305 réponses à ce sujet

[VilhoDog13]

Meh it's all opinions. Hawke owns Inquisitor in every aspect. That's how I feel, and no matter how many pie charts, star maps, fossil records, and sworn statements people argue with it won't change my mind. Am I wrong? are they wrong? who cares it's my opinion. Put it this way I'd rather hang out in IRL with Hawke than Inquisitor because I like a little trouble with a whole lot of snark on the side oooooohhhhhh dat snark.

 

I can see this.

 

However, I will say that Hawke felt like his own character. S/he didn't really feel like an extension of myself, but rather a character within a story. As the inquisitor, I felt like I really was the inquisitor.

 

You create your own interactions, whereas as Hawke, you reacted to them.

[Beaubier]

I'd finished a DA:O replay not long before I cracked open DA:I, and I did feel that my Warden was a bit more fully fleshed out than my Inquisitor when all was said and done. Both require the player to do most of the heavy lifting wrt to backstory, but for me the difference came down to three key componants:

 

1) Background. The DA:O origin stories gave me a solid starting point to sink my claws into, where DA:I gave me a placard that didn't feel all that solid in a game where the point was to plow up the bedrock beliefs of the characters to start with.

 

2) That damned dialogue wheel is an immersion breaking pain in the nethers. Getting taken out of the story while I was trying to figure out which of the vaguely hinted options was actually the one I wanted made it a lot harder to feel that my Inquisitors were characters in their own right and not just vehicles for companion interaction.

 

3) Locking down the stat options and removing skills has left my DA:I playthroughs feeling more generic than DA:O. With DA:O, I could put together characters of the same class who implied different personalities just from their build. I could play a warrior who was a brainless slab of meat with enough CON to headbutt a dragon or a high-dex, cunning bastard who lied, cheated, and hoodwinked his way across Fereldan and see those choices reflected in my Wardens' interactions. The Inquisitor does have different delivery options, but the choices are going to be largely the same from Inquisitor to Inquisitor, no matter what I'm playing. Any extra flavor is up to me to headcanon in.

 

These issues largely stem from Bioware's modern approach to their games. The day of vioceless protagonists and text tree convos in big-name RPGs seems to have largely passed. It's not an inherently bad thing, but it does sadden me a bit. But I suppose that's all the more reason to look forward to Pillars of Eternity.

[Elite Midget]

Good freakin' lord. This is the point. Bioware really can't win. People complained that Hawke was too narrow. Good/Sarcastic/Bad options. So, Bioware creates the inquisitor - far more neutral options/tones, along with more options of lines.

 

Even still, apparently that's not good enough. (And I'm not saying you were one of those people uncle, I'm merely pointing out how ironic your statement was in relation to what people said about Hawke in DA2. But I do disagree with you that the inquisitor was either very diplomatic or angry. He could have a fairly neutral point of view. There were many times where, instead of agreeing/disagreeing with someone, I questioned them about their motives instead).

 

Sometimes BSN......sometimes.....

Yet people overhwelming love Sarcastic Hawke.

 

Yet the Inquisitor has little to no Sarcasm and lacks the "voice" to pull it off like Hawke (Male and Female).

 

Bioware seems to have missed that.

[duckley]

 For me, the Inquisitor's personality doesn't come across as strong as Hawke the sarcastic, but much stronger than our silent protagonist in the first DA game.

[Moirnelithe]

I can see this.

 

However, I will say that Hawke felt like his own character. S/he didn't really feel like an extension of myself, but rather a character within a story. As the inquisitor, I felt like I really was the inquisitor.

 

You create your own interactions, whereas as Hawke, you reacted to them.

 

It needs a bit of both in my opinion. I like headcanoning (is that a word?) my PC's but they need a sounding board and a decent starting point. I can't work with nothing. I need NPC's to respond in some way that reflects the personality I give the PC without the PC actually defining it for me without my input. In DA2 Hawke wasn't my character at all, it was Bioware's character, there was nothing in Hawke's 'fixed' personalities that fit my playstyle.

 

But the inquisitor strangely enough, is neither Biowares character or my character. Bioware put too much of themselves in the inquisitor at the beginning of the game. I really, really hate how the PC stammers her reply on being questioned by Cassandra, and the "what's going on here?" voice over in the fade. How stupid can you be to walk into a room where obviously bad things are happening and say that? It's artificial stupidity and it defines my character way too much. Then leaves the rest of it practically blank by giving mostly moderate dialogue options and neutral voice overs without giving me much of an opportunity to fill in the blanks. There should be more quests and dialogues that focus on enabling you to define your personality followed by NPC dialogue that reflect that personality.

 

Ideally, I'd like either a silent PC (and yeah I know, never going to happen) or a 'toned down Hawke' with a 4th neutral option aside from the diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive ones in case they don't 'fit', and never ever lock in the personality based on what I pick most. Also, don't start with a game with a new character smack bam in the middle of the story. Starting the game with an explosion for effect is not 'cool' in an RPG when it detracts from roleplaying.

