1194 réponses à ce sujet

[midnight tea]

Saying 'my opinion is valid in my opinion' doesn't make your opinion more valid when you have little to no arguments to back it up. It only makes you look either lazy or arrogant. So instead of accusing others of patronizing comments, learn how to have a discussion first.

 

Also - are you suggesting that Corypheus entered the Golden City through some sort of immense power he had? Sorry, but NO. There were 7 magisters who entered the Fade (and none of them had any sort of godly status), and the spell that ripped open the Veil used 3/4 of ancient Tevinter's lyrium supply as well as hundreds - if not thousands - of elven slaves sacrificed in elaborate blood rites.

 

That's not my interpretation - that's what's been established in the story. No amount of your "it's my interpretation" is going to change that.

[SACanuckin Oz]

First let me understand: are you saying you felt satisfied with the final encounter against Corypheus? Did it satisfy your gaming expectation from the main antagonist of the story?

Secondly, would you suggest that a Magister that can wield the power granted through the blood magic of several thousand slaves (even as 1/7 of the conclave), is what you encountered at the endgame?

If so, we have differing gaming expectations from the current game we play. Telling me through a final cutscene (should I actually bother to watch that long) that the real vilian will be encountered a later stage, doesn't do much to satisfy my enjoyment of an endgame worth mentioning.

Even through the Arishok was a formidable enemy at the end of Act 2, neither Orsindo (?correct spelling) nor Meredith was dimished. They were endgame material.

Even though the high dragon at the temple of sacred ashes, and many other notable enemies existed throughout the Fifth Blight, the Archdemon was formidable and justified his/her title.

This thread is about the quality of the last encounter, which many feel is sub-standard. And that is not just my opinion, nor my interpretation of events.

[midnight tea]

You're all over the place right now.

What does my opinion on final fight has with us arguing whether Corypheus being a schemer? FYI, I think the fight could be longer, maybe a bit more spectacular, but no - I don't have as strong feelings about the final battle as some other people have. It makes sense that Corypheus ended the way he ended, all things considered.

 

 

 

Secondly, would you suggest that a Magister that can wield the power granted through the blood magic of several thousand slaves (even as 1/7 of the conclave), is what you encountered at the endgame?

 

No, I would not suggest that at all. Corypheus is NOT an ancient magister he was - Old Gods don't guide him anymore, and he himself was corrupted by Blight and slept for a millenium.

He has many sinister powers, but none of them grants him a true god-like might - and what might he has, aside from blight magic, seems to crudely emulate gods of old and comes from the elven orb. Add to that the fact that manipulating it takes quite a bit of his own magic, which eventually faltered, allowing Inquisitor to rip the artifact from his grasp.

 

His main schtick is that he can't die - NOT that he has infinite powers of some sort. Hence he works and strikes predominantly from shadows or through his lackeys. It's not that he's made out of glass, but it's pretty apparent that he has no power to match his ambitions.

 

After all, entering the Golden City is one thing - becoming god is another. Even getting out unscathed or not uncorrupted seems to be a tricky thing - and one that Corypheus didn't pull off last time he'd done it.

 

 

 

This thread is about the quality of the last encounter, which many feel is sub-standard. And that is not just my opinion, nor my interpretation of events.

 

True - whether last battle is up to one's standards is a matter of personal opinion. But it's still not an opinion that is held as widely as you think it is, nor it justifies claims that are simply ridiculous or flies in the face of what story is about.

[KaiserShep]

Corypheus himself is just an more powerful emissary, but I think the real problem is the red lyrium dragon, and that's mainly because unlike the other games, there's a heck of a lot of high dragons we can kill, and since my Inquisitor pretty much wiped the whole lot of them out, this guy kind of feels like a +1/2. Perhaps if it had some special ability, that would make a difference. The archdemon in DA:O had some kind of weird spirit-damage vortex ability that it would use just about anywhere on the map. I think the dragon should have been more because of the red lyrium, much in the same way Red Templars had certain abilities, like the Behemoth, or even something similar to Corypheus' powers in Legacy, but without the seriously ridiculous pathfinding.

