439 réponses à ce sujet

[RinuCZ]

except to me it felt like it was being ignored completely, yes we got some 'the qun is bad m'kay' but anyone paying attention knew that, we didn't get the chance to tell Viveinne she was wrong about the Dalish (as a freaking Dalish who should have slapped her down so hard her skull shattered like glass in a rock crusher) or to actually be a Dalish supremacist like other non-companion  characters are *insert race here* supremacists, we have to be this shining paragon of virtue, and that is not re-playable, it's ok once, but without the contrast I don't see the point of another character, the setting may have some darkness but it is drowned out and hidden, and we cannot be part of it.

Yes, I don't argue that Inquisitor was written within certain mantinels. But that is not related to this topic, it is simply the matter of Bioware deciding to let you roleplay the specific type of character instead of letting you roleplay a wide range of personalities.

[Vilegrim]

Yes, I don't argue that Inquisitor was written within certain mantinels. But that is not related to this topic, it is simply the matter of Bioware deciding to let you roleplay the specific type of character instead of letting you roleplay a wide range of personalities.

 

 

yet to me because of that limit the game feels far less dark, as if the nastiness and cruelty of the setting is an aberration, rather than endemic as it was in Origins 

[Iakus]

Yes, I don't argue that Inquisitor was written within certain mantinels. But that is not related to this topic, it is simply the matter of Bioware deciding to let you roleplay the specific type of character instead of letting you roleplay a wide range of personalities.

Well, for myself I don't want to join the darkness.  I have no desire to play an asshat.  And certainly no desire to be forced to play one.  So I'm fine with the Inquisition mandate to "restore order"  I still get to do that any number of ways.  Including personally executing/Tranquilizing certain enemies.

[In Exile]

yet to me because of that limit the game feels far less dark, as if the nastiness and cruelty of the setting is an aberration, rather than endemic as it was in Origins

But it's not endemic in DAO. It's barely even there. It is just in your face when it shows up.

[wicked cool]

People forget that the warden did get to killpeople that pissed him off

Examples
Dwarf noble-scholar or lessor noble, scout
The prisoner with the key
Vaughn kendells and or rexel
Jowan
Brother gentivi

[Ryriena]

Well, for myself I don't want to join the darkness. I have no desire to play an asshat. And certainly no desire to be forced to play one. So I'm fine with the Inquisition mandate to "restore order" I still get to do that any number of ways. Including personally executing/Tranquilizing certain enemies.

That is not really that evil to begin with since that is a punishment. I may not like begin an evil jerk all the time but at least I don't force it on others who want to have that playstyle to role play their characters as going dark side. Plus the worst thing, I could do was kill the Dutchess before she stood trial as a box, which made me laugh and shake my head. The trials are something that we can legally do as the inquisitor, so that is not something seen as a tyrant would do in a sense.

A tyrant would use his or her skills as thier savior to take power for themselves, or overthrow the Chantry and declare that they are an outlawed reglion, which my Dalish inqusitior would do in a heartbeat. That's what you get for outlawing my reglion you asshats. But nope we're not allowed to be a Tyrant that will destory anything in his or her path or have evil characters that don't give a **** about human problems.

My psychopath female Mage tyrant wanbee romanced Cullen, hated that she had to hide herself and be a symbol for a relgion she hated and also wanted to destory the chantry image in the public eyes but could only make soft choices for the characters because their weren't options to allow me too play truly evil characters.

[KaiserShep]

Brother Genitivi is hilarious because the Warden has no really good reason to be pissed off. You took a pinch of ashes that you're not even certain will really work, but suddenly this guy, who is the one and only reason you found it in the first place, has to die to protect it lol. The Warden's such an a-hole.

[In Exile]

Brother Genitivi is hilarious because the Warden has no really good reason to be pissed off. You took a pinch of ashes that you're not even certain will really work, but suddenly this guy, who is the one and only reason you found it in the first place, has to die to protect it lol. The Warden's such an a-hole.

It's also hilariously the religious zealot choice, which makes this " I had options for my anti-Chantry evil character more hilarious ".

[Iakus]

That is not really that evil to begin with since that is a punishment. I may not like begin an evil jerk all the time but at least I don't force it on others who want to have that playstyle to role play their characters as going dark side. Plus the worst thing, I could do was kill the Dutchess before she stood trial as a box, which made me laugh and shake my head. The trials are something that we can legally do as the inquisitor, so that is not something seen as a tyrant would do in a sense.

A tyrant would use his or her skills as thier savior to take power for themselves, or overthrow the Chantry and declare that they are an outlawed reglion, which my Dalish inqusitior would do in a heartbeat. That's what you get for outlawing my reglion you asshats. But nope we're not allowed to be a Tyrant that will destory anything in his or her path or have evil characters that don't give a **** about human problems.

