126 réponses à ce sujet

[Nocte ad Mortem]

How can anyone say this after it's been accomplished in other RPGs with same or fewer resources?

If you're talking about something like The Witcher, it's not the same at all. They only have to use one character with a set base. Their whole approach to storytelling is different. Dragon Age games, at their best, have multiple character backgrounds, multiple personalities and in world choices to account for. They're already dividing their resources more than a game that has set characters with one background. Something has to give somewhere if they divide it more. Dividing the resources between two characters will mean both suffer from lesser development than they would if it was one with the full focus of resources. I don't see how it could go any other way. 

[Addictress]

If you're talking about something like The Witcher, it's not the same at all. They only have to use one character with a set base. Their whole approach to storytelling is different. Dragon Age games, at their best, have multiple character backgrounds, multiple personalities and in world choices to account for. They're already dividing their resources more than a game that has set characters with one background. Something has to give somewhere if they divide it more. Dividing the resources between two characters will mean both suffer from lesser development than they would if it was one with the full focus of resources. I don't see how it could go any other way.

They barely had any differences among the inquisitors based on race except a few lines referencing their races and a few war table missions - all text might I add. In addition, I noted earlier it doesn't need to be for the whole game. Ciri was only part of the game. Also, Rockstar's GTA V had triple protagonists. Yeah, they're set characters but I honestly don't see that many substantial differences among the imported inquisitors they will have to account for except some lines, and some written text.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

They barely had any differences among the inquisitors based on race except a few lines referencing their races and a few war table missions - all text might I add. In addition, I noted earlier it doesn't need to be for the whole game. Ciri was only part of the game. Also, Rockstar's GTA V had triple protagonists. Yeah, they're set characters but I honestly don't see that many substantial differences among the imported inquisitors they will have to account for except some lines, and some written text.

GTA V isn't anything like Bioware games. A major part of Bioware games is the connection you develop with your party members, which GTA doesn't even have. And again, it's a linear plot. You don't make wildly different decisions in world, you don't get multiple personality options. Every conversation you have has multiple options to choose from, where with set characters they just say their line. 

 

Let me explain it this way, every game starts out with a word budget. Usually, the budget is spent entirely on one character and their dialog with their companions and NPCs in the game. There's not going to be extra words that come about for dual protagonists, they just get what they get. The only way for it to happen is to split that budget up more than they usually do. That's literally the only way for this to happen. Each protagonist will get less than they would have in a normal, one protagonist game. So, they'll have to make cuts somewhere. You'll get less scenes with your party members for each character, or they'll cut things like the interaction with Scout Harding in Inquisition. It can't come from nowhere. 

[Addictress]

GTA V isn't anything like Bioware games. A major part of Bioware games is the connection you develop with your party members, which GTA doesn't even have. And again, it's a linear plot. You don't make wildly different decisions in world, you don't get multiple personality options. Every conversation you have has multiple options to choose from, where with set characters they just say their line.

Let me explain it this way, every game starts out with a word budget. Usually, the budget is spent entirely on one character and their dialog with their companions and NPCs in the game. There's not going to be extra words that come about for dual protagonists, they just get what they get. The only way for it to happen is to split that budget up more than they usually do. That's literally the only way for this to happen. Each protagonist will get less than they would have in a normal, one protagonist game. So, they'll have to make cuts somewhere. You'll get less scenes with your party members for each character, or they'll cut things like the interaction with Scout Harding in Inquisition. It can't come from nowhere.

This isn't a question on RPG vs not. It's about resources.

There is no strict word budget. Motion capture, coding, animation, and directed scenes and levels cost way, way more than merely some lines (words), sorry writers. To that end, Inquisition didn't spend very much, if any, resources on varying the animation, cut scenes, the MEAT for the different backgrounds of the Inquisitors. There also aren't any choices beyond the specific race-related war table missions that pertain to the different races. Seriously, look at the major choices that would be imported from DA3 into DA4. Which of those pertain to race? Close to none if not none.

Assuming they continue to only vary the words - not actions, choices, direction, scenes, animation, literally any of the resources worth writing home about - based on what race the Inquisitor was, there is substantially no great additional expenditure needed. It all comes down to the partitioning of the script between protagonists. It'll be the same length of game, therefore same overall amount of resources. Secondly, this won't impact the connection you develop with characters. Especially if, as I said, the inquisitor's part is not 50% of the game. The companion-recruiting and managing would still be left to the new protagonist.

