223 réponses à ce sujet

[Poledo]

What are your thoughts how you enjoyed the Inquisitor's character?

To me he/she was boring compared to the many other Bioware characters such as Revan, Shepard, The Warden, and even Hawke. I think the Inquisitor is too 1-dimensional and is too diplomatic.

With Shepard and Hawke you can have jerks or saints as seen with the "Shepard is a jerk" type videos. With the Inquisitor I doubt you will see any such videos because the character does not have the same depth. Punching Solas was the most aggression I really saw in terms of conversations and dialog options. The Inquisitor is sort of like making Tim Duncan play a super hero for those who know who Tim Duncan is and the reference I am making.

This is contrast to the companions which are all rich in depth and personality. Even mute Warden and Revan had more excitement going for them.

What is your view on the Inquisitor?

 

 

 

 

/Sarcasm

 

 

Honestly it's all in how you play it. I made the same dialogue choices in some parts of the game, and depending how I had been playing my inquisitor to that point - the way it was stated was completely different. My inky in this last play through really laid down the law and spoke with passion.

 

I tried to stick completely to the character I was wanting my inky to be - I didn't base any conversation on anything other than that - if I wanted more approval from a certain character I did their side quests instead. I was able to do all personal quests for my party due to this.

 

I think a character I can shape is better than than the alternative, such as Hawke. I truly enjoyed the DA2 story, but you were fairly set on Hawke's story with little room for personalization. DA:O allowed a bit more freedom but you sacrifice voice acting, and I prefer games to move forward not backwards - I'd like to see voice acting expanded upon in future games, more voice choices, more accurate reflection of dialogue compared to my wheel chice etc.

[agonis]

Oh look, a duel between Lebanese Dude and John Shepard. Again.

 

You two are like some cliché villians. "Now we meet again! Harhar!"

 

[pawswithclaws]

Oh look, a duel between Lebanese Dude and John Shepard. Again.

 

You two are like some cliché villians. "Now we meet again! Harhar!"

 

It's such a shame that neither avatar picture has a moustache to twirl. Such a wasted opportunity.

[Lebanese Dude]

"seek help" lol what?
sry but your fanboyism just reached new heights

So I should somehow seek help because I want to play ruthless and bad characters ?

sry I thought this was a ROLEPLAYING game where I decide how my character is

 

 

English comprehension not your strong suit I see. You really love the word fanboy too. You should expand your vocabulary. It pays dividends.

 

You're fully capable of playing a "bad" character. The only difference is that the character cannot be an insane murderous pyschopath nor an evil MUAHAHAHHAA Dr. Evil.

 

 

 

"Evil" in DAI is more akin to ruthless no-nonsense pragmatism with harsh methods.

That's what being evil in DAO was as well, except for the insane murderous psychopath moments which you so relish apparently since their absence dilutes from the ENTIRE experience.

While DAO could somewhat get away with the murderous insanity since the character was relatively independent, DAI cannot offer the same luxury of insanity since you're supposed to be leading an organization of a noble purpose (which you can twist at your own accord).

 

 

 

 

Also who cares about believable? its a game for god sake's

 

 

lol 

[General TSAR]

The inquisitor was an interesting puppet who didn't irritate me like Shepard (ME3) and Hawke. 

 

BioWare did well. 

[Lebanese Dude]

Oh look, a duel between Lebanese Dude and John Shepard. Again.

 

You two are like some cliché villians. "Now we meet again! Harhar!"

 

 

Some duel lol

[PhroXenGold]

I went in with no feelings either way and left the same way. At no point did the game manage to inspire me to give a damn. At least in DA2 I was annoyed by Fenris and Anders; I never thought I 'd regard being annoyed by a couple of characters as a positive, but I'll take it over not giving a toss.

 

I love have some characters I dislike and find annoying, provided I do so because of their character as opposed to disliking them because they are badly written. It makes the world feel more believable and immersive. I mean, I sure as hell don't like everyone I meet IRL, indeed, I find a lot of people I've met to be annoying, and there have been times where I've been forced, by circumstances beyond my control, to work with such people. So if I find myself paying a game set in a fcitional universe where everyone is someone I would get along with, it all feels rather artificial....

[The dead fish]

English comprehension not your strong suit I see. You really love the word fanboy too. You should expand your vocabulary. It pays dividends.

 

You're fully capable of playing a "bad" character. The only difference is that the character cannot be an insane murderous pyschopath nor an evil MUAHAHAHHAA Dr. Evil.

