Your preferred Dragon Age 4 Protagonist? Apr 14, 2019 9:22:19 GMT Onecrazymonkey1, colfoley, and 1 more like this
Post by Ieldra on Apr 14, 2019 9:22:19 GMT
Because it betrays common sense in a more serious manner than any other move in Inquisition. It is believable that the leader of an organisation leads a charge into battle, it is very not believable that they would, for no reason, waste years of time for likely no gain.
Suspension of disbelief isn't a black and white line drawn on the ground that is "this is believable, and this is not". There is a video on youtube where an ex Navy Seal rips apart every military movie Hollywood puts out. Scientists rip apart a lot of science fiction. For them stories break their suspension of disbelief due to the amount of knowledge they hold on a particular subject.
What creators have to keep in mind is whether something breaks suspension of disbelief for their target audience, which in this case is the casual lay person. And imo, having the Inquisitor as a common spy very much would. Breaking suspension of disbelief is almost never good. It jolts people out of the story and you don't want to jolt people out of the story. It's why people mock all the movies where the bad guys shoot a thousand rounds and never hit. One of the only ways to use it to good effect is parody.
There's another component of this. Sometimes people use the term "willing suspension of disbelief". This points at the fact that often we can enjoy the story knowing quite well some of its elements are silly from an even remotely realistic viewpoint. For instance, I'd be willing to forget about the implausibility of your Inquisitor scenario quite more readily than I was willing to forgive the MET's blatant disregard of known facts about genetics. A part of this is while the former is just implausible, the latter presents false information, and thus propagates fake RL science (as opposed to fake fictional science used to explain in-world extras like FTL or magic, which is necessary for the story to work), and even more to the point, it's fake science in a politically relevant area of science where your typical casual layperson isn't knowledgeable enough to know it as fake. It thus contributes to real-world disinformation in a way an obviously ludicrous plot setup never could. This is the kind of thing I'm not willing to forgive.
In anything else, my main concern is whether a story element changes the story's tone for me by my knowledge it's unrealistic, or catapults me out of the story. For instance, the over-the-top combat animations and the teleporting enemies changed DA2 into a parody for me, which is one reason why have a persistent and very serious hate of DA2's combat. And certain kinds of real-world references catapult me out of the story, which is why, as a rule, I don't like real-world references in fantasy or SF stories set in secondary worlds.
For the next DA, I prefer a story that takes itself more or less seriously. The story elements used should reflect that. Most of DAI was like that, except for everything that had to do with Corypheus. Which is why I liked the political elements of DAI more than the ones dealing with Corypheus, in spite of their straining my suspension of disbelief occasionally. Corypheus, however, was a parody, like Bioware's antagonists are likely to be, unfortunately. At least Solas hints at the possibility of something different. With regard to the protagonist, the story can work with a new protagonist, and it can also work with the ex-Inquisitor. My strong preference for the former has nothing to do with suspension of disbelief.