The inquisitor could even be a companion for that matter. One who gets one or two missions they themselves control ( remember we already are able to control companions technically in all other games).

[Addictress]

Seriously, we already control companions. And choose dialogue options while in their camera perspective. They only give the credit of initiation or origin of thought to the protagonist. Would it be so horrible to have one or two special scenes where the inquisitor initiates and originally executes dialogue and actions? Look at Joker in Mass Effect 2. They gave us full control AND perspective of Joker. He didn't make any decisions, but they very easily could've given him a choice about something in the way he handled that scene.

[Addictress]

That little extra Joker scene, might I add, is why people love ME2 so much. Myself included. Freshening up the structure.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

This isn't a question on RPG vs not. It's about resources.

There is no strict word budget. Motion capture, coding, animation, and directed scenes and levels cost way, way more than merely some lines (words), sorry writers. To that end, Inquisition didn't spend very much, if any, resources on varying the animation, cut scenes, the MEAT for the different backgrounds of the Inquisitors. There also aren't any choices beyond the specific race-related war table missions that pertain to the different races. Seriously, look at the major choices that would be imported from DA3 into DA4. Which of those pertain to race? Close to none if not none.

Assuming they continue to only vary the words - not actions, choices, direction, scenes, animation, literally any of the resources worth writing home about - based on what race the Inquisitor was, there is substantially no great additional expenditure needed. It all comes down to the partitioning of the script between protagonists. It'll be the same length of game, therefore same overall amount of resources. Secondly, this won't impact the connection you develop with characters. Especially if, as I said, the inquisitor's part is not 50% of the game. The companion-recruiting and managing would still be left to the new protagonist.

The inquisitor could even be a companion for that matter. One who gets one or two missions they themselves control ( remember we already are able to control companions technically in all other games).

That's actually not what the writers have said in the past. They've been clear that there is a hard word budget. 

 

Yes, the game would be the same length with the budget split between the two protagonists, but that's why I don't like it. I don't want to water down the connections my protagonist is able to form in the game to add a second protagonist. I find the development of the protagonist and their party member to be the main draw to Bioware games, so having that thinned is an issue for me. 

 

I said before that it wouldn't bother me if you controlled the Inquisitor for only a pretty minor period of the game, though. If you got about as much content as Hawke in DA:I, but instead it was a one off quest line where the Inquisitor and maybe 3 random allies chosen from who would make sense for the plot, that would be fine with me. "One or two missions" isn't a big deal, but I wouldn't really call that "dual protagonists". I wouldn't consider Joker to be a second protagonist in ME. It's just about how much. Less than 50% still leaves plenty of room for "too much". I'm looking more at less than 10%. I doubt it would have more than a couple lines with Solas still rejected the romance, though, because otherwise it eats up too much resources on a niche group of people that had to have played the previous game.

[Reznore57]

There's no word budget.......

Sure no one pay the actors , or pay the people who have to transcribe all the things in other languages and then pay other actors to say those translation .Also the studio for recording are free too , doesn't matter how much time you have to stay in there.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

David Gaider talks about the word budget:

 

https://forum.biowar...gets/?bioware=1

[PapaCharlie9]

David Gaider talks about the word budget:
 
https://forum.biowar...gets/?bioware=1

That is a must-read thread! Go read it. Now.

If you are too lazy to click on the link, here's the gist from DG:

It used to be that art was the major bottleneck in our design. Now it's writing.

Why? Because words are expensive. We have separate types of word budgets, based on the costs they generate. So a "cinematic word budget" are voiced lines that require extensive touching by the cinematic design team. They have X number of people who can work Y number of hours at an average lines/hour speed. So we do the math based on the time we have allotted for the Production phase. We have a "voice budget" based on how many voiced lines we can afford to record, whether cinematic or not. Both of these numbers are smaller than the number of lines writers can actually produce.

Despite the fact that we have more cinematics and voiced lines nowadays, the word budget isn't actually new. After BG2 an effort was made to constrain the amount of writing we do, as even non-recorded lines (including text such as codex entries and journals, which also has its own budget) need to be translated into numerous languages and also have a knock-on effect of how long a plot is (and thus how much time it takes for the level designers to implement).