 

 

 

"Evil" in DAI is more akin to ruthless no-nonsense pragmatism with harsh methods.

That's what being evil in DAO was as well, except for the insane murderous psychopath moments which you so relish apparently since their absence dilutes from the ENTIRE experience.

While DAO could somewhat get away with the murderous insanity since the character was relatively independent, DAI cannot offer the same luxury of insanity since you're supposed to be leading an organization of a noble purpose (which you can twist at your own accord).

 

 

 

 

lol 

 

Please, give me the decisions that would make the inquisitor ' Bad ' in DA:I.

 

I'd also like to know the decisions that you consider ruthless with harsh methods. Time to be concrete, I think.

[Majestic Jazz]

Please, give me the decisions that would make the inquisitor ' Bad ' in DA:I.

 

I'd also like to know the decisions that you consider ruthless with harsh methods. Time to be concrete, I think.

 

Its no use. This is also the same person that believes that there are 100s of decisions from War Table missions that effect the game world.

 

He is just one of those players that will defend the game no matter what.

[Cyonan]

So this is basically just a thread complaining that we can't be complete jerks now, right?

[Elhanan]

Its no use. This is also the same person that believes that there are 100s of decisions from War Table missions that effect the game world.
 
He is just one of those players that will defend the game no matter what.

As opposed to the Players that tend to raise threads to complain about the game in a sim manner, yet seem to find so many others that differ in their opinions.

But as some of these 'Defender' folks have been openly constructively critical of past Bioware games, I am quite pleased at their support now. They offer a different perspective than my own; one that has enjoyed the majority of Bioware games.

[Majestic Jazz]

So this is basically just a thread complaining that we can't be complete jerks now, right?

 

Its a thread aimed at the idea that the IQ is such a linear character unlike past Bioware characters like Revan, Shepard, and Hawke and if this linearity of the IQ is something that you like or dislike.

[Cyonan]

Its a thread aimed at the idea that the IQ is such a linear character unlike past Bioware characters like Revan, Shepard, and Hawke and if this linearity of the IQ is something that you like or dislike.

 

Which nearly every counter-point about the character not being linear comes back to what is essentially "Well I can't be a complete jerk to others".

 

There are a lot of routes you can take the IQ, but the one restriction is you have to be diplomatic.

 

To be honest I find Shep to be a fairly boring character. I can choose if he/she is nice or a jerk, but that's really about it 90% of the time because the only options for dialogue are Paragon, Renegade, or the generic "find out more about this subject".

 

and if I want to be able to use certain interrupts, then I am forced into always picking the same one most of the time(unless you use a save editor on PC).

 

Characters like Shep or Hawke felt like I didn't get to define their personality. I was choosing between 2 or 3 pre-determined ones, where as the Inquisitor gets the weird freedom in that you have more choice in the details but they must all be diplomatic.

[The dead fish]

So this is basically just a thread complaining that we can't be complete jerks now, right?

 

The inquisitor being too linear is a legetimate complaint and can be a factor why some people had some difficulties to find him interesting. It fits the topic, did you find him interesting or not. Not everyone has the same reasons why they liked / disliked the inquisitor, not being able to play a ruthless / jerk inquisitor is totally valid. Some people disagree, and that's why there's an argument. Please, don't try to dismiss people, if you have something to argue, then do it and give your reasons. 

[Fiery Phoenix]

Sarcastic Hawke was waaaaay more interesting, IMO.

[Majestic Jazz]

The inquisitor being too linear is a legetimate complaint and can be a factor why some people had some difficulties to find him interesting. It fits the topic, did you find him interesting or not. Not everyone has the same reasons why they liked / disliked the inquisitor, not being able to play a ruthless / jerk inquisitor is totally valid. Some people disagree, and that's why there's an argument. Please, don't try to dismiss people, if you have something to argue, then do it and give your reasons. 

 

Dont bother

 

Some people just want to easily dismiss topics like this by throwing out "You're mad cause you cant be a jerk" card in the hopes that it somehow diminishes the argument. What they fail to see is that it is less about being a jerk and more about having variance with the character. If DAI forced you to be a jerk without options to be nice/diplomatic.....I would still be here complaining about not enough choices. While I do like to play the selfish/jerk type of character, that does not mean I want a linear character and that is what people fail to see as they only see what they choose to see. In this case, they only choose to see the fact that people cant play as "jerks".

