Always go with voice two for a male human. The first one is too... I almost want to say too British, but that would be absurd given that I'm from England myself. It's more like a Hollywood idea of a British stereotype. You're medieval James Bond, minus the charm, booze and STDs.
need a good old yorkshire accent
It's not an attack on jrpg players.
And, excuse me, but you are asking for a jrpg. Even if you're not asking for FF.
You're asking for watching a character. A character written and acted by someone else. You're asking for the game's creators to provide your protagonist's personality. That's a jrpg.
Asking for a little more to work with isn't the same as asking to play a premade character like Geralt.
I believe there is a factual argument to be made regarding the lack of player character choice (and thus, personality crafting) in Inquisition compared to all other BioWare games. I don't feel like making the argument right now, so yes, I merely posted it as my opinion.
If this was the case then why are plenty of us able to make many Inquisitors with vastly different personalities that are not just nice, snarky or aggressive ala DA2? Just because you and others can't does not make it factual.
You had far more freedom and agency in DAI compared to DA2, half the time Hawke could not even do anything. Petrice anyone?
Sounds like a personal problem really.
Possibly, but that doesn't exactly change the fact that character personality and development isn't handled nearly as well as it could have been.
Possibly, but that doesn't exactly change the fact that character personality and development isn't handled nearly as well as it could have been.
Would you rather stay locked to three personalities? Be forced to believe in a religion? Lack agency at key parts? That is DA2 and Hawke. DAI gives freedom and many tools to craft your character. Religion, political, proactivty ect. All of that is determined by you, the player, not established and thank god.
Your twisting what I said. I never said the character should be completly fixed, and heaven forbid people who don t headcannon very well. express their opinions. I respect people who headcannon, and some are really amazi g with what they come up with. but the point of this topic was to disscuss: that people don't always play that way and might want something a bit more fixed, but not completely. So far the disscussion here has been intresting, and mostly mature. But to say that Bioware should not consider people who cant headcannon very well, is not really fair. Its just like saying only people who can t headcannon well should play this game.It's not an attack on jrpg players.
And, excuse me, but you are asking for a jrpg. Even if you're not asking for FF.
You're asking for watching a character. A character written and acted by someone else. You're asking for the game's creators to provide your protagonist's personality. That's a jrpg.
Would you rather stay locked to three personalities? Be forced to believe in a religion? Lack agency at key parts? That is DA2 and Hawke. DAI gives freedom and many tools to craft your character. Religion, political, proactivty ect. All of that is determined by you, the player, not established and thank god.
Except what you just described is not Hawke. I know it is a wasted effort to point that out, as I doubt anyone bashing DA2 will actually care about such details, but it still bears to be repeated. What you just described? That is not Hawke. You can choose quite a variety of reactions to many different situations on par, and in some cases exceeding, the options you had in DAO, and as far I could tell, in DAI. I assume by the locking to three personalities, you mean the dominant personality situation which only affected a handful of scenes and never actually forced a decision on the player. And even in that case you could actually change the dominant personality over the game. Again, I realize none of this actually matters in this discussion those hating DA2 don't care about that, but it should always be pointed out instead of allowing the continuous repetition of that opinion.
As for the relevancy, for this discussion, what you describing wasn't really asked by anyone. I cannot fathom how those things would be a direct result from Inquisitor how did not have a neutral tone in most discussions instead of giving some weight or emotion according to the choice that was made as even the reaction wheel choices always felt insanely subdued. I actually welcome all the opportunities to craft the character I am playing and feel that it is truly a character in that world. I did not feel I truly was able to do something like that as there were really only a few scenes I felt engaged by the character or truly feeling her to actually be someone, which for me was largely the choices made in directing voice acting or having really those Hell Yeah moments where the character themselves truly stands out. It is that simple to me and, as far as I can understand, to the most people being critical of the current choices in this thread.
Your twisting what I said. I never said the character should be completly fixed, and heaven forbid people who don t headcannon very well. express their opinions. I respect people who headcannon, and some are really amazi g with what they come up with. but the point of this topic was to disscuss: that people don't always play that way and might want something a bit more fixed, but not completely. So far the disscussion here has been intresting, and mostly mature. But to say that Bioware should not consider people who cant headcannon very well, is not really fair. Its just like saying only people who can t headcannon well should play this game.
