Keeping the same protagonist in MEA games?

I agree, and I think some of the "problem" is that the DA games act like sequels since they all take place over a fairly short span of time and plotlines overlap, only they swap the cast every time. What's the point of that? In The Elder Scrolls, hundreds of years pass between each game, and I think that's the way to go if you want "Thedas/the world to be the protagonist".

Otherwise, it feels fairly artificial to me to have my protagonists conveniently "taken off the playing board" precisely after one game, just to accommodate a new one who is destined for the same fate.

1. I think the 1-uping is a non-issue. The DA games do that too, with the exception of DA2. You had a civilization-ending threat in the first game, then a world-ending threat in DA:I, and now a world-as-we-know-it/civilization-ending threat for DA4. Point is, that can happen without returning protagonists, so I don't think that's a reason not to have them. I think it's its own issue. I wouldn't mind seeing more personal stories as well.

2. I completely disagree with the bolded. It would be totally counterproductive to intentionally try to limit how invested fans get in the characters by cutting their stories short. The point is to find them compelling and interesting, sometimes relatable, and therefore you get invested. It's a sign of a good character, and characters are one of my favourite things about Bioware games. I don't want them to go backwards.

Actually no, they didn't say that, they said it wasn't planned as a series, which means they might or might not continue with Ryder and company in the next game.


Anyway, this post I made keeps being useful, so here it goes again

Luckily, I saved some of my posts from old Inquisitor debate threads for such an occasion. I'll omit the points that have to do with Quizzy specifically, because I've always been an advocate for returning protagonists in general. Here we go:

I don't like having new protagonists each game, for many reasons, but here are the main ones:

1. Character-whiplash. It's jarring, disappointing, and unsatisfying to build up your character for an entire game, as well as their relationships to their companions, then just when you get to know everyone, have them taken away and replaced with a new cast and a new character to try to shape from scratch, knowing you probably won't develop them as much as you'd like to since their story will end in the same game.

2. It's worse for developing the universe. A lot of people cite the "Thedas is the protagonist" argument during this debate, but in my opinion, having the same protagonist and most of the same cast across multiple games allows the world to actually come to the forefront, not the other way around. If you have to build a new character and their relationships each game, a lot of the focus has to be on that, not the world in general. I found in Mass Effect, I could appreciate the evolving galaxy just fine, and probably more, because Shepard didn't need to be built-up each game. Not only that, but I get sick of my character knowing progressively less and less compared to the player. I don't want to ask all of these questions I should know the answers to.

3. And obviously this will avoid the problems of unsatisfying character returns, whether that be for ex-protagonists or old companions you just wish you could talk to with those ex-protagonists. I want to talk to Alistair as the Warden. I want to hang out with Varric as Hawke. I want to confront Solas as the Inquisitor. Otherwise, so much impact is lost.

To be clear though, I'm not saying the entire series needs to have a single protagonist either. I just don't want it to artificially throw another one in every game, like clockwork, no matter what story is taking place or could take place, because of some rule they have. They shouldn't compromise what they think will make a good story because - to quote Dorian - "That's how it's always been done. Excellent reasoning."

Which is a general rule, and doesn't only apply to this debate.

So maybe one protagonist has a nice complete story with a bow on top, and only one game, but maybe the next has two? Who knows? They could also experiment with dual protagonists. Maybe you could overlap protagonists, and have PC1 have a standalone game, then share the spotlight with PC2, then PC2 could have a standalone game? My point is that some variety isn't mutually exclusive with returning protagonists.

I hope ME:A doesn't go the DA route, personally. I'd rather spend more time as/with Ryder, regardless of how much I like her compared to other protagonists, than undergo that whiplash again.

So it depends how many games we're talking about. If ME will have quite a few more installments, there's definitely room for variety, but I'd like most protagonists to have at least 2 games each. I think that's enough time to flesh them and their relationships out and get to see how things play out after that, which is something I should expand on after mentioning above.

Part of the reason I like multiple installments with an overlapping cast is because we get to see how things play out between everyone after they get to know each other; after the origin. With the DA games, I feel like I finally have a fleshed out character, and then... new game! I'd like to explore my character after their origin story. You finally get to know these awesome characters, and then... new game!

I don't just want to hear them say we're friends at the end of the game and then never see them again (at least with that protagonist), I want to actually experience that friendship! This is what the ME trilogy did better, especially with characters like Joker, Garrus or Tali who were in all games, but definitely not just them. No more of the "We're finally friends, bye forever!" that plagued DA:I. I still cared, but not as much since I knew I wouldn't get to experience anything more. Having at least 2 games with the same protagonist means you can build that relationship and then actually experience it, too.

This problem overlaps with romances, though if Bioware could do a better job of actually showing romance content after the relationship is established during the same game, that would be nice. And by that I mean I want to know/see how the relationship goes in the long term, not just a sex scene then nothing. Bioware has said they're working on this, thankfully.

The only thing that gives me pause about the above is the chance to play as another species, which won't happen with Ryder obviously. I'm not overly invested in that, but it could be interesting and is definitely something they should try next protagonist, whenever that is.

A preference for the same protagonist.

