Do you prefer narrative starts, or 'instant action starts'?

Omaha Beach is a LOT less "familiar" to me than the stock-standard fantasy setting of Dragon Age.

I also am kind of confused by the assumption that BioWare expects people to be emotionally attached to the events or characters at the beginning of DA2 and DAI. Was that ever a stated goal of the writers? For players to be emotionally attached to the characters of the game within the first five minutes?

Well, this is just anecdotal experience, but what I mean is that in my pursuit of a writing degree and in various one-off seminars and things, I have *never*, to my recollection, heard anyone express the idea that the reader should be caring deeply about the characters from the very start of the narrative. I don't think that's even really possible, for any story in any format. Affection (for anything) as a rule, builds up over time. I can't care for a character within the first few pages/minutes of a story, anymore than I can care for random strangers I pass in the street.

Over and over again in this thread, it's been stated that "BioWare expects me to care about these characters that I don't know anything about!" and only now has it occured to me to question if that is the case.

I prefer narrative starts myself. I think ME1 probably has one of my favorite intros, though I do have a soft spot for Origins, except for the Dalish because fuck them.

Just want to clarify, that second paragraph was meant to be more a general musing, not aimed at anyone in particular.

The argument that the death of the Hawke sibling occurs too early for players to care (and therefore more time was needed with the characters) has been prevalent throughout the entire thread, and the underlying assumption (i.e, that the authors intended for players to form emotional attachment to the Hawke family almost immediately upon introduction) is one that *I, myself* had taken for granted until literally today.

And look, it's certainly true that the writers, or at least some of them, have been vocal in the past about enjoying "fan tears", etc etc. But, like, surely they knew it was unrealistic to expect people to become fully invested in the fate of the Hawkes within the opening moments of the game? Personally, I would have thought the plot hook of knowing that Hawke eventually becomes very important (as explicitly stated by Varric and Cassandra in the framing narrative) would have been doing most of the heavy lifting with regard to raising/keeping player interest.

It's a bit hard for me to decide, because I'd need to know how instant is "instant". The beginning of TLOU gave you about 10-15 minutes of quality time with Joel and Sam before everything went to hell. Sam even dies within the first 30 minutes. For some, that would be classed as instant action, but you wouldn't say it wasnt an engaging/personal moment. Even in Inquisition, you got some time to talk to Cassandra, Varric, and Solas before combat started.

We also have to consider the type of game you're dealing with. RPGs are pretty long games to play compared to most other genres, so it takes time to feel invested with each character you engage with, and that's assuming they're constructed in a way that makes them feel personable. I think that latter point is ultimately what's important. Can the death of someone in the very beginning of a game feel cheap? Maybe. Depends on the execution and how much it impacts those close to said person.

For me, in general, I think having a couple moments of banter between characters is good enough. Maybe 15-20 minutes worth before stuff goes down. If it's a story that's going to take me 30+ hrs to beat, then I'm going into it with the assumption that the devs are planning to give me time to engage with each major NPC involved in the story. If they dont live up to that, or I dont feel that invested in barely any of the NPCs, than that's more an issue with character development than plot sequences.

Edit: One last thing I'd like to point out, is that it also depends on how deep you want the Role playing aspect of the game to feel. The origin stories of DAO benefitted the role playing aspect of the game because it gave the player a sense of identity and permanence in the story. You were part of an established community, and had time to engage with said community to learn more about who you are/were, and what shaped the area and what you became. We already know that Mark Darrah hinted that the studio is less likely to do Origin stories in DA4, primarily because they didnt see players engage much with origin stories in DAO. It's not set in stone that that's how things will shake up, but if origins will no longer return to Dragon Age, this likely means we shouldn't expect an hour of narrative storytelling before the action starts. I could be wrong, but signs from the dev team hints in this direction.

I still don't understand why you couldn't choose both if you had enough power. No matter who you choose you still fight Red Templars and Venatori.