My psychopath female Mage tyrant wanbee romanced Cullen, hated that she had to hide herself and be a symbol for a relgion she hated and also wanted to destory the chantry image in the public eyes but could only make soft choices for the characters because their weren't options to allow me too play truly evil characters.

Well, I found the Inquisitor's jurisdiction in some of these cases to be kinda iffy.  The Inquisition is not, technically, a nation in its own right.  It simply exists on the Ferelden/Orlesian border and has an army big enough that neither country can really push them around.  Something that should make them both pretty nervous right there.

 

And I really don't think the Inquisition, for all its power, can or should take on the Chantry.  Even in peacetime, that would turn every single nation in southern Thedas against them.  It's one thing to step in and restore order when the Chantry  can't, and Orlais is too wrapped up in its civil war to do anything.  But to try and outright dismantle it?  People would forget their differences and take notice of that.  The Inquisition's support would totally evaporate. 

 

And sure, your Dalish may not like the Cantry, or humanity in general.  But the Breach threatens Thedas in general.  That's why you have Iron Bull signing on.  That's why you have Orzamaar and even Kal Sharok extending a hand.  You may not care about human problems, but the Breach and Coryphillus is everyone's problem.

 

And yeah, you can't really avoid the "Herald of Andraste" thing.  My own qunari has said 'I wish people would stop calling me that" but you are not representative of the Chantry.  The Chantry calls the title of Herald blasphemy.  And brands the Inquisition heretics for shelting you.  They only change their tune once you actually start getting results.

 

But to go on an anti-chantry crusade?  Impossible.  It's simply too entrenched in Thedosian society.  a psychopath Inquisitor would just get the world killed.

[ThreeF]

My psychopath female Mage tyrant wanbee romanced Cullen, hated that she had to hide herself and be a symbol for a relgion she hated and also wanted to destory the chantry image in the public eyes but could only make soft choices for the characters because their weren't options to allow me too play truly evil characters.

well at least you get to be bossy with him if you want. I find the bossy option rather funny.

 

"Cullen, I want a kiss"

"You are asking how i'm doing? The f****? Shut up and do your work! getting all touchy and stuff, gross"

"Cullen, I want a kiss"

"You are having  bad day? Think you should go back on lyrium?  What are you a man or a chicken?!"

"Cullen, I want a kiss"

 

(keeps the man on his toes)

 

you can even have the angst of you life

 

IQ:"Cullen, I care for you but I'm a mage, can you love a mage?" ;__;

C: Yes.
IQ:"Cullen, you are alone with a mage now, scary huh?"

C: .... No?

IQ: "...but does it makes you uncomfortable? Remember, i'm a mage"

C: "Not really?"

IQ: " but if you were still a Templar you would not love me!!! admit it!"

C: "Fine, yes I would not!"

IQ:  ;______;

 

 can't  say you don't have options. 

[Vilegrim]

But to go on an anti-chantry crusade?  Impossible.  It's simply too entrenched in Thedosian society.  a psychopath Inquisitor would just get the world killed.

 

 

 

Then the world deserve to burn and I hope the suffering is without end.

[Il Divo]

Then the world deserve to burn and I hope the suffering is without end.

 

That's cool, but people shouldn't be surprised that Bioware doesn't go the narrative route which puts their backs increasingly against the wall just to satisfy their sadistic pleasures. As it stands, the import system is questionably implemented. 

 

This is how we get things like the Collector Base decision in Mass Effect 3. 

[Ryriena]

well at least you get to be bossy with him if you want. I find the bossy option rather funny.

"Cullen, I want a kiss"
"You are asking how i'm doing? The f****? Shut up and do your work! getting all touchy and stuff, gross"
"Cullen, I want a kiss"
"You are having bad day? Think you should go back on lyrium? What are you a man or a chicken?!"
"Cullen, I want a kiss"

(keeps the man on his toes)

you can even have the angst of you life

IQ:"Cullen, I care for you but I'm a mage, can you love a mage?" ;__;
C: Yes.
IQ:"Cullen, you are alone with a mage now, scary huh?"
C: .... No?
IQ: "...but does it makes you uncomfortable? Remember, i'm a mage"
C: "Not really?"
IQ: " but if you were still a Templar you would not love me!!! admit it!"
C: "Fine, yes I would not!"
IQ: ;______;

can't say you don't have options.

While those are great options for romances I would say that this not so great for giving my characters their personality. Most of my characters are soft core psychopaths, in this game basicly Bioware forced us on the light side path by making us the goody too shoe types.