[ShadowWeaver2012]

I think that it was difficult for Bioware to create a true sense of people working together.

 

I understand about the reasons for a 'blank slate' Inquisitor, I do. But a majority of the responses were so bland....these people- the companions, the advisors, these are people that you are fighting along side of, bleeding next to, running to and from danger with. These are your coworkers. These are your battle buddies. These are people you have to trust with your life, basically.

 

Where is the rapport? I did see hints of it here and there amongst themselves, but not much with me. Maybe its because the Inquisitor is seen as 'holy' in some respects. I guess I can understand that. But at some point you decide to trust or not trust. They could have changed things after the companion quests are completed, making rapport warmer. You've proven yourself to them at that point.  

 

 One time I run by Cullen and he tells me that Sera made him a cake or something, and my Inquisitor asks "Why are you telling ME this?" and he says "Because I'm afraid she did something to it". and I thought that was hilarious. That sounded like something one of my real-life coworker friends would say.

[Hazegurl]

Perhaps the issue with the Inquisitor is that he's a "vanilla protagonist" designed solely for everyone to relate to?  Which is why he's so neutral about nearly everything. If I were to go further and take it a bit literally. The Quizzy is a base and the game is supposed to give us the tools to add flavor. The only problem(for me) is that we're given: Lite Vanilla, French Vanilla, and Vanilla w/ chocolate swirl. Sure you can imagine the colorful sprinkles but at the end of the day you're still eating plain old Vanilla Ice cream and the sprinkles are just in your mind. Compared to vanilla I'd rather have the personalities that were in DA2. I'd rather have a real character and go through the story with him and all the trials that may come over a self insertion avatar with inadequate tools to shape him....and now I want some ice cream.

 

But at the end of the day, it's BW's decision and with the success of Inquisition they'll most likely remain on this path as far as protags. I think the main thing they'll want to change is that crappy tactical cam though cause I don't think anyone likes it. lol!

[alwaysquestions]

But the inquisitor strangely enough, is neither Biowares character or my character. Bioware put too much of themselves in the inquisitor at the beginning of the game. I really, really hate how the PC stammers her reply on being questioned by Cassandra, and the "what's going on here?" voice over in the fade. How stupid can you be to walk into a room where obviously bad things are happening and say that? It's artificial stupidity and it defines my character way too much. Then leaves the rest of it practically blank by giving mostly moderate dialogue options and neutral voice overs without giving me much of an opportunity to fill in the blanks. There should be more quests and dialogues that focus on enabling you to define your personality followed by NPC dialogue that reflect that personality.

 

This was my problem with the inquisitor as well. The voice acting and the limited dialogue choices make me feel like I'm not in control of the personality but the game doesn't give him strong pre-written personalities like with Hawke either.

[Linkenski]

I guess it's an "either or..." kind of choice where either Bioware puts a lot of effort into making a very flexible protagonist or they put effort into the companions and I remember several of the writers saying that they think Companions are the most important aspect of character writing in Bioware games, and I agree.

 

If they could put extra time and resources (or if developing were easier) it would be great to have a game where character development for your protagonist was possible with 3 or more branches for him/her to develop in, kind of like what they did with your tone alignment with Hawke in DA2 but more in depth so it's not just tone but also course and action and reflection, and there'd be 3 kinds of endings (with the usual set of ending variations; NOT like Mass Effect 3 though!!!) that you could arrive at, with each reflecting on the hero's journey and what your protag had learned or how the story had changed him/her... again, not like ME1 where the ending simply shows whether you're good or evil in tone and color, but some sort of conclusion which is all about your protanoist's personal journey.

 

...or it could be the usual unified ending with lots of variations and there'd just be key-points in the plot that moved your protagonist's character arc unlike most Bioware games.

[Uhh.. Jonah]

I think the main problem was that the conversations were heavily one-sided, as if I'm holding an interview.

Ex: *character says something*

Inq: *either comments saying they agree or disagree or just ask about what they are saying.*

I realize that it's hard to avoid that considering our character can't exactly relate, but the responses could have been better than "you're brave" or "I agree with that".

It's really apparent when talking to Josephine. Can't even count how many times I said "you're nice/lovely/blah blah blah".

I think this style worked best with Solas, because his relationship is a lot about asking him questions about the fade and such, and in that it made it feel more real for me than the other companions.

[theluc76]

Players dont realize that they are not playing their Inquisitor but the BioWare Inquisitor

[Moirnelithe]

I guess it's an "either or..." kind of choice where either Bioware puts a lot of effort into making a very flexible protagonist or they put effort into the companions and I remember several of the writers saying that they think Companions are the most important aspect of character writing in Bioware games, and I agree.

 

 

Players dont realize that they are not playing their Inquisitor but the BioWare Inquisitor

 

And this is where in my opinion we leave RPG territory and move towards the adventure genre. RPG's to me are about defining your character and making them grow by means of a journey.