Not sure what you mean here. We were talking about the civil war between Celene and Gaspard, which was being prolonged by Briala's guerrilla tactics. It was all very ridiculous really and you can force them all to work together if you find enough halla statues to open the requisite doors and acquire the clues you need. It made no difference to the forces we were supplied with.

The other war that I think you are talking about is the mage/Templar war. I wouldn't exactly call it inane, particularly if you are a mage, although it would seem that all the sensible leaders of their rebellion had jumped ship by the time we get involved, so we are just left with Fiona, who I couldn't stand but couldn't replace as leader, so the best I could do was conscript them mages as at least they would ultimately be answerable to me and vice versa.

What was inane was the way the whole thing was resolved. The time travel plot was ridiculous; it was never really properly explained and didn't make a lot of sense with regard to why Fiona would choose to sell out the monarch and people of Ferelden, who had offered them sanctuary in the most defensible castle in all Ferelden, to some Tevinter Magister offering indentured servitude in Tevinter in return for handing the castle over to him. They were under the protection of the King/Queen, so the Templars attacking Redcliffe would have been an act of war against Ferelden. Why did the entire mage army cross half of Thedas to get there, when they could simply have sent delegates to the Conclave?  Their original base was on the Tevinter border, so if things were going that badly, why not just cross over and throw themselves on their mercy? Meanwhile, on the Templar path it was never explained why all these Orlesian nobles are the ones being asked to sweet talk the Templars, when their base is deep in Ferelden territory. Where are the Ferelden nobles, why are the Orlesian nobles even welcomed in the country and shouldn't they be off engaged in their own country's civil war? Also, why would the monarch invite both the Templar and mage army to camp on their land? That was inviting trouble. So pretty stupid all round.  One piece of sense in the whole thing, you are allowed to judge and replace the leader of the Templars, well his deputy really since the Seeker guy was off elsewhere and the envy demon standing in for him.

Oh sorry you're talking about Celene and Gaspard. I should've read more.

Well no one in particular, but I suppose the nebulous group includes you, because you mentioned that it's too much information at once, and I... genuinely can't see it. Admittedly it's been a while since I last played it, but I remember the opening being very straightforward.

I'm honestly not sure why the writers did that, given Fiona was never even mentioned in the games before and her appearances in the books were... divisive from the get-go apparently. While I did not read neither Asunder nor The Calling, I've never encountered a positive mention of her anywhere in the fandom.
I suppose that it is some kind of "idot ball" issue, especially since the simple mention of "Tevinter" causes freakout both in-universe and among the players.
Theoretically yes, though I wonder if the ruler(s) could have reacted in time. It has been a while, but I remember that elven healer mentioning that her predecessor was killed by a templar attack, so I suspsect the rogues had already been attacking the village before.
Agreed. I wonder though if fake!Lucius was invinted at all. His ramblings in Val Royeaux make me think that he would not care if he was permitted or not.
Hmm. I found it strange that we can only have Denam executed if we break into his office and find out about the Knight-Vigilant, despite all the red lyrium shenanigans, and opposed to Alexius, who is charged ridiculously and pointlessly with "Apostasy" and can be sentenced to death right away.

Strange sentiment in the OP about modern players not having the patience for a slow start. Did someone at Bioware really say that?

So they expect players to have the patience for hours and hours of get to know your companions dialogue, not to mention collecting 1000s of shards, mosaic pieces, crafting materials, etc, etc. but not a bit of time to establish where you are and what’s going on in the world? Did they actually ask RPG fans or just gamers in general?

It doesn’t really seem like a choice between action or story to me either. No reason you can’t start with some action as part of your relatively normal life without introducing the end of the world threat and why you are the only one who can stop it.

Personally, I like starting off as a bit of a nobody, and having my importance to the main plot revealed gradually.

I think it might be interesting to start off with a bit of a mystery. There could be rumors and strange happenings to investigate and try to work out what it all means before being thrown in at the deep end. That could allow a fairly slow start, but still be interesting and relevant to the story.