Ultimately, with more money and more time the budget can be higher... but that's always the case. This isn't something we'd normally discuss since, to a fan, why wouldn't we put more money and time into a project? Hell, we'd like it too. Essentially we need to start from somewhere, and that all starts with people much further up the chain than someone at my level.

Not that a dual-protagonist is necessarily ruled out by all that. What it does mean is that the budget will be zero-sum, any words you spend on the Inquisitor have to be taken away from somewhere else. Like maybe fewer companions for your party to choose from? Shorter romances?

And what if they can't hire the same 4 VA's for Inquisitor? Think about that.

Too bad the Inquisitor lost their arm instead of their voice -- that would have saved some money.

[jlb524]

Am I the only one that doesn't want the Inquisitor back as a dual-protag?

 

Or back again in anything ever again.

 

Never.

 

Ever.

 

Ever.

[Xilizhra]

Am I the only one that doesn't want the Inquisitor back as a dual-protag?

 

Or back again in anything ever again.

 

Never.

 

Ever.

 

Ever.

You are not.

 

The Inquisitor was already horribly inadequately fleshed out, and if they do this dual protagonist nonsense in the fourth game, it'll cut into that game's protagonist's story.

[PapaCharlie9]

Am I the only one that doesn't want the Inquisitor back as a dual-protag?
 
Or back again in anything ever again.
 
Never.
 
Ever.
 
Ever.

No. You might try reading the rest of the thread, there's more than one that agree.

[Pasquale1234]

In some ways, it almost feels like DA is moving into ME3 territory with its wildly divergent world states. In DAI, we not only chose the ruler of Orlais, but also indirectly the next Divine - and the 3 possible candidates have very different approaches. Choices made in DAI impact the existence of mage circles, the templar order, GW presence in Ferelden and Orlais - and, well, quite a few other things.

It might not matter in the immediate future. If the next title is set in Tevinter, anything happening in southern Thedas may be relegated to codex entries.

Still, I have some serious questions about the wisdom of a storyline like Trespasser - or cliff-hangers in general. Like Hawke before her/him, the Inquisitor is leaving behind some loose ends that someone else is going to end up needing to tie up.

As to the topic, I'd be willing to play the Inquisitor again - or any other PC that allows me to flesh out her personality and character.

My best guess is that the Inquisitor & team may appear in behind-the-scenes cutscenes, but won't be playable.

[Fiery Phoenix]

My best guess is that the Inquisitor & team may appear in behind-the-scenes cutscenes, but won't be playable.

Why are folks thinking they will be playable anyway? A Hawke-style cameo is the best you can realistically hope for if you really want to see the Inquisitor again. (That includes the option to kill off the Inquisitor in a badly written scene.)

[Pasquale1234]

Why are folks thinking they will be playable anyway? A Hawke-style cameo is the best you can realistically hope for if you really want to see the Inquisitor again. (That includes the option to kill off the Inquisitor in a badly written scene.)

I think the final scene of Trespasser is likely the culprit. Regardless of your choices, it shows the Inquisitor and a core team plotting additional action - not a great idea, imho, unless you're planning to include them in some capacity in the next title.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I think the final scene of Trespasser is likely the culprit. Regardless of your choices, it shows the Inquisitor and a core team plotting additional action - not a great idea, imho, unless you're planning to include them in some capacity in the next title.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time BioWare has ditched a seemingly important finale.

 

I suspect all it means is the Inquisitor will be traveling to Tevinter and whatever new protagonist the next game features will run into them at some point in the story, just like Hawke in DAI.

 

That would be a best-case scenario. Worst-case is the Inquisitor doesn't show up at all and you only get a reference in the form of dialogue.

[Beerfish]

[Lazarillo]

I think the final scene of Trespasser is likely the culprit. Regardless of your choices, it shows the Inquisitor and a core team plotting additional action - not a great idea, imho, unless you're planning to include them in some capacity in the next title.

Harding is DA4 main character confirmed.

[Lazarillo]

I think, considering he's only been a "villain" for one DLC, if you're bored with him already, then it means that what you're really bored with is your own imagination, going over the possibilities in this open-ended scenario.

Sure that's part of it, but that's kinda the point. The open ending detracts from the eventual experience.
It's also partly this:

How about being bored with stories involving "ancient evil dude/thing that wants to destroy world".  I'm bored of that.

