klarabella wrote...
No, it's the lack of a acknowledgement of flaws and shortcomings. It's when concern about bad or questionable decisions is handwaved away.
The game does a terrible job at highlighting the possible negative consequences for some actions.
I am willing to suspend my disbelief a while longer while playing, mostly thinking that this is some kind of legend rather than "the true story". I'm much less willing to overlook such things when reading.
It's not about the protagonist really, it's a matter of constructing a system of action and reaction that seems blievable. And a matter of developing three-dimensional additonal characters who are following their own agenda, instead of one-dimensional bootlickers. Then your main character might even get away with a ridiculous amount of awesomeness.
I agree 100%. This is my problem with a lot of stories. Some stories let their character blithely accept Zevran into their party just to be too suspicious of Loghain to let him live - that doesn't really make sense. Or will be merciful until it comes to Isolde, who suddenly needs to DIE. Your examples were better, though.
The truth is, as long as the character is consistent, they can make almost any decisions you want them to make. But we need to see why, for instance, Zevran is trustworthy, but Loghain is not. (Or they're freaked out that the zombies will kill off Redcliffe if the problem is not solved *right then*.) A good beta can sometimes help with this, but a lot only do SP&G. *sigh*
I also agree that the game does a terrible job of showing the consequences of actions (which I'd love to see played with - it would be awesome if, just for once, you awakened the golem and it KILLED you. Or you put the wrong person as king/queen/speaker/whatever and you totally destroyed the kingdom. The only quest I felt that really did that well was the Brother Burkle quest in DA:O. DA2 did a much better job of this, IMHO.)





Retour en haut




