I wonder if Origins would get as much love as it does if it had been released after Inquisition. Not to say that it's a bad game by any means or that it's undeserving of praise, but I feel like it also gets bonus points because it was the starting point.
Nostalgia Age. I do think its story was better-implemented, whereas DA:I was more thematically complex and just more interesting to think about in general.
I wonder if Origins would get as much love as it does if it had been released after Inquisition. Not to say that it's a bad game by any means or that it's undeserving of praise, but I feel like it also gets bonus points because it was the starting point.
It gets bonus points because it was made by old Bioware. It's a better game than anything modern Bioware has produced.
I wonder if Origins would get as much love as it does if it had been released after Inquisition. Not to say that it's a bad game by any means or that it's undeserving of praise, but I feel like it also gets bonus points because it was the starting point.
The only thing I didn't like about Origins was the silent protag and slow combat. Origins with a voiced PC and faster combat would have blown Inquisition away. Especially made with the current gen graphics. I also think that because Origins was first the story and outcome isn't restricted to preparations for the sequels. Whereas Inquisition does this half assed attempt at making the PC all powerful while at the same time throwing shackles on them so that they can't make too drastic of a choice because....sequels.
The rise to power in this game was one of the most well done in any rpg ive seen.
Pardon me, but in DAI i cannot see any compelling rise to power, you are called the Herald of Andraste immediately after the first events of the game much more like Super quick rise to power.
Pardon me, but in DAI i cannot see any compelling rise to power, you are called the Herald of Andraste immediately after the first events of the game much more like Super quick rise to power.
You don't have power though...you just have a title and you're still an unknown entity. That's why the Chantry sees you as a threat.
There's a spike at first obviously to establish credibility for your Inquisitor. After that it's an uphill battle.
Pardon me, but in DAI i cannot see any compelling rise to power, you are called the Herald of Andraste immediately after the first events of the game much more like Super quick rise to power.
They don't, however, make you head of the entire Inquisition right away. You end up roughly equal with the advisors and Cassandra, as the public face of the Inquisition. You only get appointed Inquisitor after effectively saving the entire organization at Haven.
You're not actually equal with them. You see this more if you pick the lower-right "Why am I here?" options at the outset of the game. You're being used a bit by the four nominal heads of the Inquisition - Cassandra, Cullen, Leliana and Josephine. You've only got a seat at the table because (1) Cassandra thinks you're divine and (2) so does the rest of the Inquisition.
You know, I think I could get behind a game in which the player actual is Jesus 2.0- a teacher-figure of such huge cultural/historic importance that an entire religion forms after you and goes on to shape history as it displaces other religions and philosophies.
Heck, you could even have an entire franchise on it, in which sequel game PCs are Saints or Prophets or such, other influential figures in the movemen. The philosophy or way you set out to teach as Jesus 2.0 naturally gets warped or changed by the remembrance and activities of the followers, and evolves in new historic contexts. Then the PC of the new game, who will ultimately be a Saint or something similar, becomes key in shaping how the sect evolves over time and circumstances. Do you try to return to the roots and do what Jesus 2.0 preached? Or do the new lessons and contexts call for a change in interpretation? With time skips and such, you could have various cascading Consequences from your theological choices in the previous games.
For example...
In game 1, you are Jesus 2.0, no doubt in a time of upheaval and uncertainty. The Old Gods don't seem to be working out so well, trouble is everywhere, and you (the PC) gather a following as you help set things right and spread lessons. Your example inspires others to follow you, creating a community. As Jesus 2.0, your Big Decisions are the events that history remembers that help codify your major beliefs of the belief systems. Some things might be 'do you claim to represent the divine or not?', or 'is justice mercy or punishment?' or 'should we accept converts to our way?'
In game 2, the community/sect is established and growing and traditional. Jesus 2.0 is revered but gone, and 'WWJD' is one of the questions of the time as the Sect comes into contact with an Outside Religion. The plot of the game focuses on the friction and interaction between the Sect and the Outside Religion, with differing consequences based on J2.0's tenants. Say that the Outside Religion is polytheisti, but J2.0 is explicitly non-divine (aethiest philosophy)- conflicts break out that might have otherwise been avoided if J2.0 claimed divinity, which Outside Religion might have gone 'oh, just another god then. Cool.' Prophet the PC, the new PC, gets to lead/influence how the Sect and how the Outside Religion interact- with outcomes ranging from 'religious war' to 'coexistence' to 'assimilation and combination.' Along with that big Precedent of how to handle other religions, the Prophet gets to set new principles of the religion. Stuff like 'non-violence' and other ideas.
In game 3, the community has emerged from the events of game 2 and faces a new, greater threat: religious cleansing where coexistence doesn't seem to be possible. An outside religion is trying to wipe yours out. The sect is in a time of crisis. The Holy Warrior, the new PC/religious figure, dabbles with the military dimension of politics and religion. If your previous prophets were all 'let's be a peaceful religion,' how does that square with the PC (and other people) who have to fight to survive: does the religion die? Do you create rationalizations for the defense of the faithful? Do you outright overturn such earlier idealism in the face of new threats?
And so on.