 

Plus I think Morrigan should have died if she served as the dragon.

[midnight tea]

True, the dragon could be either bit more badass or unique. It might be even that damage he does with his lyrium breath doesn't let us use healing portions, even if temporarily - or doesn't let us use abilities for a time being. Or something.

 

I don't know about killing Morrigan though - they obviously have some plans for her... plus, drinking from the Well seems to be a pretty big decision, which will likely have some serious consequences later, either for Morrigan or Inquisitor.

[BabyPuncher]

Nope. It just points out it's different from dao. That's it. just because you don't like does not mean it's bad. From the start the point of the story was about a pc who becomes the greatest force in thedus. why would the ending differ from that concept?

 

Yes, it absolutely does.

 

If a character is not written to be powerful, it's acceptable for them to not have any moments that show off any of the qualities of power. They aren't supposed to be powerful in the first place. Such as a protagonist who is written to be somewhat less successful, for example.

 

If a central character is in fact supposed to be powerful, such as gee, 'the greatest force in Thedas' it is absolutely mandatory they have moments that enunciate powerful qualities. Why are they powerful? For what reason? Are they courageous? Intelligent? Skilled? Charismatic? Perhaps even simply lucky?

 

If the story fails to do that, it's contrived. It's a character accomplishing things because they're Just That Super Duper Awesome. It's the narrator pretending to the audience that a character has certain qualities but offering no evidence to support it.

 

Which is squarely where Inquisition falls.
 

[BabyPuncher]

This thread is about the quality of the last encounter, which many feel is sub-standard. And that is not just my opinion, nor my interpretation of events.

 

Well, not really. It's a problem throughout the entire story.

[midnight tea]

The only person failing here is you, for the n-th time - I've already said it, but apparently I have to repeat it for you: Inquisitor is only as awesome as YOU make it. In fact, making Inquisitor awesome actually takes quite a bit of work. Neither companion will love you if you won't get enough of their approval, nor people or allies will love you that much if you don't do enough for them.

Epilogue for Fail-quisitor is entirely different to that of Awesome-quisitor.

[BabyPuncher]

I have utterly no interest in how 'Awesome' the Inquisitor is one way or another. That's the point. No amount of 'awesome, awesome, awesome, so much awesome' makes the Inquisitor or any of the companions interesting or well written.

 

I'm interested in characters who are, as I said, courageous, skilled, charismatic, determined. The Inquisitor is none of those things and thus becomes the most powerful person in Thedas by sheer power of Awesomeness. Or power of contrivance. Or power of 'Because the story says so.' They're all the same thing, really.

[KaiserShep]

I have utterly no interest in how 'Awesome' the Inquisitor is one way or another. That's the point. No amount of 'awesome, awesome, awesome, so much awesome' makes the Inquisitor or any of the companions interesting or well written.

 

I'm interested in characters who are, as I said, courageous, skilled, charismatic, determined. The Inquisitor is none of those things and thus becomes the most powerful person in Thedas by sheer power of Awesomeness. Or power of contrivance. Or power of 'Because the story says so.' They're all the same thing, really.

 

You mentioned luck in your previous comment, but luck is exactly why the Inquisitor is even alive in the first place, since the acquisition of the mark was totally by accident, rather than through any will of the protagonist. Beyond that, what drives the Inquisitor forward is exactly the same as what drove both the Warden and Hawke forward: the exceptional talent for killing things. Charisma and intelligence wasn't what made the Warden become the Hero of Ferelden and later the Warden-Commander (if s/he survived), but rather the ability to lay waste to the enemy, and that's it. The hero can bludgeon through everything and come out on top no matter what. And in some way, it's even worse there, because you automatically command the group, only because the one who technically has seniority over you just doesn't feel like leading and prefers to defer to your judgment.

