223 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasta]

 

 

Basically you said that the inquisitor is just a plot device, which is true.
 

 

 

Yeah, I'm all for headcanon to expand the character, but if I'm asked if the Inquisitor's an interesting character.... the answer would be no

 

It's just. The Inquisitor relies too heavily on the Mark. Like Solas says; "You have the Mark" at the moment he said that, I take it as "You are the Mark" so, as a person the Inquisitor is lacking a story. It's just the Mark. The accident.

 

"Hey, do you know who's the new Inquisitor"

 

"Oh yeah, that guy with the glowing Mark on his hand"

 

hahah 

[o Ventus]

This question is empty and meaningless.

 

The Inquisitor is only as interesting as you play them to be. They can be dull as a door nail if you choose those dialogues.

[Legion of 1337]

The Inquisitor cannot be swayed to extremes very often as you can in other BW games, but ultimately it makes him/her a more believable character. They're basically just supposed to be some random person who has been chosen by fate and thrust into this situation. The dialogue options are a bit more nuaced and believable - I found because of this, dialogue with the Inquisitor flows very nicely. The Warden's responses could be cool but very out of left field - a similar problem plauged every ME game.

[Hazegurl]

I agree OP. People say being a jerk is unrealistic, yet there are jerks IRL, people who use their status for cruelty IRL, and people who will blindly follow a religious figure IRL. So the "it's not realistic" argument becomes laughable pretty darn quick.  Like only nice people get to rule. I have no idea what world people are living in where they believe only nice people are made rulers. 

 

There was no point to the races other than appealing to fans, which isn't an issue if it weren't done so half assed.

 

The Companions were pretty exciting, too bad you're stuck being a fly on the wall while they all form bonds with each other.  Instead you spend most of the time running their errands in hopes that they like you and hit on them like a creeper until they give you the time of day. 

 

I so hope they don't make another character like the IQ. Hawke and the Warden had a life, the IQ needed to get one.

[agonis]

I agree OP. People say being a jerk is unrealistic, yet there are jerks IRL, people who use their status for cruelty IRL, and people who will blindly follow a religious figure IRL. So the "it's not realistic" argument becomes laughable pretty darn quick.  Like only nice people get to rule. I have no idea what world people are living in where they believe only nice people are made rulers. 

 

There was no point to the races other than appealing to fans, which isn't an issue if it weren't done so half assed.

 

The Companions were pretty exciting, too bad you're stuck being a fly on the wall while they all form bonds with each other.  Instead you spend most of the time running their errands in hopes that they like you and hit on them like a creeper until they give you the time of day. 

 

I so hope they don't make another character like the IQ. Hawke and the Warden had a life, the IQ needed to get one.

 

Being a jerk is not unrealistic. I sometimes manage being one quite competently IRL.

 

Being a jerk in certain situations is unrealistic.

 

Of course you can act cruel or pragmatic or full of predjudices but if you resort to the same level of psychopathy like the Warden could what would happen?

 

Well if I were Leliana I would chop off the only thing the Inquistion needs of the Inquistor which is his hand.

And if I were a bit afraid that the Mark is destroyed by doing this I would see to it that the Inquisitor closes rifts while shackled and gaged. No need to suffer his nonsense.

 

There is NO way Leliana and Cullen would stand by allowing you to commit atrocities and being an incalculable sociopath.

As Inquisitor you are surrounded by Cullen´s and Leliana´s subordinates and spies all the time.

 

There is no one who is truly under YOUR command. Only your advisers.  And they chose it and are not bound by this decision. No one will come after them if they decide that you are not worth all the bother.

 

That´s why: Being a true jerk worked out in the older games where no one really cared about reality (just replay Kotor to see that this is true). Now something changes. For some years I notice a trend towards reality. People get annoyed by fetch quest (Why should I-Mighty-Overlord fetch some flowers?). Fetch quest were normal in the older games. Revan spent over 70% of his time running around like FEDEX.

People get annoyed by unrealistic decisions, behaviour and plotholes.