You know, I honestly hate the JRPG argument as it is such a massive derailing argument. I have nothing JRPGs, I have enjoyed several of them, for example Suikoden 2 and 3, immensely, but I cannot for the life of me understand how someone equates ME or DA2 with those games. So it instead becomes an argument about how they are not JRPGs instead of actually discussing the merits and flaws of what is actually in those games.
But that's just metagaming. Once you have her in your group she can treat you any sort of way and for some strange reason you can't just give her the boot and tell her off. Like I said, I do like her, I made her Divine. But face it, she has nothing to offer during the entire game and is a nobody until she becomes divine. I see no reason why an Inquisitor who does not like her can't just call her out on needing you more than you need her and give her the boot.
I feel like she acts exactly like she says she'll act so it's not meta-gaming. I really wouldn't have a problem with being able to dismiss companions, but I don't see an issue with how it is now either. I guess they figure they gave you the choice to add them or not, and only Sera does things that are wildly all across the board, so she was the only one with the "dismiss at any time" button.
I also disagree on Vivienne having nothing to offer. I've played as an Inquisitor she barely tolerated and one she appreciated, and she is very kind if she likes you and still civil and reasonable if she doesn't, and she is a talented mage either way who never attempts to sabotage or undermine you even when she disagrees. I appreciate Viv, even like her sometimes, and find her very interesting. But if you don't want her, fair enough, and that's all neither here, nor there, in the general scheme of this argument.
I think they wanted you to get to the scenes just because they wanted to make dismissing a companion a bigger thing, and instead, they made most of them optional in the first place. I see the logic. I don't think it'd be any worse with a dismiss button per se (except it does always kind of stay there all tedious, I notice that with Sera now, and I accidentally almost dismissed Morrigan several times in DAO) so maybe instead of a dialogue, it could be at the War Table or somewhere you didn't have to see it every time you talked to the person.
Asking for a little more to work with isn't the same as asking to play a premade character like Geralt.
Also The Witcher is a WRPG, not a JRPG. I agree with you - No one has asked for anything remotely like a JRPG (even if I disagree with some things people have said). To say they have is to misunderstand the difference between WRPG and JRPG; not all WRPGs are tabula rasas. But no one here has even asked for a totally pre-set character. Obviously gender choice being taken away or name choice has not even been suggested. I imagine racial choice is still popular as well.
(I like JRPGs and WRPGs, for the record. Just saying pre-set characters can occur in both.)
Except what you just described is not Hawke. I know it is a wasted effort to point that out, as I doubt anyone bashing DA2 will actually care about such details, but it still bears to be repeated. What you just described? That is not Hawke. You can choose quite a variety of reactions to many different situations on par, and in some cases exceeding, the options you had in DAO, and as far I could tell, in DAI. I assume by the locking to three personalities, you mean the dominant personality situation which only affected a handful of scenes and never actually forced a decision on the player. And even in that case you could actually change the dominant personality over the game. Again, I realize none of this actually matters in this discussion those hating DA2 don't care about that, but it should always be pointed out instead of allowing the continuous repetition of that opinion.
As for the relevancy, for this discussion, what you describing wasn't really asked by anyone. I cannot fathom how those things would be a direct result from Inquisitor how did not have a neutral tone in most discussions instead of giving some weight or emotion according to the choice that was made as even the reaction wheel choices always felt insanely subdued. I actually welcome all the opportunities to craft the character I am playing and feel that it is truly a character in that world. I did not feel I truly was able to do something like that as there were really only a few scenes I felt engaged by the character or truly feeling her to actually be someone, which for me was largely the choices made in directing voice acting or having really those Hell Yeah moments where the character themselves truly stands out. It is that simple to me and, as far as I can understand, to the most people being critical of the current choices in this thread.
I don't hate DA2 or Hawke, so good job with that fallacy.
I was actually just thinking about this. I want to love my Inquisitor like I love my Warden or Hawke but I just don't. I don't feel a connection with her. I've been trying to build up the character in my head but it's so hard to do with the limited hairstyles and attire. I really hope they put out a hairstyles dlc. I'd shamelessly pay $10 for more hairstyles and an alternative to the horrible pajamas.
People say this every game, I swear, lol.
And after this game, people will say they didn't feel a connection with the next character like they did with their Inquisitor.
People say this every game, I swear, lol.
And after this game, people will say they didn't feel a connection with the next character like they did with their Inquisitor.
It's the bsn.
