230 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

Nizaris1 wrote...

you don't understand, it is not about Anders word, it is about hat he did, what he did is remove the chance of compromise, because there is NO COMPROMISE

surely you don't understand the game

It becomes unproductive to dismiss a differing opinion as "simply not understanding the game" especially after i asked those who disagreed with you to not use my disagreement with you as additional ammunition against you.

[ElitePinecone]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't see other possibilitis, whether Inquisitor is from the Chantry or not, still Mage Inquisitor cannot fit the job out of sentiment

I can.

It might be relevant that all these threads wondering about a mage Inquisitor are proceeding under the assumption that the Inquisition's main focus and raison d'etre is the mage/Templar conflict. 

There's probably not an easy way to dissuade people of that belief without revealing the actual plot of the game, which seems a while away. 

(I mean, you and Mark have said a bunch of times that we shouldn't assume the Inquisitor is a Chantry pawn, but that assumption seems to persist.)

[Allan Schumacher]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't see other possibilitis, whether Inquisitor is from the Chantry or not, still Mage Inquisitor cannot fit the job out of sentiment

I can.

Great

because i can't...not in my calculations

i think your next game will have many "retconings"...maybe?

or maybe disredard Varric as a reliable narrator?

At this point this thread is done. I think your calculations are wrong. That you think the only way out is via retconning is your own issue.

You seem unwilling to accept your perspectve is anything but flawless. Nothing will convince you otherwise so there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 25 décembre 2012 - 02:06 .