. It's usually a lot worse. Same with her and Hawke.

[Terodil]

They merged a role of necessary agency with a position, as I just described, which only honestly works if it is a passive symbol. [...] A better protagonist would have been an advisor. Who doesn't necessarily receive the worship on a national scale but gets to kick as* and, probably determine the fate of the nation. Individual groups and people may praise him, like when the new keeper thanks the warden (after a legit boss fight), the king of Orzammar, Bann Teagan thanks the warden. But then they move on.

This is a very good point that bears quoting for greater truth ™. It also shows why Shepard was the better main character -- her being a symbol, "a bloody icon", was just the icing on the cake, really; she could still turn the tide in hopeless battles simply by virtue of her battlefield savvy and personal kick-assery. The wins she fought for were, again, symbolic and thereby developed wider traction than the immediate battlefield impact.

However at the moment I'm really at a loss as to what people in the thread consider as a shortcoming in DA:I. I get the feeling that they'd expect DA:I to behave like a book or a movie. It's not, though, it's a game, where players expect some agency, "meaningful choices" being a keyword that's thrown around a lot lately. You cannot have meaningful choices if all you do is execute plans some bigwig has set you. And how do you get to make these meaningful choices? Either by fate, where somehow you end up being the only person able to change the course of destiny, or by acclaim, where people ask you to make decisions to change the course of destiny. There are no other options. The first alternative would be criticised as "contrived", the second as "Mary Sue-ish".

There's no way a game author can win this.

Edit: As much as I dislike DA:I for its various shortcomings, I'm surprised I'm stepping up to defend it now. What's the world coming to >.>

[Lezio]

Why do you consider Hawke to be worthy of being the leader based on their own merits and compared to those of Cassandra and Leliana?
 

 

From a player point of view, because Hawke actually was a protagonist, so impersonating him/her at times would have felt far less awkward than impersonating Leliana or Cassandra.

From a story POV, Cassandra specifically says that Justinia wanted either Hawke or The Warden to lead the Inquisition, so, if nothing else, i can see both of them (Leli and Cass) leaving command to Hawke out of respect for Justinia's wishes

 

But sure, they could have also made us control Leliana or Cassandra for the war table missions, or just make something up where The herald can influence them to go for the mages or the templars (dialogues, for example)

 

Ideally, the Warden would have been even better as a "first Inquisitor". S/he's obviously a bigger than life character and, because of Corypheus, s/he would have had a reason to go away and leave everything to the Herald. Of course many wardens are dead and, if i have to be honest, they should have made him/her unvoiced like in DA:O to make it work, so, again, Hawke would have been the better choice

[straykat]

This is a very good point that bears quoting for greater truth ™. It also shows why Shepard was the better main character -- her being a symbol, "a bloody icon", was just the icing on the cake, really; she could still turn the tide in hopeless battles simply by virtue of her battlefield savvy and personal kick-assery. The wins she fought for were, again, symbolic and thereby developed wider traction than the immediate battlefield impact.

However at the moment I'm really at a loss as to what people in the thread consider as a shortcoming in DA:I. I get the feeling that they'd expect DA:I to behave like a book or a movie. It's not, though, it's a game, where players expect some agency, "meaningful choices" being a keyword that's thrown around a lot lately. You cannot have meaningful choices if all you do is executing plans some bigwig has set you. And how do you get to make these meaningful choices? Either by fate, where somehow you end up being the only person able to change the course of destiny, or by acclaim, where people ask you to make decisions to change the course of destiny. There are no other options. The first alternative would be criticised as "contrived", the second as "Mary Sue-ish".

There's no way a game author can win this.

 

I expect them to be as good as novels, but not exactly like that.

 

All this talk about games as "art" and reaching higher aspirations as a medium, but this game proves just how childish they still are. Fundamentally, it's no better than Nintendo game plots when I was 8. At best, it comes off like the wishes of an angry highschool kid. "Everyone's incompetent. If only I had the power, I'd change the world for the better!" This game lets such people live out that fantasy..for a time. And without much challenge.

 

Novels don't do that. Novels are usually too detached from any one character to push them like this (unless it's fan fiction and the author is self inserting).