[VilhoDog13]

And this is where in my opinion we leave RPG territory and move towards the adventure genre. RPG's to me are about defining your character and making them grow by means of a journey.

Curious, what game qualifies as an RPG?

[dreamgazer]

Middle-of-the-road Inquisitor can be pretty sassy too, folks.

[dreamgazer]

Curious, what game qualifies as an RPG?

The ones they like.

[KaiserShep]

Middle-of-the-road Inquisitor can be pretty sassy too, folks.

 

Yeah. The Inquisitor can't crack wise in rapid succession like Hawke, but sure as heck of a lot more than a certain Silent One.

[Duelist]

Middle-of-the-road Inquisitor can be pretty sassy too, folks.

Admittedly, I'm quite fond of Quizzy responding with, "Well. S***."

[RedMagister]

I also believe the execution of DAI is quite bad for the reasons the OP mentioned. I love the characters and there are some great highlights in the game, but there is no context for the inquisitor, which makes the game less fulfilling. Thrown in story, without creating a strong connection to the context leaves a player without their own motive to play.

 

this is a badly typed critique. My point is, I love the lore and the other characters, but not the game we played out. So, i ultimately think the execution of DAI could have been much better. Some changes i would consider making include:

 

1) no voice over for the main char. It can create more options for the game makers and will allow players to feel freed from a mismatched voice. This isn't that important depending on how one prioritizes the animation, but i think it is worth considering.

 

2) displaying the actual dialogue choice or response to be given; at least the main point. This makes more sense than key words because they are easily misinterpreted. This is something DAO did well, actually. This is still possible with an animated/fully voiced main character.

 

3) focus on player's immersion to the story. Quality of immersion will come when there is a context. the context is not limiting, and actually fuels the game as long as it is introduced in a reasonably non-disruptive fashion. Give the player a reason to play and keep going. Create a context where he or she sees a goal of their own; not just an actor choosing this option or that option, not just reacting to a scene or event.

 

4) streamline the quests more; have the person actually engage with the environment. Let them go through it purposefully- allow that to move the story. DAI was inspired by an open world. It was a nice idea but it can be costly since DAI is story driven. Instead, let exploration come with story. make the exploration count, tie it together to the plot. Don't bother wasting time throwing lore all over and dont bother with arbitrary quests. stop relying on 'main quest' to push the story and 'side quest' to be on the side. this idea of quest 1,2,3,4, makes things frustrating and actually ruins immersion. Unless there is a solid reason for having the quest there, don't bother with it. Not only is this less work for everyone, but allows them to focus on what matters. This isn't to say to ignore exploration all together- it just needs to be fun. To some degree DAI exploration was fun, but only when the area being explored had something profound, meaning it was story relevant and would be worth discovering and investing time into finding.

.

.

i honestly think #3 and #4 is what matters most. Make a story. Just don't forget to make it fun. What makes a game like this fun is hard to say, but that's what player feedback is for and also what those making the game should be considering- what is the value of actually playing this game from start to end? I think this has been lost since DAO, at least this is the impression i have.

[Jeremy Ray]

I also have trouble connecting to this character as opposed to DA:O.

[goishen]

I dunno.  That's one reason why I chose to romance Sera.  While I don't want to say that I hate cockney, I just sometimes can't understand it.  And by the end, (just finished, 'cause I'm waiting on BioWare to roll out their patches) I got used to it.  It seems to me that Sera is kind'a like Jack in ME2.  Where by Jack does everything from an emotional state, Sera does everything from the lowest common denominator.

 

This allowed me to push everything off on her, so I could just sit back and enjoy the show.  I dunno what I'm gonna do next time.  Prolly a male inquisitor and romance Cassandra.

[Seraphim24]

I'm pretty sure they were just trying to avoid having the people repelled by Hawke and the people uninterested in the Warden to reach some kind of middle ground.

 

I don't know if any of the 3 'protagonists' is really ultimately satisfactory, they're not really 3 different approaches so much as 3 ways of avoiding the central issue, making an interesting character.

 

DA:O had the most BG like variety of responses and therefore transmitted the most interesting personality, IMO. You could basically play Hawke in DA:O, the well of snark was there, or someone else entirely.

[Bann Duncan]

Also I really need to write this: please don't let our Warden go and die somewhere of screen if having her/him as protagonist once more is really too much to ask for and damnit at least give us straight girls or gay guys some closure with King Alistair (especially involving everything our Warden had to go through to achieve that ending)/ poor Zevran (not even getting a cameo) like Morrigan fans got.

 

Mods are not canon.

 

This thread is invalid.

[Farangbaa]

Nothing has less personality than the Warden.

[Mesecina]

Mods are not canon.

 

This thread is invalid.

?

I meant closure with Zevran which really got the short end of the stick in DAI (it is written King Alistair/Zevran).

Or are you just trolling?

[Kaibe]

All I wanted was to be a super sarcastic jerk.