 

Wouldn't this mean that you should be writing off the entire series? Because it seems like your complaint would pretty much apply to all of them. Of course, in the Inquisitor's case, the circumstances are special because the unique ability s/he possesses is not there by any choice of his/hers, and that unique ability draws reverence. That's not really the same thing as other protagonists being praised left and right, like, say, Commander Shepard, who was basically just a space marine that was really good at shooting everyone.

[JeffZero]

It's not the climax - it's the nadir or the revelation. Learn something about the classic monomyth guys, instead of pretending you know anything about storytelling.

 

I appreciate your efforts to educate. I myself am quite familiar, however, being that I am an anthropologist. I resorted to simpler terms in my reply for the intended benefit of the overarching forum.

 

What matters most to me is that a not-inconsiderable number of players feel as though the finale was notably rushed and lacking dramatic weight. That's all that I'm intending to convey, at least. David's clearly on another front here.

 

If you found it to be a suitable conclusion then congratulations; indeed, I was long overdue for such a disappointment myself, considering my general acceptance of ME3's ending.

[BabyPuncher]

You mentioned luck in your previous comment, but luck is exactly why the Inquisitor is even alive in the first place, since the acquisition of the mark was totally by accident, rather than through any will of the protagonist. Beyond that, what drives the Inquisitor forward is exactly the same as what drove both the Warden and Hawke forward: the exceptional talent for killing things. Charisma and intelligence wasn't what made the Warden become the Hero of Ferelden and later the Warden-Commander (if s/he survived), but rather the ability to lay waste to the enemy, and that's it. The hero can bludgeon through everything and come out on top no matter what. And in some way, it's even worse there, because you automatically command the group, only because the one who technically has seniority over you just doesn't feel like leading and prefers to defer to your judgment.

 

Wouldn't this mean that you should be writing off the entire series? Because it seems like your complaint would pretty much apply to all of them. Of course, in the Inquisitor's case, the circumstances are special because the unique ability s/he possesses is not there by any choice of his/hers, and that unique ability draws reverence. That's not really the same thing as other protagonists being praised left and right, like, say, Commander Shepard, who was basically just a space marine that was really good at shooting everyone.

 

To some degree. Few stories do this sort of thing as well as I would like.

 

But to answer your question, what really matters here is climaxes. The way characters act in very difficult circumstances and important moments. Yes, 95% of the time protagonists in all stories get by just by being a little bit better than the other guy. But that's not really what's important. That's not really what the story is ever about.

 

So in those important moments, the moments where characters are really made, the answer is no, it's really not about being good at shooting or bludgening at all. Lair of the Shadow Broker, it's a couple of hours of shooting through mooks. That's not what really matters. What matters is the moment of climax, where Liara is confronted with a very difficult and important moment. And that moment has nothing whatsoever to do with her shooting or biotics at all.

 

Inquisition is guilty of both forgoing those absolutely crucial climatic moments and attempting to build more off of them than ever before - an organization that is sold to the player to basically enjoy a seemingly never-ending growth of power, success, and righteousness.

[Urazz]

First let me understand: are you saying you felt satisfied with the final encounter against Corypheus? Did it satisfy your gaming expectation from the main antagonist of the story?

Secondly, would you suggest that a Magister that can wield the power granted through the blood magic of several thousand slaves (even as 1/7 of the conclave), is what you encountered at the endgame?

If so, we have differing gaming expectations from the current game we play. Telling me through a final cutscene (should I actually bother to watch that long) that the real vilian will be encountered a later stage, doesn't do much to satisfy my enjoyment of an endgame worth mentioning.

Even through the Arishok was a formidable enemy at the end of Act 2, neither Orsindo (?correct spelling) nor Meredith was dimished. They were endgame material.