...in that it's a pretty cliched plot idea. Not to mention it's a cliched plot idea that we already had in Inquisition as a whole. Solas is not notably different as a villain than Corfishystix was.

[The Ascendant]

We've never repeated as playable protagonist before so why start now? In Mass Effect the Shepard you make is your legacy, in Dragon Age it's the Thedas you've helped shape and create is your legacy. One story might end, but another is always ready to begin.

[BansheeOwnage]

 

But besides that, I think it's reasonable to assume that we're playing as a new protagonist in the nest installment (as my character was a rogue now incapable of shooting a bow).

Actually, no.

Still think the Inquisitor is combat-ineffective? I don't.

Some people are unimaginative, and automatically assume something is impossible without two hands. Luckily, there are also people who think of creative solutions instead of giving up.

[Xilizhra]

Some people are unimaginative, and automatically assume something is impossible without two hands. Luckily, there are also people who think of creative solutions instead of giving up.

Interesting, but since the Keep doesn't cover the Inquisitor's weapon specialization, you'd need a prosthetic that could be used for both bows and daggers if the Inquisitor were to enter combat. Which I find unlikely, as the Inquisitor says their adventuring days are over.

[BansheeOwnage]

It's surprising how many people care about the Inquisitor. I mean, not like the game gave them a rich background or a memorable personality to get strongly attached to. When I first played as Trevelyan, my final thoughts on him were "well, you're nice my dear protagonist, and also incredibly dull". When I played a Lavellan that romanced Solas, it was the first time I felt any level of attachment to an Inquisitor, and that was only because she had a tragic romance with Solas. If it wasn't for that she would just be another boring protagonist that is more of a plot pusher rather then an well established character.

 

I'm for one am glad that we are likely getting a new protagonist. Hopefully BW will give them a lot more detail to their backstory and personality.

Why do you think having a new protagonist will suddenly make them better written/more fleshed-out than the last? Bioware will most likely write the next protagonist similarly to the Inquisitor (text-only background, etc.). I think this is a moot point as to whether the Inquisitor should return; I don't think introducing someone new will magically make them a better character.

 

Besides, Trespasser finally started to flesh-out the Inquisitor, and give them a personal story. That's a lot more development and characterization than someone new has, so I think we'd actually be better off with them than someone new in that regard, and I think it would be a terrible waste of a unique and personal story if they drop it for the sake of their Rule™.

 

 

I sometimes wonder if no one else saw that last cutscene of Trespasser. That cutscene makes it very clear that all of the Inner Circle, including the Inquisitor, are too well known by Solas -- "all their strengths and weaknesses," Leliana says -- to be effective. So the Inquisitor says they'll find people he doesn't know.

Always thought that was BS as an excuse. I've written much more in-depth about it in the past, but basically, I think it exaggerates how well Solas is actually supposed to know you while also discounting that you know him, too. And you're the only ones who do. So it seems to even out to me.

 

Not only that, but if the Inquisitor is still going to go against him in some way, which they say they are, doesn't that mean they didn't think it mattered enough that they shouldn't go after him? If it's still worth going after him, then it's another moot point in terms of whether or not they should be the protagonist.

 

Finally, it actually opens up new possibilities for characterization. You know those complaints about not being able to be "evil" and always being a "goody-two-shoes"? Well not being constrained by such a massive, relatively public organization would do wonders in terms of not only letting the Inquisitor develop as a character, but it also means that whatever Solas thinks he knows about your strategy, you could throw it out the window now.

[BansheeOwnage]

Interesting, but since the Keep doesn't cover the Inquisitor's weapon specialization, you'd need a prosthetic that could be used for both bows and daggers if the Inquisitor were to enter combat. Which I find unlikely, as the Inquisitor says their adventuring days are over.

Well, I think Bioware will do the stupid thing and not bring them back, so that would explain the Keep's lack of depth here, but all I was doing was showing they could bring them back, even for combat. Not my fault they aren't taking the steps to do that.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter, since they could easily fit them with a prosthetic hand that can hold any weapon instead of a weapon-hand. It was possible hundreds of years ago in real life, and it's definitely possible in a world with golems. Problem re-solved.

 

Also, for every Inquisitor who says their adventuring days may be over, there's one who says they're off to save the world. Again.