I didn't. Most of them were unnecessary. The only ones I liked are the two that get killed by Harbinger on the beam run, if ems is low enough.

I made a post about that in  another thread.

I don't have problems with companions and NPCs dying along the way. Except Mordin. Fifth play through and I was still bawling. At least this time I had a box of tissues with me.

I expect companions and even possibly LIs to die. This is a high risk job and you're always going to lose someone. While all squad mates excel at what they do, the protagonist must be the best overall and most likely to survive.

But s/he isn't infallible and can make an error in judgement or in orders and it gets someone killed, maybe a dear friend or loved one. They might make the right call but it ends badly anyway. It could be something as simple as "I'll go this way, you two go over there" and there's a trap of some sort and one of the others gets killed. To me, that makes for great character development. That would especially be good when you're honing someone younger and untried and not so battle-hardened as the Ryders are being presented. To get them fully developed is going to take longer than 40 or so hours (whatever it ends up being) of game play.

I still prefer keeping my protagonist. Mind you, that's because I have my head wrapped up in trilogies still. Any more than a trilogy probably would be too much to keep playing the same character and it would be good to have a change. But for me, the setting would need to be different, instead of the next pathfinder unless it's several generations into the future and they're still wandering.

I don't think we'll ever see that level of freedom in creating our own characters again.  Not this side of an Elder Scrolls game.

Honestly, I'm taking their open-endedness on whether the Ryders will be the protagonists in a second game as them hedging their bets. I think they're waiting to see the response to Ryder before making a commitment - if Ryder ends up being a dud, they don't want to have it on record saying they're definitely doing a sequel with them at the helm.

That said, I'm almost always in favor of returning protagonists in story heavy games like ME and DA, for all the reasons BansheeOwnage outlined above. The one-off protagonists of DA have always bugged me, and they present their own set of issues, especially in games that are set relatively close together in a timeline. Assuming Scott and Sara aren't going to be subjected to the same one-size-fits-all blandness that the Inquisitor was, personality wise, I'd prefer them to come back over having an awkward walk-on cameo ala Hawke.

Yeah, but by ME3 you'd have to dig a trench to set the bar that low.

DAI was good, but not DAO good.

I'd rather have the same protagonist and characters, while adding more/having some go their own way (but not be completely out of touch unless there are good reasons).
By spending so much time with Shepard and crew I got really attached to them, it had been a while since I got so attached to characters in a videogame, and I believe the time spent around them has a lot to do with it, so I really liked this formula.

I'm surprised that so many people want the same protagonist in subsequent Andromeda games. The Mass Effect trilogy is my go-to example of why that approach doesn't work in games with so much player choice.

I mean, I felt it worked in Mass Effect 1 to 2, but 3 handled it so horribly. It's one of the main reasons I've almost completely forgotten 90% of Mass Effect 3 but still remember all of 1/2. The first two games let you define Shepard, but all of those choices and character development are killed in the third game, which only has two possible Shepard's: Paragon holier-than-thou angel or full Renegade genocidal asshole. Your Shepard was anything in-between? Not anymore they're not! Auto dialogue away until they bear no resemblance to who you were playing in the last game! My ME3 Shepard may as well have been a new character they were so inconsistent to their previous self.

It can work, as shown by Mass Effect 1-2, but only if you keep the amount of player control over the character the same, and keep the majority of the cast. I suppose ME2 removed most of ME1's squad and crew, but the explanations generally made sense and the idea of Shepard dying was a clever way of making it feel real. In 3 it felt like almost everyone who was important in ME2, from your squad to the ship crew, receive basically no screentime. Even as someone who wasn't a huge fan of Miranda I thought her complete lack of relevance in 3 was atrocious. The DLC companions may as well have not existed past ME2 for all the presence they had. 

I wouldn't mind seeing Ryder return as the protagonist, but I don't want them to pull an ME3 and make them more pre-defined in a sequel, and the major squad and crew we meet in Andromeda should remain important in all subsequent games where we play Ryder. If you want an entirely new cast don't use the same protagonist. Honestly I think a full trilogy may be too much for it to work. Having just two games with Ryder before moving to a new protagonist might be a happy middle-ground between the ME trilogy and Dragon Age games.

I didn't say DAO-quality. I said Dragon Age. I'd take an average of the three DA games.

It did with the original cast. 

The exception was the ME2 cast, minus Garrus and Tali, but it was arguably a mistake in the first place to even introduce a new cast of squadmates in ME2. I liked the ME2 squadmates, but introducing an entirely new set of companions on the middle of a trilogy, all of whom could also be killed on the Suicide Mission, created lots of problems that ME3 was never going to solve. There were too many characters with variable fates to account for going into the third game, guaranteeing that some were only going to get cameos.

Re: Jacob - Well, I did say for better or worse.  It's true the ME1 and ME2 squaddies don't know each other, but they all have a history with Shepard.  That's the primary thing of importance to me.  And since I always romance Kaidan, well, that's more of the history.  And the ME2 squaddies probably would be aware of him (or Ash, depending on who you save) since Shepard met him on Horizon.  Horizon is a place where the VS and the ME2 squaddies have some shared history, particularly when they go there in ME3.

I understand that people have different feelings about this but it worked very well for me.