Even though the high dragon at the temple of sacred ashes, and many other notable enemies existed throughout the Fifth Blight, the Archdemon was formidable and justified his/her title.

This thread is about the quality of the last encounter, which many feel is sub-standard. And that is not just my opinion, nor my interpretation of events.

Actually, the final battle was fine along with how Corypheus died  as well in my opinion.  The game pretty much ended how I expected it to once I learned the main villain of the game was Corypheus.

 

The more disappointing aspect of the game in my opinion was after Haven where the Inquisition won every conflict with Corypheus.   It sort of made him seem weaker as a villain in my opinion.

[leaguer of one]

Good storytelling? An actual climax? It feels like Haven is the climax and the whole rest of the game is just wrapping up loose ends. That's not satisfying at all.

At least the Warden storyline gives us a setback, but it is entirely ruined by the terrible sadistic choice at the end.

heaven is not the climax....that would be the arbor wilds to meeting flemeth.

[leaguer of one]

I have utterly no interest in how 'Awesome' the Inquisitor is one way or another. That's the point. No amount of 'awesome, awesome, awesome, so much awesome' makes the Inquisitor or any of the companions interesting or well written.

 

I'm interested in characters who are, as I said, courageous, skilled, charismatic, determined. The Inquisitor is none of those things and thus becomes the most powerful person in Thedas by sheer power of Awesomeness. Or power of contrivance. Or power of 'Because the story says so.' They're all the same thing, really.

1. the quis is a player controlled character...it up to you how awsome the character is.

You don't think it's odd to roleplay in a role playing game?

2.If you want to talk about if the character of the story are well written or not. i have to remind you we went down this road already many page back and you were greatly proven wrong.

 

3. And you are still missing the point of the story.

 

in dao we always felt desperate with our backs to the wall by the archdemon and the darksparn. in the end of Dai that's not the case...it's now the villain who has there back to the wall and feels desperate.

[leaguer of one]

Yes, it absolutely does.

 

If a character is not written to be powerful, it's acceptable for them to not have any moments that show off any of the qualities of power. They aren't supposed to be powerful in the first place. Such as a protagonist who is written to be somewhat less successful, for example.

 

If a central character is in fact supposed to be powerful, such as gee, 'the greatest force in Thedas' it is absolutely mandatory they have moments that enunciate powerful qualities. Why are they powerful? For what reason? Are they courageous? Intelligent? Skilled? Charismatic? Perhaps even simply lucky?

 

If the story fails to do that, it's contrived. It's a character accomplishing things because they're Just That Super Duper Awesome. It's the narrator pretending to the audience that a character has certain qualities but offering no evidence to support it.

 

Which is squarely where Inquisition falls.
 

No it does not.

 

Just because a character starts out powerful does not mean they stay powerful compared to the main character or anyone else even if they are the villain.

What you prefer are David vs Goliath stories were you David. Not all stories are like that. and the stories that are not like that are not bad. Dai was about the main character becoming a powerful force in thedus. it was advertised that way, it was played that way and your surprised that it ended that way?

And it's not like Cory was never shown to be powerful....He just stopped being so greatly powerful compered to the PC.

[BabyPuncher]

No it does not.

 

Just because a character starts out powerful does not mean they stay powerful compared to the main character or anyone else even if they are the villain.

What you prefer are David vs Goliath stories were you David. Not all stories are like that. and the stories that are not like that are not bad. Dai was about the main character becoming a powerful force in thedus. it was advertised that way, it was played that way and your surprised that it ended that way?

And it's not like Cory was never shown to be powerful....He just stopped being so greatly powerful compered to the PC.

 

If a dramatic story doesn't have a meaningful conflict, it's pointless.

 

There's no drama without conflict. There's no drama without a struggle.

 

You're right in that not all stories are like David and Goliath. You could certainly write a story where the protagonists are far stronger than the antagonists of the story. You simply need to ensure there is a conflict elsewhere. In which case, the story isn't really about fighting the antagonist at all.