[Terodil]

All this talk about games as "art" and reaching higher aspirations as a medium, but this game proves just how childish they still are. Fundamentally, it's no better than Nintendo game plots when I was 8. At best, it comes off like the wishes of a angry highschool kid. "Everyone's incompetent. If only I had the power, I'd change the world for the better!" This game lets such people live out that fantasy. Novels don't do that. Novels are usually too detached from any one character to push them like this (unless it's fan fiction and the author is self inserting).

I strongly disagree. Having agency is not inherently childish. Conversely, art does not hinge on you having no agency, i.e. just being a helpless bystander watching the train crash. Also, are you saying you want to play a fantasy RPG that does not allow the player to live out their fantasy...? I'm confused. You seem to have an overwhelmingly negative view of art with strong protagonists =/

[Hanako Ikezawa]

In my opinion it would have been far better if Hawke was in charge of The Inquisition pre-Skyhold. The Herald pre-Skyhold did basically nothing to earn anything, and as i already said it's just ridicoulous that Cassandra and Leliana let a no-one decide everything and rule. Hawke, instead, is the freaking Champion and actually has reason to be the one in charge

 

Have Hawke be the leader of the newly formed Inquisition, let us control her/him when it comes the time to make the War-Table missions while The Herald runs around and actually does the grunt work and looks inspiring. Then Hawke leaves or dies in something similiar to Here Lies The Abyss, maybe even at Haven when Corypheus strikes, and bam, The Herald becomes The "new" Inquisitor with the justification that he was actually the one to call the shots in the field and Hawke's "second in command"

 

But no, far better being handed everything to make the player feel all special

No offense, but your idea is far worse than what they went with. They screwed up Hawke beyond all recognition for many players in only the half of a mission they are in. I can only imagine the trainwreck it would be with them being involved in half the game. 

[Lezio]

No offense, but your idea is far worse than what they went with. They screwed up Hawke beyond all recognition for many players in only the half of a mission they are in. I can only imagine the trainwreck it would be with them being involved in half the game. 

 

Hence the part "let us control him/her"

Also, it would have been a few scenes at best. At the very beginning of the game when The Inquisition starts doing its thing, before/after val royeaux, when it comes the time to decide mages or templars and when Cory strikes Haven

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Hence the part "let us control him/her"

They would never do that. They have their precious "New protagonist every game" rule to think about. Can' have good stories if it conflicts with that rule, hence why the Inquisitor got thrown away in Trespasser. 

[FiveThreeTen]

The problem with the Inquisitor is he makes perfectly fine characters look stupid. He makes entire nations and religions look stupid to boot. EVERYONE has to be diminished just to make room for this character. It's hard to believe everyone is this pathetic.

I don't know if the Inquisitor qualifies as a "Mary-Sue" but I feel the narrative makes things a little too smooth and convenient for the Inquisitor until Trespasser.

I really got the impression that other institutions, factions and countries were portrayed in a incredibly depowered and incompetent way that felt jarring and quite disappointing for me story-wise.

 

No comments on how most of your armies are likely composed of citizens from both your neighboring kingdoms that would likely need to go back to their own farms once the crisis is finished or even have other alliegances. I understand your army of faithful idolizes you and there are a whole lot of players who even like that sort of "power trip" but it also renders the whole game less immersive by making things a bit too easy and less "strategic" (and I maybe expected more hard choices with the wartable mechanic).

 

I feel it's especially jarring for the main conflicts resolutions which importance get inevitably diminished by the fact that you're "the only one able to close rifts", "there is a bigger threat that only the Inquisition can resolve", "rally behind me". While I admit it's consistent with how they choose to construct their game around your rising power, it made the setting of Inquisition less interesting for me.

There was that element of rallying forces to stop the bigger threat also in Origins but I feel the factions defended their own interests in a more convincing way before rallying your cause and felt more rounded?

[straykat]

To be fair, I haven't played Trespasser. I heard it improves some things.

 

I'm trying to get one final playthrough in and will play the DLC.. but I keep deleting.

 

This thread isn't helping either

 

 

I strongly disagree. Having agency is not inherently childish. Conversely, art does not hinge on you having no agency, i.e. just being a helpless bystander watching the train crash. Also, are you saying you want to play a fantasy RPG that does not allow the player to live out their fantasy...? I'm confused. You seem to have an overwhelmingly negative view of art with strong protagonists =/

 

Agency is fine. Not this. This reaches the depths of absurdity, just to establish any agency. Like time travel, making the religiously devout, the battle-tested, and entire nations pathetic... just so you can squeeze in and lord it over everyone. I'm all for respecting the player, but not at the cost of everything else. I bought the CE of this game originally, because I was invested and cared about all the world. Not just me.