 

We wanted reality. Here it comes.

 

They could have offered the option to be a jerk (if they had the time and money for this) but I seriously doubt you would have liked the consequences. (at least if Leliana stayed true to her character).

 

 

I have to add: for me being a jerk is a subtle art. The Inquisitor can be subtle. In fact he is the most intelligent protagonist of all Bioware games due to his dialoges. (Exept those parts where he has to be stupid because of the player. What is Mythal, indeed...)

[Hazegurl]

 

Well if I were Leliana I would chop off the only thing the Inquistion needs of the Inquistor which is his hand.

Leliana would have to get to the IQ in time and I highly doubt she would before she's swallowed up by a fade rift. Also, chopping off the IQ's hand is the dumbest move ever. Would the hand even work?

 

I also find it funny that the first person people think of to dispense some sort of justice is Leliana. Everytime these threads pop up someone pulls Leliana out as the one who would destroy the "evil" IQ.  The chick who ran around my game slicing everybody's throat and desired nothing more than to see the Inquisition grow strong.  The same woman who wanted tongues cut out just for bad mouthing us, the same woman who kidnapped a child because someone didn't like us. Yeah right.  LOL!!! Leliana would be my Left Hand in a heartbeat, heck she practically was with the little I was given. Leliana would make short work of Cullen and I have a bunch of loyal followers and soldiers to handle Cass, whom I can see turning into a drunk like Alistair if pushed hard enough.  Heck I could make Cullen a lyrium addict and put a leash on his supply with my connections, if I wanted.

 

Oh yeah and those soldiers he commands are mine too. Most of them joined for the Inquisitor not Cullen.

 

Like it was said before, there are plenty of opportunities but most of it is squandered on pointless fetch quests.

 

Note: No one is saying be a psycho. But I would have liked the option to be far more stern, like Meredith, and more pragmatic.  The IQ tries to be stern at times, but the tone is so freaking neutral and lacks any real conviction.

[agonis]

Leliana would have to get to the IQ in time and I highly doubt she would before she's swallowed up by a fade rift. Also, chopping off the IQ's hand is the dumbest move ever. Would the hand even work?

 

I also find it funny that the first person people think of to dispense some sort of justice is Leliana. Everytime these threads pop up someone pulls Leliana out as the one who would destroy the "evil" IQ.  The chick who ran around my game slicing everybody's throat and desired nothing more than to see the Inquisition grow strong.  The same woman who wanted tongues cut out just for bad mouthing us, the same woman who kidnapped a child because someone didn't like us. Yeah right.  LOL!!! Leliana would be my Left Hand in a heartbeat, heck she practically was with the little I was given. Leliana would make short work of Cullen and I have a bunch of loyal followers and soldiers to handle Cass, whom I can see turning into a drunk like Alistair if pushed hard enough.  Heck I could make Cullen a lyrium addict and put a leash on his supply with my connections, if I wanted.

 

Oh yeah and those soldiers he commands are mine too. Most of them joined for the Inquisitor not Cullen.

 

Like it was said before, there are plenty of opportunities but most of it is squandered on pointless fetch quests.

 

Note: No one is saying be a psycho. But I would have liked the option to be far more stern, like Meredith, and more pragmatic.  The IQ tries to be stern at times, but the tone is so freaking neutral and lacks any real conviction.

 

I do not play in English which is why I cannot say anything about the voiceacting. It certainly doesn´t lack conviction in my language. (which is a first)

 

I do not think that Leliana is just. It was never about justice.

Inquisition is about order and saving what can be saved. If the Inquisitor stands in the way of this goal he will be neutralized. It is as simple as that.

 

The Inquisitor is the voice and the face of the Inquistion. He can be it´s heart.

 

And the rest you wrote:

 

Leliana is your left hand. True. Does it make her loyal. No, of course not. She is loyal to "the cause". Not you.

 

You think she would dispose of Cullen if you told her. Where is your evidence? There is none.