[Giantdeathrobot]

While those are great options for romances I would say that this not so great for giving my characters their personality. Most of my characters are soft core psychopaths, in this game basicly Bioware forced us on the light side path by making us the goody too shoe types.

 

See, here's something that has been bothering me a bit.

 

I've been replaying The Witcher 2 recently. I am actually quite far in now, and despite the constant talk about the setting being grimdark and ''mature'', you know what I noticed?

 

Geralt is nicer than any protagonist Bioware has ever written.

 

I mean, think folks. What's the most *******-ish thing Geralt ever does? Leave Melara to the guards? She was planning to betray him anyway. Kill the troll in Troll Trouble? Nothing outstanding, it's a troll. Take the violent option in some side-quests? You still can't murder innocents for ghits and shiggles. In fact, I can't recall a moment in the series where you ever can take a cruel option. Your actions can have dire consequences (such as killing Henselt), but that's not the same thing at all. Geralt's character is locked into good guy mode, sometimes more neutral, but I have never heard anyone call him a goody two shoes. 

 

Meanwhile, the ''gody two-shoes'' Inquisitor can execute people on a whim, Tranquil mages, make Blackwall their slaves, let Celene die before their eyes and/or manipulate the leadership of Orlais to be their pawns, elect to massacre the Sentinel elves in the Temple of Mythal, encourage Leliana to be few things short of a psychopath, and that's without going into the War Table missions. More arguably, actions such as reinstating the Templars, following Sera's questlines, and putting Vivienne as Divine are decisions that don't sit well with a subset of players, for instance.

 

So I'm just a bit confused why the Inquisitor is a goody two shoes. Because you cannot randomly murderknife people for no reason and with no consequences? That's a pretty damn narrow definition if you ask me.

[Seraphim24]

See, here's something that has been bothering me a bit.

 

I've been replaying The Witcher 2 recently. I am actually quite far in now, and despite the constant talk about the setting being grimdark and ''mature'', you know what I noticed?

 

Geralt is nicer than any protagonist Bioware has ever written.

 

Pretty much the primary reason I prefer Witcher 2. The protagonist is basically a kind of a cool guy. He's rough around the edges, but he also has the ability to just ignore stuff, and that makes him paradoxically less violent and unstable. 

 

Bioware protagonists these days are fragile,  hopped up on some sort of "justice" juice, and oversensitized to everything. They come as kind of insanely unstable, fluctuating between utter passivity and then extreme judgmentality and violent outbursts at the slightest hint of criticism. Geralt's like, you know what? screw this, I'm gonna go have sex now, and doesn't have the edge the whole time.

 

It's a 10 year old's version of "grim and dark," just upping the violence and gratuitous factor to make them seem dark and edgy in order to push the spotlight from themselves, it doesn't make them look grim and dark though, quite the opposite, really, they have a need to stay in the sunshine and justify their opinions in front of a crowd. I don't really think that was always the case, though it definitely started in DA:2.

[Sylvianus]

See, here's something that has been bothering me a bit.

 

I've been replaying The Witcher 2 recently. I am actually quite far in now, and despite the constant talk about the setting being grimdark and ''mature'', you know what I noticed?

 

Geralt is nicer than any protagonist Bioware has ever written.

 

I mean, think folks. What's the most *******-ish thing Geralt ever does? Leave Melara to the guards? She was planning to betray him anyway. Kill the troll in Troll Trouble? Nothing outstanding, it's a troll. Take the violent option in some side-quests? You still can't murder innocents for ghits and shiggles. In fact, I can't recall a moment in the series where you ever can take a cruel option. Your actions can have dire consequences (such as killing Henselt), but that's not the same thing at all. Geralt's character is locked into good guy mode, sometimes more neutral, but I have never heard anyone call him a goody two shoes. 

 

Meanwhile, the ''gody two-shoes'' Inquisitor can execute people on a whim, Tranquil mages, make Blackwall their slaves, let Celene die before their eyes and/or manipulate the leadership of Orlais to be their pawns, elect to massacre the Sentinel elves in the Temple of Mythal, encourage Leliana to be few things short of a psychopath, and that's without going into the War Table missions. More arguably, actions such as reinstating the Templars, following Sera's questlines, and putting Vivienne as Divine are decisions that don't sit well with a subset of players, for instance.

 

So I'm just a bit confused why the Inquisitor is a goody two shoes. Because you cannot randomly murderknife people for no reason and with no consequences? That's a pretty damn narrow definition if you ask me.