[Aulis Vaara]

And yet no consequence is suffered by the Warden nor are their outcome affected by the dishonorability in which they conduct themselves despite how their victory is brought about, to my memory. The Warden can disregard the honorable duel and will still, to my knowledge, recieve the same options and forces as had they won the Landsmeet through debate.

All your forces in the final battle were decided long before the landsmeet. They are the forces you collected before there was even a landsmeet.
 

Neither they nor their decision suffer a consequence as a result of how they win the Landsmeet: a ruler placed through a dishonorable victory will sit as long and as well as a ruler placed through an honorable victory.

Well, they did defeat an archdemon and the Fifth Blight. Ultimately, the dishonor is irrelevant to the future. But it is still relevant to the character and the player. You want to show Loghain you're better than him, and you can either succeed or fail at that. Not every failure needs to be reflected in the world state. A personal failure is still a failure.
 

The Exalted Council did force a decision from Inquisitior: they forced the Inquisitor to make a choice as the Inquisition would not be allowed by them to remain an independent organization of such size and influence. The Inquisitor had to make a choice wherein both decisions could negatively impact them and they did not have the option of escalating the meeting into violence and beat everybody bloody without the consequence such a choice would bring.

Yes, the inquisitor had to make a choice. Because the plot mandated it. It had nothing to do with his/her skills or decisions. There isn't even an option for devout Herald Of Andraste that should have more religious-political power than even the divine.

The inquisitor does not fail or succeed here. The player gets to make an arbitrary choice based on nothing more than their whims. You did not work toward this moment, you didn't achieve or fail to achieve anything in the exalted council.

[Addictress]

This is a very good point that bears quoting for greater truth ™. It also shows why Shepard was the better main character -- her being a symbol, "a bloody icon", was just the icing on the cake, really; she could still turn the tide in hopeless battles simply by virtue of her battlefield savvy and personal kick-assery. The wins she fought for were, again, symbolic and thereby developed wider traction than the immediate battlefield impact.

However at the moment I'm really at a loss as to what people in the thread consider as a shortcoming in DA:I. I get the feeling that they'd expect DA:I to behave like a book or a movie. It's not, though, it's a game, where players expect some agency, "meaningful choices" being a keyword that's thrown around a lot lately. You cannot have meaningful choices if all you do is execute plans some bigwig has set you. And how do you get to make these meaningful choices? Either by fate, where somehow you end up being the only person able to change the course of destiny, or by acclaim, where people ask you to make decisions to change the course of destiny. There are no other options. The first alternative would be criticised as "contrived", the second as "Mary Sue-ish".

There's no way a game author can win this.

Edit: As much as I dislike DA:I for its various shortcomings, I'm surprised I'm stepping up to defend it now. What's the world coming to >.>

Every protagonist in every game becomes a special one, and has agency. The difference is the illusion of having earned it.

[Addictress]

To be fair, I haven't played Trespasser. I heard it improves some things.

I'm trying to get one final playthrough in and will play the DLC.. but I keep deleting.

This thread isn't helping either



Agency is fine. Not this. This reaches the depths of absurdity, just to establish any agency. Like time travel, making the religiously devout, the battle-tested, and entire nations pathetic... just so you can squeeze in and lord it over everyone. I'm all for respecting the player, but not at the cost of everything else. I bought the CE of this game originally, because I was invested and cared about all the world. Not just me.

STRAYKAT WTF WTF

ARE YOU....STOP. STOP WHATEVER YOURE DOING THIS INSTANT AND PLAY TRESPASSER

my god

[Addictress]

It's not just a DLC,
it's everything.

It's the main game. inquisition was just the origin!

[Lezio]

STRAYKAT WTF WTF

ARE YOU....STOP. STOP WHATEVER YOURE DOING THIS INSTANT AND PLAY TRESPASSER

my god

 

Yeah, it's quite good. Personally, apart from the main plot, i liked the gameplay/story integration they did there. Really good

[straykat]

STRAYKAT WTF WTF

ARE YOU....STOP. STOP WHATEVER YOURE DOING THIS INSTANT AND PLAY TRESPASSER

my god

 

Really? From you? lol

 

I'd have to make a character first...and go through a lot more. I deleted things awhile back.