 

You have loyal soldiers who could deal with Cassandra. Who are they? What are their names?

Your army? Do you know them?

 

You could make Cullen a lyrium addict? Strange. I thought Templars are already lyrium addicts. The most you can do is undermine his decisions to stop taking lyrium.

 

 

It seems we play different games.

 

Real Power is not about f***ing up everybody´s lives. It is not about getting what you want.

It´s about grinding your teeth and doing your job because no one else can.

[Bizantura]

Enjoyed it more the second time around due to metagaming.

This I find not so good.  You can never get that suspence/surprise back from the first time around.

The first time the story driven part and free roming balance was off and made story/protagonist dull.

[Marshal Moriarty]

The problem is the middle ground approach they take between full voiced character and silent protagonist. When your character was silent but you had more nuanced dialogue options, you were better able to both customize your tone on any particular issue and how you were expressing those lines of dialogue. With a fully voiced character the whole point is to give a distinct voice to the character and try to help the dialogue 'come alive', just as any actor does with any role.

 

But it the actor is just going to strike a neutral tone all the time to facilitate this, then you have to wonder why they are bothering at all. It'd be like watching Hamlet with everyone reading their lines in monotone. Interesting for the art crowd maybe, but utterly inpenetrable to anyone else. If you're going to have an actor read the lines, then you have to let them act! Sure, it leads to some occasions where the actor's intepretation of the lines doesn't match what you had in mind (Jennifer Hale does a generally great job as Shepard, but sometimes she is a bit OTT, especially on the Renegade lines, and seems to morph into some kind of psycho, swaggering cowgirl desperado in the middle of otherwise sober conversation etc'.

 

But adopting a completely emotionless, neutral tone all the time is just so unbelievably boring to watch and listen to, that it makes you actively dislike your character. To this day, I still struggle to complete Male Shepard playthroughs, because of Mark Meer. And not because he's a bad actor, but because of this decision that has been taken to rein him in and have him just be neutral and even in tone all the time. Same with Alix and Curry etc in Inquisition. We know they're better than this - Sumalee at least seems to have ignored that and actually puts in a proper performance.

 

If they intend to have the protagonist be this completely blank slate, then please go back to silent protag with actual lines of dialogue to choose from. I can't see them doing that, so just do what you did for Femshep and for Hawke. Let the actors interpret the script (with some help from the director obviously), and let them do their job. It will lead to some control being taken away from players, but if its done well enough (and that's the job of the casting crew to find the right actors), then its a worthy tradeoff. Because Femshep and both versions of Hawke are great characters.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I've said this before, but I played the game and never developed any sense of who the Inquisitor was or develop any connection to him. By comparison, in other games (the other DAs, ME, Shadowrun Dragonfall, etc.) my characters developed distinct personalities, ethical/political positions, and relationships (good and bad) with other characters. The Inquisitor ended up just being this really confused guy who wandered around doing stuff that people told him to because reasons. For me, the Inquisitor started as a blank slate and basically stayed one; I found him to be Bioware's most bland PC by a good margin (Hawke being the best).

[agonis]

so true man I couldn't agree more
the "its realistic argument" is a joke for one like you said there are many bad rulers irl
but also its a game who cares about realistic?

I want to have fun and be entertained while roleplaying my own character
sadly the Inquisitior was just bland and bored the hell out of me

even though there were voices (two for each gender which is new,ultimately a waste of resources) and options to choose from different races
the Inquisitior was boring and more limited than Hawke if you ask me

there is no personalitiy no interesting RP possibilities
I'm surprised that apparently many here like the Inquisitor seems like a lot of people were fooled with the different races and more (diplomatic and boring) dialogue options for the Inquisitor

 

You are right. I´m so easily fooled. Silly me.

 

[sim-ran]

I'm surprised that apparently many here like the Inquisitor seems like a lot of people were fooled with the different races and more (diplomatic and boring) dialogue options for the Inquisitor

Yes many have been "fooled" because they enjoyed the options in the game. Enjoying a PC that doesn't play as a jerk makes them stupid. Jerk options are objectively better and not just your personal preference.

