Since I know some people were wondering about this:
They actually did it. They threw away a situation that had great storytelling potential and they threw it away just so they could stick to their "new protagonist every game" rule they set for themselves. A tip for Bioware: if you want to do what you were aiming to do, do the opposite of what you did.
To be fair, as far as I can tell that slide describes the goals for Trespasser when they started making it. It's not like BioWare has never changed their minds about something during development. I wouldn't say they've definitively "thrown away" the idea of a playable Inquisitor returning (at least part-time) until they confirm that that's the case, and I don't think Weekes's tweet above confirms that either.
(But yeah, bit of a hit to the hopes.)
EDIT since apparently I was unclear but I don't want to prolong this discussion: 1. The slide itself seems pretty clear that they initially planned for the Inquisitor's story to end with Trespasser, but plans change all the time (which was partially the subject of the talk anyway); 2. Weekes could have confirmed "no more onscreen Inquisitor" with that tweet (as devs repeatedly have for the Warden) but only confirmed "no more rift-closing", which was obvious from Trespasser anyway.
Modifié par Owlfruit Potion, 15 mars 2016 - 03:51 .
To be fair, as far as I can tell that slide describes the goals for Trespasser when they started making it. It's not like BioWare has never changed their minds about something during development. I wouldn't say they've definitively "thrown away" the idea of a playable Inquisitor returning (at least part-time) until they confirm that that's the case, and I don't think Weekes's tweet above confirms that either.
(But yeah, bit of a hit to the hopes.)
Confirms? I'd say the tweet above only confirms (in a very roundabout way) that they're not done with Inquisitor - only with their rift-closing duty. That arc is done. The hero? Not so - as Weekes said, there are plenty amputee heroes. So taking their hand away is not a way for them to get rid of them.
Either way, they can't say or clarify anything here at this time. That would mean that the game is in the making and they'd betray the detail of it that may or may not be worked on, or planned, but may eventually change shape during development. So they can't say anything for sure now, in order to not make "fake promises" (even if it's not them promising anything, but people expecting it).
They actually did it. They threw away a situation that had great storytelling potential and they threw it away just so they could stick to their "new protagonist every game" rule they set for themselves. A tip for Bioware: if you want to do what you were aiming to do, do the opposite of what you did.
I feel sick...
They actually did it. They threw away a situation that had great storytelling potential and they threw it away just so they could stick to their "new protagonist every game" rule they set for themselves. A tip for Bioware: if you want to do what you were aiming to do, do the opposite of what you did.
It was a good call. It makes no sense that the protagonist has a whole bunch of life and struggles and gets out of them without so much as chipping a finger nail.
Bring on the new protagonist. Inquisitor will still have a role to play.
Hopefully the go the dual protag route like in Witcher 3. Worked quite well there with Geralt being the main and Ciri chiming in for a few short sequences. For DA4 we have a new main and quizzy is playable for a few sequences.
It was a good call. It makes no sense that the protagonist has a whole bunch of life and struggles and gets out of them without so much as chipping a finger nail.
Bring on the new protagonist. Inquisitor will still have a role to play.
Our problem isn't the loss of the hand, it's the tossing aside the inquisitor in favor of some new unconnected person.
Our problem isn't the loss of the hand, it's the tossing aside the inquisitor in favor of some new unconnected person.
But they AREN'T. Read the Weekes response more carefully. He pretty much tells a person who asks "Hey, if cutting Inky's hand a way to get rid of Inquisitor?" with "No - there are amputee heroes after all! It's just that the rift-closing duty is over."
But they AREN'T. Read the Weekes response more carefully. He pretty much tells a person who asks "Hey, if cutting Inky's hand a way to get rid of Inquisitor?" with "No - there are amputee heroes after all! It's just that the rift-closing duty is over."
Even if I believed that (which I don't) it doesn't change the fact that the inquisitor is no longer the hero and the interesting story potential of a closely connected protagonist and antagonist with elements of betrayal and revenge is just thrown away in favor of some new nobody with no connection.
Even if I believed that (which I don't) it doesn't change the fact that the inquisitor is no longer the hero and the interesting story potential of a closely connected protagonist and antagonist with elements of betrayal and revenge is just thrown away in favor of some new nobody with no connection.
That's not true at all. You know that I've argued extensively about Inquisitor's return in DA4 in many threads on this forum, but I've always assumed that it'd be the dual-protagonist or something of the sort, rather than main PC.
I actually think that things can be more interesting that way - two competing perspectives: one of a newbie hero and one of a war veteran. Inquisitor may even positively or negatively influence new protag when making their major decisions; perhaps deppending on their relationships with DAI crew and Solas, or whether they chose to kill or redeem him. Heck, maybe new protag will be able to betray Inky, or the other way around? That'd be so cool.
That's not true at all. You know that I've argued extensively about Inquisitor's return in DA4 in many threads on this forum, but I've always assumed that it'd be the dual-protagonist or something of the sort, rather than main PC.
I actually think that things can be more interesting that way - two competing perspectives: one one a newbie hero and one of a war veteran. Inquisitor may even positively or negatively influence new protag when making their major decisions; perhaps deppending on their relationships with DAI crew and Solas, or whether they chose to kill or redeem him. Heck, mayb new protag will be able to betray Inky, or the other way around? That'd be so cool.