The whole saving the world idea has always been in Bioware games but I never minded until DA:I
Its like after DA2 Bioware "listened" to the criticism and went overboard like with the big areas and fetch quests
just so the player can feel important
We have a mark, we lead a big army we are the Herald of Andraste etc. its like we are Jesus 2.0
and I really hope they go back to DA:O's style or even DA 2 style
Especially since there are no consequences of being the Herald some mind sure but in the long run
everyone just rolls with it and there are no effects of the mark for the Inquisitor
Well lets see... Reven, Shepard and the Herald are all Messiah-esque so yeah I would like to see this trend stop as its been done to death by Bioware. Time for a different trope to be used.
They don't, however, make you head of the entire Inquisition right away. You end up roughly equal with the advisors and Cassandra, as the public face of the Inquisition. You only get appointed Inquisitor after effectively saving the entire organization at Haven.
While this is true they do continually defer to you before becoming the inquisitor. I am not sure its a "solvable" issue as you want to give agency to the player, but practically speaking you are the leader of the inquisition as soon as Cassandra believes you were sent by the maker to close the rifts regardless of how the story might try to imply or say otherwise as you make all the choices post prologue.
Well lets see... Reven, Shepard and the Herald are all Messiah-esque so yeah I would like to see this trend stop as its been done to death by Bioware. Time for a different trope to be used.
It's kinda amusing how the one time we actually were the son of a god, we were one of the least messianic Bioware player characters...
With a little luck, the next game will be set in glorious Tevinter and we'll be antichrist 2.0. 
...or at least those filthy andrastian southerners will see it that way...
While this is true they do continually defer to you before becoming the inquisitor. I am not sure its a "solvable" issue as you want to give agency to the player, but practically speaking you are the leader of the inquisition as soon as Cassandra believes you were sent by the maker to close the rifts regardless of how the story might try to imply or say otherwise as you make all the choices post prologue.
While this is true they do continually defer to you before becoming the inquisitor. I am not sure its a "solvable" issue as you want to give agency to the player, but practically speaking you are the leader of the inquisition as soon as Cassandra believes you were sent by the maker to close the rifts regardless of how the story might try to imply or say otherwise as you make all the choices post prologue.
This would have been solvable really if the Inquisition, early on, employed teams. Kinda like SG units in SG-1 and the Inquisitor would have been the 'leader' of only one of those teams. Granted this is knod of how the game already works since the Inquisition is doing other stuff outside of your jaunt through the Hinterlands, the Fallow Mire for instance.
Though this all comes down to the War Table. If they had only given you the access to the War Table after you get Skyhold this conversation would probably be moot.
And so on.
Minus the non-violent part, what I'm hearing is that it's time for some proper Dune RPGs.
Guest_Aribeth de Tylmarande_*
But the part in the Gospel of Matthew where Jesus closes the rifts and herds the golden Halla back to the folds of Jerusalem is my favorite!
I wonder if Origins would get as much love as it does if it had been released after Inquisition. Not to say that it's a bad game by any means or that it's undeserving of praise, but I feel like it also gets bonus points because it was the starting point.
Who knows - but for me its the best game that Bioware have made and that goes all the way back to Baldurs Gate. But there were plenty of people who didn't like a lot of things about it. People complained that the combat was too slow and too difficult and plenty of people seemed to hate the fade and deep roads sections. I liked all of that stuff - though combat mechanics have never been Biowares's strong point but I thought Origins combat much more interesting than DA2 or DA!. Then again I much prefer turn based combat so I'm probably not the target audience any more.
Well lets see... Reven, Shepard and the Herald are all Messiah-esque so yeah I would like to see this trend stop as its been done to death by Bioware. Time for a different trope to be used.
Meh, tropes aren't necessarilly bad. It all depends on how well they're done.
I mean, I'll take being The Inquisitor over being The Shepard any day 
And while I didn't mind being The Hawke myself, others strongly disagreed. 
Can we continue being Jesus?
I like being the ubermensch. Besides, Hawke wasn't what I'd call Jesus.
We were a Grey Warden first time around.
Then champion of Kirk Wall.
I don't know if you can do anything bigger then DA:, it is a massive game
The only two Bioware protagonists that could be defined as "Chosen Ones" is Shepard and The Inquisitor, and Shepard only because he was a soldier prodigy. The Warden wasn't. The only reason he and the rest of the DA:O cast were able to accomplish what they did, is because they tried. Unlike most of the people in that setting during the time.
I see nothing wrong with the "saving the world" storyline, as long as it's done well.
It's an admirable quality - to aspire to be. The greatest-selling book in the history of this world teaches us to be "Christ-like". Be selfless in nature. Try to be without sin and care for one another. "Godlike" is a different matter, but I'm sure that people at that point in your life wouldn't put up with your own delusions.
I, for one, as a small, insignificant being among billions, love pretending to be the saviour of the world.
Guest_Aribeth de Tylmarande_*
Can we continue being Jesus?
I like being the ubermensch. Besides, Hawke wasn't what I'd call Jesus.
Oh, the irony of using the term ubermensch to describe Jesus. You do realize that was coined by Nietzche who was a vocal critic of Christianity and once claimed that God is dead?
Oh, the irony of using the term ubermensch to describe Jesus. You do realize that was coined by Nietzche who was a vocal critic of Christianity and once claimed that God is dead?
Ah Telemachus Rhade...wait...oh Nietzche...not Nietcheans...got it.
Retour en haut