Thank God there's you to teach us all good judgement.

[Teophne]

I don't recall too many dialogue wheel occasions where I felt there not being an option for me, so I would say the Inquisitor is just as interesting as I am, be it either stale bread like or something more saucy but it fits me, so yes.

 

The inquisitor kinda lacking the backstory and strong personality pumping dialogues to me felt natural in that you could craft this stuff up in your mind and instead of having story read to you from the screen you could "feel" the story in you. 

 

It's a bit hard to explain, but when playing the Inquisitor I didn't feel like what happened on the screen was all the inquisitor was about. Often when my Inquisitor showed a neutral face when saying something I either gritted my teeth or laughed out loud, but my inquisitor not showing the face I had didn't make feel out of place or anything.

[Majestic Jazz]

I think some people are focusing too much on people not being able to be a "jerk". Yes, I posted those two "jerk" videos of Shepard and Hawke not to show that they can be jerks and the Inquisitor can't, but just to show the contrast of options that we had with Shepard and Hawke that we did not have with the Inquisitor.

 

Yes, I understand that because of the nature of the game and the role of the Inquisitor required someone with intelligence and authority, but having intelligence and authority does not result in a passive personality. Some of the worlds most ruthless leaders were HIGHY intelligent and displayed a great sense of subterfuge. What DAI gets wrong is forcing the player either to be passive diplomatic or simply diplomatic with a few hard decisions to make such as who lives or dies or who to support and not to support. What I expected was to have the ability to be have the option to rule the Inquisitor and a more strict, less passive manner. Perhaps have a mindset similar to that of Loghain or Meredith. Both of them were not evil villains as they did not want to destroy the world. Nor did they have some greater fantasy of being an almighty ruler over the little people. No, they were patriots to their lands and were willing to do anything necessary to preserve the way of life. For Loghain it was remembering what the Orleasians did and wanting to remain cautious as to whether a real Blight was coming or not. With Meredith, it was keeping order and realizing that as long as magic reigns free, people would always live in danger because just one blood mage can rule havoc upon an entire settlement. She only ordered the destruction of the mages when she realized that it was for the greater good of Kirkwall and perhaps all of thedas. If thousands of mages have to be put down to save millions of people, then so be it! At least in her mind. With Loghain, he had to kill the son of his best friend and former King, not out of malice but out of the protection of Fereldan as Calian was too eager to ally with the Orlais and having too much of an idealist attitude that could lead Fereldan into doom. What Meredith and Logain did were not evil, they simply did what they had to do for a greater purpose. 

 

With DAI, I expected to be able to rule the Inquisition with an Iron fist. Not to be a tyrant, but also someone who is willing to take the extreme paths in order to make sure that Thedas is prepared to take on whatever evil is thrown at them.

 

The Inquisitor

[Elhanan]

Chose to take a look; wish I could leave a resume sim to this:

http://www.imdb.com/...f_=nm_ov_bio_sm

Much prefer this character to those that have none....

[Majestic Jazz]

[The dead fish]

I don't really understand people in this thread who say the inquisitor was as deep as the other protagonists. There were way too many fetch quests ( instead of minor side quests with quality story and minor decisions ) to be able to really develop who was your inquisitor. Go find me this, go find me that, I want a flower, my husband has been killed, I want revenge against the templars, blah bla blah, help me, help me, help, me. You have to say yes or no, doing the job of some random peasants or soldiers and that's it. And it's like that almost all the time. The short main story is hardly enough. Think for example about the chantry, you hardly have many decisive decisions with this institution, and your opinion franckly doesn't really matter. No matter who is your inquisitor, it often comes to the dialogue options and those dialogue options are hardly different in their meaning most of time. ( I'm not saying there aren't decisions in DA:I )

 

In DAO and DAII, what could make you help to create different characters, complicated and all were all the minor and big decisions with the side quests, the different dialogue options with different outcomes.