 

I am quite confused by your post too. Why did you feel the need to compare Geralt to the inquisitor exactly ? If people think that the witcher 2 is dark and gritty, it's not at all all because of Geralt, but other things like the storyline, the whole universe, or with Cdj projeckt which doesn't hesitate to show violence, and doesn't resolve and dance around issues. ( from I've seen )

 

Geralt is already a character that has his own personality from a book ( that we can only play as such ), and he is supposed to be basically a good guy, while it isn't necessarily the case for the PC of any dragon age game. It's for us to decide who is normally our inquisitor, while of course he must has to care to restore order. But the rest, it should be us who chooses who he can be. 

 

It should be more interesting to compare DAI, to I don't know, DAO ? The inquisitor to the warden ? There were a lot of possibilities there. To be rude, to be evil, to play a psychopat if we wanted to. And it is totally legetimate to do comparisons, because DAI is a sequel within the same franchise.

 

Also people won't convince anyone in this thread with their words in my opinion, when we have just to play DAO and DAII again to feel that something is lacking with DAI. This game feels sterilized, tame, too safe. 

[Il Divo]

I am quite confused by your post too. Why did you feel the need to compare Geralt to the inquisitor exactly ? If people think that the witcher 2 is dark and gritty, it's not at all all because of Geralt, but other things like the storyline, the whole universe, or with Cdj projeckt which doesn't hesitate to show violence, and doesn't resolve and dance around issues. ( from I've seen )

 

Geralt is already a character that has his own personality from a book ( that we can only play as such ), and he is supposed to be basically a good guy, while it isn't necessarily the case for the PC of any dragon age game. It's for us to decide who is normally our inquisitor, while of course he must has to care to restore order. But the rest, it should be us who chooses who he can be. 

 

It should be more interesting to compare DAI, to I don't know, DAO ? The inquisitor to the warden ? There were a lot of possibilities there. To be rude, to be evil, to play a psychopat if we wanted to. And it is totally legetimate to do comparisons, because DAI is a sequel within the same franchise.

 

Also people won't convince anyone in this thread with their words in my opinion, when we have just to play DAO and DAII again to feel that something is lacking with DAI. This game feels sterilized, tame, too safe. 

 

Mainly because some people dislike role-playing options that they think don't fit the experience. Playing an "ends justify the means" sort of dude who does whatever it takes to get the job done? I can get dig it. Playing an obvious sadist/Psycopath who puts together a band of merry men to combat the evil of the world? Much more laughable. 

 

It's why as much as I love KotOR, I realize that the Dark Side storyline makes absolutely no sense in the context of the game's larger premise, which involves you saving the world at the behest of the Jedi Council. 

[Ieldra]

Pretty much the primary reason I prefer Witcher 2. The protagonist is basically a kind of a cool guy. He's rough around the edges, but he also has the ability to just ignore stuff, and that makes him paradoxically less violent and unstable. 
 
Bioware protagonists these days are fragile,  hopped up on some sort of "justice" juice, and oversensitized to everything. They come as kind of insanely unstable, fluctuating between utter passivity and then extreme judgmentality and violent outbursts at the slightest hint of criticism. Geralt's like, you know what? screw this, I'm gonna go have sex now, and doesn't have the edge the whole time.
 
It's a 10 year old's version of "grim and dark," just upping the violence and gratuitous factor to make them seem dark and edgy in order to push the spotlight from themselves, it doesn't make them look grim and dark though, quite the opposite, really, they have a need to stay in the sunshine and justify their opinions in front of a crowd. I don't really think that was always the case, though it definitely started in DA:2.

I think since the switch to voiced protagonists, Bioware's writers increasingly tend to overdramatize everything in order to get an emotional reaction from people. This has lessened a bit in DAI, but it's still noticeable here and there, as in how the stakes of the plot are inexplicably increased with no grounding at all in plausible motivations of anyone. Also, the bad stuff is always aberration, never part of the world, and is always dramatized. That's why Geralt, in spite of being unable to get out of "good guy mode" as well, appears refreshing: he walks through a world he accepts as being imperfect. The same with relationships: Geralt can have affairs. In Bioware's games there are no affairs, only emotionally high-stakes relationships. I wish I could have an affair in DAI. No high drama. There's enough of that in the plot.

Bioware's writing has improved significantly in DAI, but yeah, I wish I could roleplay my Inquisitor to have Geralt's attitude here and there.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I am quite confused by your post too. Why did you feel the need to compare Geralt to the inquisitor exactly ? If people think that the witcher 2 is dark and gritty, it's not at all all because of Geralt, but other things like the storyline, the whole universe, or with Cdj projeckt which doesn't hesitate to show violence, and doesn't resolve and dance around issues. ( from I've seen )

 

Geralt is already a character that has his own personality from a book ( that we can only play as such ), and he is supposed to be basically a good guy, while it isn't necessarily the case for the PC of any dragon age game. It's for us to decide who is normally our inquisitor, while of course he must has to care to restore order. But the rest, it should be us who chooses who he can be. 