[Lezio]

Really? From you? lol

 

I'd have to make a character first...and go through a lot more. I deleted things awhile back.

 

Someone should make a mod like the one in Origins that lets you skip the fade...... only you skip everything and get to Trespasser   Now i'm just being vicious, though, but just couldn't contain myself    There are actually some good moments in Inquisition

[Aulis Vaara]

Trespasser is the best bit of Inquisition, it should be said. The exalted council itself was disappointing, but just about everything else was satisfying. After Trespasser, I was really left with a feeling: this is what inquisition should have been.

[ArcaneEsper]

guys pls stop talking about how awesome Trespasser is. It reminds me of how I can't play it ;-;

[AlanC9]

In my opinion it would have been far better if Hawke was in charge of The Inquisition pre-Skyhold. The Herald pre-Skyhold did basically nothing to earn anything, and as i already said it's just ridicoulous that Cassandra and Leliana let a no-one decide everything and rule. Hawke, instead, is the freaking Champion and actually has reason to be the one in charge

Have Hawke be the leader of the newly formed Inquisition, let us control her/him when it comes the time to make the War-Table missions while The Herald runs around and actually does the grunt work and looks inspiring. Then Hawke leaves or dies in something similiar to Here Lies The Abyss, maybe even at Haven when Corypheus strikes, and bam, The Herald becomes The "new" Inquisitor with the justification that he was actually the one to call the shots in the field and Hawke's "second in command"

But no, far better being handed everything to make the player feel all special

How would this have worked for players who have never heard of Hawke? That'd be 25% or so even if the game bombed, based on previous series figures. And the more successful the game, the more players there would be who would neither know nor care who Hawke is.

[Iakus]

They would never do that. They have their precious "New protagonist every game" rule to think about. Can' have good stories if it conflicts with that rule, hence why the Inquisitor got thrown away in Trespasser. 

My Inquisitors didn't get thrown away.

[straykat]

My Inquisitors didn't get thrown away.

 

You know he doesn't mean that. Their MO is to move on from protagonists.

 

I don't mind this in itself. I'm more concerned about how the protagonist is presented. That can kill far worse than actual death (like my Warden ).

[FiveThreeTen]

Agency is fine. Not this. This reaches the depths of absurdity, just to establish any agency. Like time travel, making the religiously devout, the battle-tested, and entire nations pathetic... just so you can squeeze in and lord it over everyone. I'm all for respecting the player, but not at the cost of everything else. I bought the CE of this game originally, because I was invested and cared about all the world. Not just me.

While I don't feel as strongly as you do regarding this, it still really rings very true with how I felt with Inquisition despite liking the game overall.

It's always a fine line for developpers between giving enough agency to the player in a choice heavy game and ending up giving the impression they are trying to flatter the player ego, sometimes at the expanse of the world they created without necessarily feeling like we gained much in terms of choices and roleplay.

 

Maybe it's a matter of presentation. I'm sure there are people who didn't like the mechanic of the whole Divine election, but I quite liked that this decision is more or less coherent with your choices and dialogue options but is presented as something that doesn't hinged solely on the player and there are other active entities in the world around you that at least look like they are influencing that choice.

Not to say it was perfect, or that all decisions should be designed like this, but it was an interesting direction.

[Iakus]

You know he doesn't mean that. Their MO is to move on from protagonists.

 

I don't mind this in itself. I'm more concerned about how the protagonist is presented. That can kill far worse than actual death (like my Warden ).

And I don't disagree with that sentiment.

 

Which is why I say my Inquisitors were not thrown away (nor my Wardens for that matter) like, say, my Shepards were.

 

It is about presentation.

[straykat]

And I don't disagree with that sentiment.

 

Which is why I say my Inquisitors were not thrown away (nor my Wardens for that matter) like, say, my Shepards were.

 

It is about presentation.

 

I think it's thrown away because it's exactly what you want.

 

I might have my qualms about ME3 (not the ending), but I think you have too much animosity against what happened to Shepard. And games like this are a response to it. It's overboard in the opposite direction. That outrage told them that people want childish power fantasies. Down to playing mock religious figures.

 

I'm hoping they were wrong and don't do it again.