 

I understand people who say that " the inquisitor is simply the inquisitor ", meaning, that outside of this role, he /she seems a bit bland, without personality, and not deep enough. Who is he / she ? Did you have choices like deciding to kill or not a mad mage who kills young female elves while he is the son of a noble that you are working for ? Did you have choices like do I sell or not elven elves to Tevinter for money like in DAO ? Did you have simply ethical/ political/ racial /moralistic choices out there, except on your throne ? All those things that make you what you are in the eyes of other folks ? what help decide what kind of hero you were ? Not really.Why didn't we have missions that could point out if your character was racist or not ? If you cared about the common folks or not ? If you were ruthless with the laws and morality or complacent with murderers, thieves and rapists if they could serve the Inquisition ?  

 

What does it even mean to be and play a noble in DAI anyway ? It's hardly different from playing an elf. Yes, I could be pro chantry / pro templar, and I win 5 points in the wicked eyes plot, if I am a noble ? And... That's it ? No side quests where for example in the civil war I could talk against reforms for elves, act against those that promote this horror ? No options where I could be snob with the servants or conquer other lands for myself or my family for selfish or noble reasons while being the inquisitor ? Even in DAII I could decide as Hawk if I wanted to keep an elf as my slave or not, and this only would mean a lot about my character. 

 

Anyway I don't know about you guys, but playing a ruthless qunari inquisitor ( what I wanted to play but the game didn't really allow me to play such character ) was hardly different from playing a diplomatic human inquisitor finally, simply because there were too few decisions and background to help me shape the character of the protagonist, and instead too many fetch quests. 

 

Also the fact that we aren't able to play a jerk, an evil man, or even an ambitious man who fight for his power, sometime to the expense of others, is really a shame and to be honest ridiculous. And those who say that it is unrealistic to have such characters in a context where the danger is real for the world, I have no idea in what world they live in, just read the history and you'll learn that not everyone was a nice lord,a nice leader, a nice hero with only moralistic and diplomatic decisions and behaviors. 

 

I liked the inquisitor, but I definitely see an issue. 

[agonis]

I think some people are focusing too much on people not being able to be a "jerk". Yes, I posted those two "jerk" videos of Shepard and Hawke not to show that they can be jerks and the Inquisitor can't, but just to show the contrast of options that we had with Shepard and Hawke that we did not have with the Inquisitor.

 

Yes, I understand that because of the nature of the game and the role of the Inquisitor required someone with intelligence and authority, but having intelligence and authority does not result in a passive personality. Some of the worlds most ruthless leaders were HIGHY intelligent and displayed a great sense of subterfuge. What DAI gets wrong is forcing the player either to be passive diplomatic or simply diplomatic with a few hard decisions to make such as who lives or dies or who to support and not to support. What I expected was to have the ability to be have the option to rule the Inquisitor and a more strict, less passive manner. Perhaps have a mindset similar to that of Loghain or Meredith. Both of them were not evil villains as they did not want to destroy the world. Nor did they have some greater fantasy of being an almighty ruler over the little people. No, they were patriots to their lands and were willing to do anything necessary to preserve the way of life. For Loghain it was remembering what the Orleasians did and wanting to remain cautious as to whether a real Blight was coming or not. With Meredith, it was keeping order and realizing that as long as magic reigns free, people would always live in danger because just one blood mage can rule havoc upon an entire settlement. She only ordered the destruction of the mages when she realized that it was for the greater good of Kirkwall and perhaps all of thedas. If thousands of mages have to be put down to save millions of people, then so be it! At least in her mind. With Loghain, he had to kill the son of his best friend and former King, not out of malice but out of the protection of Fereldan as Calian was too eager to ally with the Orlais and having too much of an idealist attitude that could lead Fereldan into doom. What Meredith and Logain did were not evil, they simply did what they had to do for a greater purpose. 

 

With DAI, I expected to be able to rule the Inquisition with an Iron fist. Not to be a tyrant, but also someone who is willing to take the extreme paths in order to make sure that Thedas is prepared to take on whatever evil is thrown at them.