Would you rather stay locked to three personalities? Be forced to believe in a religion? Lack agency at key parts? That is DA2 and Hawke. DAI gives freedom and many tools to craft your character.
And was I exclusively talking about DA2? no. I stated that I found Hawke more predictable than the Inquisitor in response to a comment that people were surprised about what Hawke said sometimes, which is my own personal opinion being thrown into a pot with the personal opinions of other people. I also stated that I liked how the events in DA2 would allow for more character development. This is not a comment on the personality lock, it's a comment on how the story is more personal and allows for more development and personal events. Do I expect Inquisition to do this? Not really, Inquisition is not a personal story and thus has less room for development on a personal level. If you were paying attention to the overarching point of the comment you'd notice it was more about why the characters didn't feel as bland to me as the Inquisitor does, not about personalities.
For personalities I'd rather it at least on occasion be handled more like Origins. Origins was open, but it gave people more to go off than inquisition (See: character origins that we get to play a little bit of) and allowed for characters to do some pretty dark things in side quests. I don't mean story altering decisions that would take a huge amount of time and money to implement, and leave very difficult implications for future games to account for, but rather more side quests that let people actually do something small but meaningful towards reflecting/developing/roleplaying certain character personalities. Regardless of which dialogue option is chosen, most of the story content has a slight variation before rounding into the same generic response. At least a few side quests allowing this would let people do some various actions that give a character more of an alignment and generally the quests would be a bit more memorable, particularly for their variation with different characters. Hell, maybe even the occasional party member could comment on it, like how Alistair became grumpy when the warden killed certain people or how Morrigan was amused when the warden threatened a priest.
Sure the character can be a complete brute in judgements, but frequently they're judging people who did some rather nasty stuff anyways. Now if you could do a bit of horrid or amusing things (or horrid but amusing!) out in the field instead of just helping everybody that would allow for a stronger feeling of variation between characters. Personality is just as much (if not more) decided by the capability to do frequent small actions towards alignment as it is by larger overarching actions.
As a personal example, I play a tabletop RPG called Starwars: Edge of the Empire from time to time with a group of people. In our first campaign I was playing a Chaotic Neutral character, and despite persuading the bad guy's second in command to change to our side to save my own skin, I really wanted his bottle of Corellian Whiskey. Really really wanted it. The DM/GM/whatever the hell you want to call the guy running it, decided to make my life hell to get it but when I did manage to get it, through a series of rolls that were way harder than they should have been, It was probably one of the most satisfying moments of playing that self-centered bastard. Sure, I made many bigger choices and more obvious choices that were within that character personality but most of those still had to work with the overall group and keep them happy enough that I could have them play into my own plans. Stealing the bottle of whiskey just because my character wanted it and had no real obligations to or not to steal it (the second in command served his use anyways) was, sure, a very small thing to do, but even if the GM decided to make it easy to do it would have been just as satisfying because I got to make a choice free of pressure or obligation. That's why I say side quests. Things we can do that really wouldn't have a lot of implications for the overall story but would be there to serve as a way of letting us give our characters more personality and would provide the game with more memorable moments, especially for people who play with multiple characters.
I don't hate DA2 or Hawke, so good job with that fallacy.
You don't dislie Hawke or DA2, you just felt the need to point out how it limited you to three personalities and forced opinions on you, unlike the current system which allows you to establish as the player, unlike the specified DA2, and you literally thanked God for that. I am sorry for putting words in your mouth, but you must admit why what you wrote would come across as bashing DA2. And good job dismissing everything else I said on that one single misinterpretation, considering most of what I wrote was in response to your specific claims of DA2.
People say this every game, I swear, lol.
And after this game, people will say they didn't feel a connection with the next character like they did with their Inquisitor.
True, but I guess the relevant question is that is it same people saying that they did not feel the connection for the character for same reasons they gave before.
I think head canon is a must. You need to get into it, not just expect the game to carry you through.
It's role-playing. Your character should reflect your own personality, or at least a personality you really want to convey, instead of just going through the motions - do this quest, kill, loot, repeat - it would make your experience a lot better.
When there are different characters each game, you have to do this, because all the development only spans one game.
It's different than say, Mass Effect, where you develop feelings for these characters, because you've taken them in all your journeys. They mean something, rather than just a brand new roster. This is why recurring characters are important, because by the end, if you don't care much for the people involved in a certain plot, it would make it hard for you to care about their motivations and their actions, and overall, the plot itself.