I disagree but I wont clog up the twitter thread with my ranting. Suffice it to say I no longer have any interest in a possible DA4.
Since I know some people were wondering about this:
Gamedam Meister @GamedamMeister@PatrickWeekes Is the reason why in Trespasser you had the Inquisitor lose their hand to "Conclusively tie off this protagonist"?Patrick Weekes - GDC@PatrickWeekes@GamedamMeister Not the hand -- plenty of amputee heroes. We took the Mark to make it clear that rift-closing was finished.
Ah, there goes my last hope that Inquisitor didn't lose the anchor... This is disappointing. 
Our problem isn't the loss of the hand, it's the tossing aside the inquisitor in favor of some new unconnected person.
And so the cycle continues.
I disagree but I wont clog up the twitter thread with my ranting. Suffice it to say I no longer have any interest in a possible DA4.
Does that mean you'll leave?
Polygon: Dragon Age: Inquisition's ending was brought to you by Indiana Jones and Captain America
http://www.polygon.c...captain-america
https://twitter.com/...500469266124800
"Wrap up the Inquisitor's Story" "Conclusively tie off this protagonist"
aha, well they failed at this goal! the feeling that I got was like opposite... 
aha, well they failed at this goal! the feeling that I got was like opposite...
No joke there It's like the last scene was about " I will come back " and let people hope that Quizzy returns , only maybe the next year to hit us in the feels saying that Quizzy won't come back at all
After Leliana says that Solas knows us too well, the Inquisitor says "Then we'll find new people," which to me suggested that the mantle of "protagonist" was going to pass to someone else.
There's nothing stated yet the Inquisition/Inquisitor won't play a role in the future, just we'll be a different protagonist. Gaider said they wanted to have a different protagonist every game with DA, so I guess Patrick is continuing this.
Why are people surprised by this? They said ages ago that the plan was for every DA game to have a new protagonist.
Not surprised; they were just hoping the game plan had changed because Trespasser gave them too many feels. And I get that Solas seems to be set up as a personal rival for the Inquisitor, or a friend turned bad that you hope to redeem.
But y'know, even beyond the Inquisitor saying flat-out that "we need new people," you need only look at Solas' actions to understand why someone else has to stop Solas. If you were an actual threat to his plans, he would let you die.
I will say that Trespasser does set it up for the Inquisitor to continue being involved in the next game, but people read "involved" as "gonna be the protagonist again".Not surprised; they were just hoping the game plan had changed because Trespasser gave them too many feels. And I get that Solas seems to be set up as a personal rival for the Inquisitor, or a friend turned bad that you hope to redeem.
But y'know, even beyond the Inquisitor saying flat-out that "we need new people," you need only look at Solas' actions to understand why someone else has to stop Solas. If you were an actual threat to his plans, he would let you die.
Couldn't one say that the endings of Dragon Age Origins "conclusively tied off this protagonist" with regards to the Warden? In fact, much more conclusively than the events of Trespasser did the Inquisitor b/c the Warden had no real hanging plot threads by the end. They slayed the archdemon, and either lived to be a hero or died in the attempt. Their goal was accomplished. And yet the Warden, if alive, still returns as Warden Commander of Amaranthine to experience a whole new, mostly unconnected adventure.
The story of the Inquisition, and our role as its leader, is concluded. If you consider the protagonist to be the Inquisitor (or the Inquisition itself) then its possible to say "mission accomplished". The person behind the Inquisitor role(Trevelyan/Lavellan/Cadash/Adaar), however, has more to deal with still, as the DLC itself shows with the fervent planning in the basement that all PCs see no matter their choices.
I'm not trying to be overly literal here with this slide, though I know it may seem like that. I think this differentiation btwn the Inquisitor and Trevelyan/Lavellan/Cadash/Adaar is a valid interpretation b/c it would actually be keeping with the theme of how the Inquisitor (and the Herald of Andraste) was becoming a symbol that was almost a separate entity from the actual person behind it. Many companions commented on it: Varric, Cassandra, Vivienne, etc. And there was a general theme of people wearing a mask or Becoming the Mask throughout the entire game. It wouldn't surprise me if the dev team also thought of the Inquisitor in this way on a meta-level. And, due to this, its entirely possible for them to say they want to "tie up" the Inquisitor as protagonist in DA3 and still have Trevelyan/Lavellan/Cadash/Adaar playable in some capacity in DA4.
tl;dr that slide doesn't rule out being able to play as your Inquisitor at some point in DA4, imo.
Does that mean you'll leave?
I just need a little time to come to terms with it, then I have no reason to hang around. I was waiting for news on who the protagonist was and I got it. Feel free to celebrate 
Why are you surprised by people's surprise? This happens after every game. People get attached to their characters and hope for their return in the next game. It happened with the Warden and after that, Hawke. People getting attached to their PC is nothing new, it means they enjoyed the game.Why are people surprised by this? They said ages ago that the plan was for every DA game to have a new protagonist.
Why are people surprised by this? They said ages ago that the plan was for every DA game to have a new protagonist.
I'm hoping the "plan" isn't an inflexible rule... and also, having a new protagonist in every game doesn't mean no returning protagonist. Perhaps DA4 can have a dual protagonist system.
Retour en haut