 

 

 

I agree. I would love to play a protagonist like this (even if it meant getting killed in the end by the "Hero"). But it would be a preformed character like the Witcher. I see no way for the devs to write a PC as complex as Meredith or Loghain and leave room for something other.

[ThreeF]

With DAI, I expected to be able to rule the Inquisition with an Iron fist. Not to be a tyrant, but also someone who is willing to take the extreme paths in order to make sure that Thedas is prepared to take on whatever evil is thrown at them.

 

 

 

Hmm... so you think that

Spoiler

letting Celene be assassinated and watch your own men be slaughtered in the process

is not an action of "whatever it takes" kind?  I didn't played as diplomat, I mostly played as someone who was thrown in the middle of a mess that needed to be fixed.  The only passiveness I can think of was my inability to suggest solutions on my own instead of picking presented to me options, my role in conversations with advisors was mostly to lessen their bickering and keep things moving, but this is not all that unusual when you have the role of a leader.

 

You were left to conclude your own motivations and this actually creates quite a lot of space to play a character the way you want with a bit of compromise.

[The dead fish]

Coud you be selfish in DA:I ? I wanted to play a selfish protagonist but was not really able to play such character. ( like in DAO for example )

[ThreeF]

Coud you be selfish in DA:I ? I wanted to play a selfish protagonist but was not able to play such character. 

In a way yes. The game has its limitation and expecting to be able to  do whatever you want in the exact way you want is unreasonable, no game can satisfy every player whimp. But selfish? There are many ways you can be selfish in the game, because selfishness is easy. For example:

 

Spoiler

You can declare that you will lead the inquisitor for your own gain. You can make everyone in the Palace work for you even if that will destabilize the Orlais in the long run.

 

You just have to have the willingness to examine your motives, as such even being nice to Cassandra can be seen as a selfish act.

[o Ventus]

 

Basically you said that the inquisitor is just a plot device, which is true.
 

 

Any protagonist in fiction is, by definition, a plot device.

 

Stating the obvious doesn't mean much.

[The dead fish]

In a way yes. The game has its limitation and expecting to be able to  do whatever you want in the exact way you want is unreasonable, no game can satisfy every player whimp. But selfish? There are many ways you can be selfish in the game, because selfishness is easy. For example:

 

Spoiler

You can declare that you will lead the inquisitor for your own gain. You can make everyone in the Palace work for you even if that will destabilize the Orlais in the long run.

 

You just have to have the willingness to examine your motives, as such even being nice to Cassandra can be seen as a selfish act.

 

True. But in DAo, you didn't just have to examine your motives in your head, you had really options that could be considered as such, outcomes that the game aknowledged as such. Like deciding to help the merchant against the common angry folks  because of his prices during the blight. I helped this guy in Lothering only because he told me I could win money and I did. Against those poor guys who were hungry. That was selfish. I drank the ashes of Andraste for my own power, despite leliana and Wynn saying it's bad. It was just good to be powerful for my character regardless if it was good or not. I also decided to not care about those elves who were going to be sold to Tevinter because I only needed the letter against Loghain from the slaver, and I didn't stop him once I had what I wanted. I decided to not help some innocents from jerks or you could decide to refuse to help the daughter of this guy in Redcliffe once in the castle, and yet you promised him that you would do such thing if he created the weapons for the village. You just used him and lied to him. Or that poor girl in redcliff  once the village was saved who asked me to give her back the sword of her father and who could have money for her and her brother and be together with it. My selfish character decided that she had to buy it if she wanted the sword, or he could even decide to keep the sword for himself.

 

Jesus, there were so many way to be selfish in DAO, that It would take me time to remember all the choices. You could play a selfish Hawk in DAII too.

 

That's my issue with DA:I. You can just say a meaningless thing like I am building my own power, and only once when you become the inquisitor but in reality, it doesn't really happen and the game doesn't allow you to truly behave that way, or then I don't remember having such possibilities.