[Aulis Vaara]

heaven is not the climax....that would be the arbor wilds to meeting flemeth.

It's a nice twist, but it's definitely not the climax. It is clearly supposed to be the end of act 2, with the major setback of Corypheus' immortality. But that immortality gets deus ex machina'ed out in short order, depriving it of any dramatic weight and turning the whole story from there on out into a major anti-climax.

[luna1124]

I liked the series of Denerim battles in DAO leading up to the arch-demon fight. It was epic. The atmosphere..everything was perfect and really got you emerged in the moment!

DAI severely lacked in final battle appeal.

[MisterJB]

First let me understand: are you saying you felt satisfied with the final encounter against Corypheus? Did it satisfy your gaming expectation from the main antagonist of the story?

That depends on what the story is trying to deliver.

The endgame was what it was trying to be. The final battle of DAO is a race against time, you must kill the Archdemon before your army is defeated or all of Ferelden will be consumed by the Blight. You spend the entire game gathering these forces and now it's time to throw them at the Darkspawn.

In DAI, you spend the whole game fighting Corypheus' forces, twarthing his plans. By the endgame, he has lost it all. You have already won, all he can do now is, like Solas says, flip the board in a childish fit. Which is what he is doing.

It's what I expected. Was it what I would have liked? That is another matter entirely.

 

Personally, if I could have chosen, I would have made him a threat until the very ending.

 

 

Secondly, would you suggest that a Magister that can wield the power granted through the blood magic of several thousand slaves (even as 1/7 of the conclave), is what you encountered at the endgame?

The Final Boss Battle is a disappointment, not argument there.

 

[X Equestris]

Maybe it's a moot point in your opinion, but not in mine. This Magister was able to enter the Golden City. You think that was through trickery too?
BTW, I 'm not sure you have the definitive interpretation to the story, so please refrain from patronising other's comments and interpretation

Sure, the Magisters were able to enter the city. But when they came back, it is said that the Archon defeated all seven of them, and scattered them across the continent, with the help of summoned spirits. So obviously they weren't that powerful on an individual basis.

[X Equestris]

Corypheus proclaimed himself a god... Not a schemer, a GOD. We should experience some opposition from someone with that kind of power, and we do not

Plenty of Roman emperors declared themselves to be gods. That doesn't make it so, anymore than saying the sky is green will make it green.

[leaguer of one]

If a dramatic story doesn't have a meaningful conflict, it's pointless.

 

There's no drama without conflict. There's no drama without a struggle.

 

You're right in that not all stories are like David and Goliath. You could certainly write a story where the protagonists are far stronger than the antagonists of the story. You simply need to ensure there is a conflict elsewhere. In which case, the story isn't really about fighting the antagonist at all.

*Points to the hole in the sky.

 

the entire game is about conflict. Conflict does not mean the enemy has to over power you. learn the difference. We've fought hordes of demons, mages, cultist, red templers, seen fates worst then death, people lose friend and family, lover losing everything, civil war, betrail, fallen heros, faiths lost and even gone through the fade it self and that's not conflict?

 

If you think that it's not then you don't know what conflict is. David and Golith is not the only story about conflict and it not the template need to show conflict.

[leaguer of one]

It's a nice twist, but it's definitely not the climax. It is clearly supposed to be the end of act 2, with the major setback of Corypheus' immortality. But that immortality gets deus ex machina'ed out in short order, depriving it of any dramatic weight and turning the whole story from there on out into a major anti-climax.

Nope it is the climax. Why, because it's the point that covers every theme in the story at once. Every point and issue  the story covers opens up in the wilds and meeting Flemeth. that's a climax.

[dragonflight288]

Nope it is the climax. Why, because it's the point that covers every theme in the story at once. Every point and issue  the story covers opens up in the wilds and meeting Flemeth. that's a climax.

 

A climax is also the point of highest tension.