42 réponses à ce sujet

[jellobell]

I don't think player characters are becoming nicer as much as Bioware's moving away from clear "good" and "bad" choices.

This.

 

Your goal is always going to be "Close the breach, stop Cory", but the way you go about that can be very different. Do you use the Inquisition as a blunt instrument to bludgeon people into submission? Or do you take a more subtle approach? Do you just not give a sh*t about politics, aim to keep the status quo intact, or want to shake things up and change them?

 

And then there's also your attitude towards being treated as a messiah. Do you relish the attention and cynically use it to your advantage? Are you a true blue believer who accepts that you were chosen by the Maker? Or are you disturbed by the fact that people think of you as divine?

 

What Solas is reacting to in that "you suck" scene is a certain set of decisions that he believes show that you've been using your power to silence people. He's basically accusing the Inquisitor of being a bully, and the Inquisitor has the option of confirming his fears (and then punching him). But you also get the option of explaining your motivations (and he even approves when you make a good point, even if he doesn't agree). You can't make him like your decisions, but you can RP either a pragmatic but iron-fisted Inquisitor, or just a plain ol' jerk. And I find that way more interesting than being able to RP a psychopath.

 

I also love how all of the dialogue wheel options are viable this time around. In ME, bottom right could make you moronic or insane without warning. Here, it's blunt and to-the-point, and I actually found myself using it a lot. In fact, I found myself varying my choices on the dialogue wheel a lot more than I did in either Mass Effect or DA2. This is probably my favourite dialogue wheel yet.

[Rannik]

I still can believe I couldn't signal Harding to put an arrow through Iron bull's eyes.

 

Or chop his head off at Skyhold for that matter.

[Ceoldoren]

I do want to be a little nasty. My main problem over all is the lack of subtle choice we are getting this time around. For example load up a game and tell everyone you arent the herald. You know what happens? People usually say cool i dont know what to believe either. Just fake it. So i spend the whole game froced to pretend im the herald. Everyone i run into i tell them i aint. But yeah i dont know what to think either, just fake it. Screw you guys I know what to think i aint no herald and i aint faking it. Oh yes you are....

I dont mind random violence at times but i also hate that in this game that choice is taken away. Like in a personal quest, if somone tries to kill my friend, i want to be able to kill them. Not forced to talk to them about some crap that doesnt matter, they tried to kill me and my friend. Nah cant do that messes up the scene we are trying to create. I no longer feel like i am playing my character. Good or bad, i feel like i am playing your character, that aint fun.

*rants off into the sunset*

You only get to talk to a few dozen people and tell them you aren't the herald. To the masses you're still the herald. And no amount of bitching is going to change that. 

[Doominike]

Being outright evil like selling souls to demons just cause it's faster that way, maybe not, but I'd like more murder knife options, I only got *one* for Florianne and it was a pretty specific situation. Put consequences for it of course but let me casually kill people for trivial reasons again, like Javaris in DA2 because "he bothered me". At least for like, one-off characters we never see again, such as the revered mother who gets punched by a templar in Val Royeaux, it could be like "this is the divine's murderer !" and cut her down mid-speech or something. Sure it would do the exact opposite of why you came there and basically everyone would disapprove of it but let me do it anyway, it'll be my problem. Or when you refuse the recruitment of a follower, they leave and you never see them again, if they died it'd have the same result anyway, so why can't I kill them ? That or when they get pissed and leave, why can't I be all evil overlord and go "no one leaves the inquisition" *stab*. And speaking of evil overlord, at the war table instead of only being able to follow one of the 3 advices, why not being able to actually decide what to do ? Someone protesting against me ? Kill them all. A noble being uppity ? Burn his holdings and salt the lands. 

 

Extreme exemples of course, but if applied where it doesn't really matter who cares ? Also, not really bad per se, why can't we just kick someone out whenever ? I saw the option for Sera I think, to just tell her to leave. I know you can tell them no when they ask to join but why not after ? You're the boss, why can't you simply fire anyone ? Yeah you can ****** them off into leaving but that's actually pretty hard, they can agree with stuff because it's just common sense or it's a smart thing to do or they can get approval from the same choice as one you made to please another you want to keep. And honestly if you could either fire or kill the followers anytime to get rid of them, the only one I'd actually murder rather than kick out is vivienne

[Above Good and Evil]

Just did the siege of Adamant and the Inquisitor definitely comes across as nicer. Without choice or prompt you see him (male in my game) acting brave and going back for allies despite risk to himself and being safer to go ahead - He comes back for the Gray Warden ally during the collapsing bridge scene (Loghain in my game) and during the flashback you see him trying to rescue the Divine from the spider fears and looking ashamed he couldn't save her once the memory ends. During the Alexius mission he also tries to go back for Leliana despite the fact that doing so is pointless due to time travel.

Its small, but a definite change where barring a few exceptions like Shepard sliding for his teammate in the Collector base you have to choose and decide whether you want to risk your life for your friends/teammates. Here the Inquisitor does it regardless of background and beliefs.

[Doominike]

Ya, they need to fix that next time (be it DLC or DA4). I for one sure wouldn't have tried to save the divine, stop Corypheus from doing his thing to her sure, cause holding a glowy thing to a magically restrained person and speaking of ritualistic sacrifice sounds like you should stop it regardless, but in the fade later, hell if I'm risking my life for anyone. Or at adamant, going back for loghain, even if your character sees him as a traitor (which you can actually express a couple times)

[Roamingmachine]

This actually bothers me a lot...Either give us true control of what kind of people are characters are or just entirely script it and tell people so. As it stands, the most significant decision you can make about what kind of a person your character is amounts to choosing the color of the drapes. The inquisitor is a goody-goody, no matter what. Just to remind you all of what Bioware was about, remember back in origins when we had the option of dealing with the profiteer in Lothering? You could be an altruistic good guy, a selfish thug, not get involved in it at all and actually giving a reason why or....
"I heard you're making a killing. So am I!". And that option was AFTER you were a selfish thug and helped the profiteer.
Nothing in inquisition comes even close to the freedom of RP that was in that single, optional sidequest. And that is sad.