 

It should be more interesting to compare DAI, to I don't know, DAO ? The inquisitor to the warden ? There were a lot of possibilities there. To be rude, to be evil, to play a psychopat if we wanted to. And it is totally legetimate to do comparisons, because DAI is a sequel within the same franchise.

 

Also people won't convince anyone in this thread with their words in my opinion, when we have just to play DAO and DAII again to feel that something is lacking with DAI. This game feels sterilized, tame, too safe. 

 

My point is that people feel the game is too tame because the Inquisitor can't be a complete ******* (from what I read). Which doesn't compute to me, since loads of not-tame works of fantasy (I cited Witcher, but I could easily have taken A Son of Ice and Fire, the premier Dark and Mature fantasy of today, as well) do not have murder-happy scumbags as protagonists. 

 

The point is, it seems only Dragon Age is held up to the standard of ''protagonist can't murder people for no reason = Disneyland''. On all other fronts, I don't find Inquisition to be significantly less violent or gritty than its predecessor. It still deals with war and treason and blood magic and the like.

[Sylvianus]

Mainly because some people dislike role-playing options that they think don't fit the experience. Playing an "ends justify the means" sort of dude who does whatever it takes to get the job done? I can get dig it. Playing an obvious sadist/Psycopath who puts together a band of merry men to combat the evil of the world? Much more laughable. 

 

It's why as much as I love KotOR, I realize that the Dark Side storyline makes absolutely no sense in the context of the game's larger premise, which involves you saving the world at the behest of the Jedi Council. 

 

But it's laughable to you. That's just a point of view from you. I don't share it and neither many folks apparently. Cutting the throat of a child for example because he was dangerous and I had no time to see the circles was morally wrong but justifiable, and I'm certain that with the new bioware we won't get any choice close to that in the future.

 

The ashes of andraste for having more power ? great,even if it means killing Leliana and Wynne who disagree with me. Yes, it would be mean, but they didn't have to be in my way, and that still would make sense with someone hungry power willing to save the world from chaos.

 

****** the love of the elf who asked me to help him to get a date ? That was great too. The guy should have been more audacious and shouldn't have asked a stranger to help him have a date with a girl, that's just ridiculous. A good lesson. 

 

Being a human racist and wanting to do a genocide with Dalish, was great too, and wouldn't prevent me from wanting to save the kingdom of Ferelden from chaos. 

 

being a noble man and being mean to my servants wouldn't mean that I wouldn't want to save the world, just that I'm not paragon. Not all heroes are parangon. My character could believe for example that servants are worthless.

 

Having to torture many folks when I interrogate them wouldn't mean that I wouldn't like to save the world. 

 

There are many possibilities to be evil that could make sense while being the hero that needs to restore order.

[wolfhowwl]

So I'm just a bit confused why the Inquisitor is a goody two shoes. Because you cannot randomly murderknife people for no reason and with no consequences? That's a pretty damn narrow definition if you ask me.

 

People want to play as an edgemaster troll.

[abisha]

See, here's something that has been bothering me a bit.

 

I've been replaying The Witcher 2 recently. I am actually quite far in now, and despite the constant talk about the setting being grimdark and ''mature'', you know what I noticed?

 

Geralt is nicer than any protagonist Bioware has ever written.

 

i guessing you never played Witcher I.

 

Geralt like killing Monsters that's why he exist but he keep getting constant pulled into political plots.

hance what makes Wither more dark themed then DA:I the world around Gerald is just pitch black compare to DA:I

[Sylvianus]

People want to play as an edgemaster troll.

 

People want to be able to play different things. In DAO, I have played nice guys, jerks, complicated guys more grey, and that was fun.

 

In real life, I'm certainly not a psychopat, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying playing one in a playthrough in a rpg, if I want to.  

[Mirth]

 
It's why as much as I love KotOR, I realize that the Dark Side storyline makes absolutely no sense in the context of the game's larger premise, which involves you saving the world at the behest of the Jedi Council.

Not entirely true. The player knows the choice is light/dark. The character RP is another issue entirely.
Yoda always said "forever will it lead your destiny" The consequences of making 1 DS choice.

DAO allowed more freedom what kind of protagonist the player wanted to be.

But that's neither here nor there. DAI is done. It is what it is. Personally - I'd be happy with less codex to tell the world state, and less comical death animations. DAI mature rating is wasted on animated sex and swearing.