I feel like she acts exactly like she says she'll act so it's not meta-gaming.....
I also disagree on Vivienne having nothing to offer.....
I think they wanted you to get to the scenes just because they wanted to make dismissing a companion a bigger thing, and instead, they made most of them optional in the first place. I see the logic. I don't think it'd be any worse with a dismiss button per se (except it does always kind of stay there all tedious, I notice that with Sera now, and I accidentally almost dismissed Morrigan several times in DAO) so maybe instead of a dialogue, it could be at the War Table or somewhere you didn't have to see it every time you talked to the person.
It's metagaming because you won't know that you can't get rid of her until the second playthrough, or even that you won't like her. It's not a case where you can invite her on and then realize it won't work and tell her to go. You pretty much have to wait for a second play through and then not recruit her based on not liking her content.
When I say nothing to offer, I mean that having her in the Inquisition is not important. She's not a key member other than belonging to your inner circle. You lose nothing by tossing her. Actually, I think it sort of sucks that most of the companions have nothing to offer aside from their willingness to fight and join you. Sure you get some war table info that is good but I think ME2 did the companion thing better. The story stressed how important it was to build a team and everyone recruited had a special skill or was just useful for fighting. With so many companions in DAI, it's kinda disappointing that aside from Solas, none of them were really needed.
I loved dismissing my companions face to face. I think it's only professional to tell them why they don't belong.
I'm with the OP.
At least in Origin we had some back story.
In Inquisition you're a total nobody who happen to be a witness of crime and then become the savior of "light" because plot.
Also there aren't a lot of dialog to devellop the backstoty of our character.
Would you rather stay locked to three personalities? Be forced to believe in a religion? Lack agency at key parts? That is DA2 and Hawke. DAI gives freedom and many tools to craft your character. Religion, political, proactivty ect. All of that is determined by you, the player, not established and thank god.
I really love DA2, and snarky Hawke is one of my favoritest PC's, but I do agree that the Inquisitor gives me more wiggle room when I try to imagine the type of person I'd like her to be. I guess I can understand why this particular character doesn't gel with some people, but I've found myself to be more attached to this one than the other two, and even Shepard, which is strange, but then, weirdness is supposed to be a thing here, yes?
Asking for a little more to work with isn't the same as asking to play a premade character like Geralt.
People say this every game, I swear, lol.
And after this game, people will say they didn't feel a connection with the next character like they did with their Inquisitor.
First I've heard of it regarding DAO. I know some people didn't like DA2. (I did.) My Warden is hands down my favorite character in any rpg I've played within the last 10 yrs. I also enjoyed my sarcastic Hawke.
Note that the Inquisitor does sometimes develop a specific personality when involved in certain conversations. For example, regardless of your general dialogue choices, an Mquisitor romancing Dorian has several points where unavoidable sarcastic or teasing auto dialogue takes place. This is very jarring when Mquisitor has few options for teasing any characters outside of those conversations, and the player may never have chosen a humorous line in their playthrough.
For me, the issue with the Inquisitor is that there are certain lines and conversation that show flashes of a defined personality, and then the rest of the dialogue choices are very similar in tone and presentation.
...Okay, I lied, there's one other issue. I liked the tone wheel icons in DA2, especially the distinction between diplomatic and good, aggressive and blunt, and funny and charming. I miss them. Sometimes I expect my British Femquisitor to be sarcastic when I pick the middle option, and she's just kind of smarmy instead and I have to reload the conversation and try the lowest option, which is sometimes the funny one instead. I mean, I reload most conversations anyway just to see what all the options are, but still! I want to know which lines are meant seriously ahead of time. Especially with American Mquisitor, who sounds pretty sarcastic all the time, or American Femquisitor, who sounds generally blunt regardless.
To be fair Geralt wasn't built from the ground up for a video game. He has his entire back story in books written well before the witcher went mainstream.
I know, I've read them. He's a great character IMO. I'm looking forward to the third game.
I know, I've read them. He's a great character IMO. I'm looking forward to the third game.
I would personally like an origin-style DLC for the Inquisitor, focusing on their individual backgrounds. I think it would be a lot of fun, visiting family in Ostwick, reuniting with your Dalish clan, etc. I feel that connection, familial or something like it, was sorely missing.
Retour en haut