[Nightdragon8]

This actually bothers me a lot...Either give us true control of what kind of people are characters are or just entirely script it and tell people so. As it stands, the most significant decision you can make about what kind of a person your character is amounts to choosing the color of the drapes. The inquisitor is a goody-goody, no matter what. Just to remind you all of what Bioware was about, remember back in origins when we had the option of dealing with the profiteer in Lothering? You could be an altruistic good guy, a selfish thug, not get involved in it at all and actually giving a reason why or....
"I heard you're making a killing. So am I!". And that option was AFTER you were a selfish thug and helped the profiteer.
Nothing in inquisition comes even close to the freedom of RP that was in that single, optional sidequest. And that is sad.

yes lets be extremeist.. why not, let us do this or this otherwise just forget the whole thing. *sigh*

 

there is really no feasable way to make it fully open, and make the world around you change.

 

the programing alone for all the "what if's " would be mindboggling. Sure you could get away with maybe a morality scale but even then that will feel hallow because how a person's belief can't be put onto just 1 scale.

 

Then its just a mangament game at that point. Where you juggling numbers.

[Drasanil]

Spoiler

You can also punch Solas

 

Really? They put that option in, but they don't give us the chance to smack Sera?

[M Hedonist]

Dragon Age 2 gave you a ton of batshit crazy evil choices. How is selling someone into slavery just being "a bit of a nozzle"? And you could sell Isabela, too. You could have your Hawke be a slaver, essentially.

Plus, for no good reason at all, you could have your Hawke just watch as Meredith executes his sister.

Also a lot of other stuff.

[Doominike]

An ending where after killing Corypheus you do what he wanted to do, that woulda been cool, and it'd just be an extra cutscene. Of course that would clash a bit with continuing post-endgame since you'd be some fade-god thing and presumably everyone would leave you

[Akrim_Drak]

It's not just Solas!

 

(Forcing Dorian to leave)

[Drasanil]

...and still we can't hit Sera. Why Bioware, why!?

[Above Good and Evil]

Well she's the only one you can point blank kick out which is rather surprising. I would've thought kicking out party members like. Cole (not what I would ever do so) would be an option.

[Blade_RJ]

The thing is that they are defined with a core personality that no longer allows us to completely shape our own character. We're allowed to define our character by his viewpoints, choices and actions but not his characterization, which we could in every game until they made Mass Effect 3.

 

Part of me wants them to go back to how it was before, but the problem is that ME1 and ME2 Shepard was a static brick, and not even Hawke was that impressive. Inquisitor and ME3 Shepard both felt like real people. I much prefer Inquisitor though because we get some actual dialogue options and not just "here and there".

 

I think they should stick with Inquisitor template for all future games but then focus on making some proper character development for the protagonist.

You are WRONG, just go to ME forums during release of me3...most agree shepard was sanitized, that renegade options no longer reflected the character they built previously, the prologue is already enough, a shepard that was a human supremacist and sided with cerberus was totally cool and complacent being prisioner of the alliance, you couldnt even argue or anything, you couldnt slip and get back to cerberus who turned stupid "muahuahauah im evil" coorporation, that took us of our shepard to THEIR shepard, while shepard was a character with some defined traits, we could shape him/her, in me3 that was no longer aplliable, you couldnt even be a jerk anymore, and while i agree that me2 being a jerk generaly resolved into murder pistol cutscene, the consequences were still your choices.

 

I have not seen such thing here in inquisition, in dragon age origins, you could be a hero while being cruel,mean,not overly good only looking for yourself for gains, blackmail people, outright lie to get a advantage over them, Here your options are sanitized. seriously we could had a power hungry mad inquisitior who in the end damns the whole organization and stand alone.

[Blade_RJ]

yes lets be extremeist.. why not, let us do this or this otherwise just forget the whole thing. *sigh*

 

there is really no feasable way to make it fully open, and make the world around you change.

 

the programing alone for all the "what if's " would be mindboggling. Sure you could get away with maybe a morality scale but even then that will feel hallow because how a person's belief can't be put onto just 1 scale.

 

Then its just a mangament game at that point. Where you juggling numbers.

 

you have no idea what you talk about, so please just stop. the programing it not harder then to script a cutscene, its basically or and ifs basic in any programing code, and its not management, you are not tuning your caracter forthis result you are making choices and then dealing with the consquences, heck i dont care if there isnt a huge consequence show during the game, just allow me to choose, there doesnt need to be a payoff.

 

in awakening you could free prisioners, steal their money, or their clothes, leave them to rot, or ignore them, after that, they never show up, but the freedom it gave us during that scene helped us shape our warden commander MORALS, its the ilusion of change, this is a RPG its all about illusion of selft insert.......shepard was a defined character, but look how many fans call him or her THEIR shepard ?

[PrinceLionheart]

Well she's the only one you can point blank kick out which is rather surprising. I would've thought kicking out party members like. Cole (not what I would ever do so) would be an option.

 

You're actually given several opportunities to kick Cole out. It's only after the Vivienne/Solas disagreement that you get the option one last time.

[Doominike]

That's more refusing to recruit him though, in Sera's case you can literally come up to her and kick her out anytime you want