[Majestic Jazz]

since you like "believable" and "relatable" things so much have you ever looked in a history book?
many rulers in the past were crazy and bad people and still they had MANY followers

 

So it would have been no problem to give us option to play as different types of Inquisitiors but nope he/she is

still a bland diplomatic character

 

stop with the lame justifications man

 

And as I said before DAI would have been the PERFECT game for such character but instead we weren't given the option. I would have loved to play as an almight/upstanding/respectful person who follows the Chantry and wants to do good with it. Then turn around and play another character who is selfish,  psychotic, borderline evil, but still gets the job done.

 

People throw out the excuse that it doesn't make sense to have a psychotic/bad/selfish person be the leader of the Inquisition when MANY of the worlds historical religious leaders were....psychotic/bad/selfish and were still able to manipulate others to follow their cause.

[Abraham_uk]

I'd like more dialogue options:

 

 

Charitable Diplomatic: A diplomatic attitude that involves allowing the other side to get their way (at least partially)

Neutral Diplomatic: A diplomatic attitude that involves not taking any sides.

Hard Line Diplomatic: A diplomatic attitude that involves driving a hard bargain.

Charming Diplomatic: A diplomatic attitude that involves charm.

Hostile: Hostile attitude in dialogue. This could involve harsh words or even a punch to the face.

Passive Aggressive: Similar to hostile but a lot less outright aggressive, with sarcasm thrown into the mix, with preference over words to invoke hostility rather than actions. 

Charming Comedian: Say something funny to either ease the tension.

Teasing Comedian: Say something funny to annoy people.

 

 

 

 

 

A sarcastic passive aggressive play through would be so epic.

Just imagine

 

Iron Bull: That is a huge rift.

Inquisitor: Oh really? You don't say. [sigh] I guess it falls on me to close it. Again. Lets go troopers. Time to slay some daemons.

Iron Bull: Why are you so grumpy?

Inquisitor: I don't know. Not like we haven't closed a thousand rifts. I thought by now you'd bring better protection, or is armour out of fashion?

Sera: Hey. I think he looks cute.

Inquisitor: He'd look a whole lot less cute with a dozen arrows to the torso.

Vivienne:  I like the shirtless look.

Inquisitor: Yes. It's a great look, outside of battle. Now if you excuse me I have a rift to close. Oh and you three can help me out if you like.

[Fredward]

Depends on how you RP I suppose. I like rolling sneaky/manipulative types and the Inquisitor's more low-key personality (compared to Hawke) made it feel like a natural fit. I sometimes miss Hawke's exuberance/OTT/larger-than-life-ness but I don't really have a problem with the Inquisitor as is.

[Elhanan]

And as I said before DAI would have been the PERFECT game for such character but instead we weren't given the option. I would have loved to play as an almight/upstanding/respectful person who follows the Chantry and wants to do good with it. Then turn around and play another character who is selfish,  psychotic, borderline evil, but still gets the job done.
 
People throw out the excuse that it doesn't make sense to have a psychotic/bad/selfish person be the leader of the Inquisition when MANY of the worlds historical religious leaders were....psychotic/bad/selfish and were still able to manipulate others to follow their cause.

Selfish, evil options do exist, but the Player does not have to choose to play Chaotic-Stupid (the opposite of the stereotypical Paladin). Even the evil leaders of history had to develop into such positions, and this was not always done truthfully. Agendas remained hidden, while other things were stated. No need to start as the incarcerated prisoner of the Inquisition stating one's plans for domination; might not go over that well as dinner conversation.

[Lebanese Dude]

since you like "believable" and "relatable" things so much have you ever looked in a history book?
many rulers in the past were crazy and bad people and still they had MANY followers

 

So it would have been no problem to give us option to play as different types of Inquisitiors but nope he/she is

still a bland diplomatic character

 

You're not a ruler nor is the Inquisition a totalitarian regime...

 

I don't even... lmao

 

Considering you can do a lot more damage to Thedas as the Inquisitor, one would think you'd be more happy about how it's done in DAI. It's more efficient than stabbing every helpless elf on the way I think.

 

Your posts are always made in a vacuum it's rather hilarious.

[Cyonan]

The inquisitor being too linear is a legetimate complaint and can be a factor why some people had some difficulties to find him interesting. It fits the topic, did you find him interesting or not. Not everyone has the same reasons why they liked / disliked the inquisitor, not being able to play a ruthless / jerk inquisitor is totally valid. Some people disagree, and that's why there's an argument. Please, don't try to dismiss people, if you have something to argue, then do it and give your reasons. 

 

I was taking a shot at the fact that the thread keeps coming back to "I can't be a jerk". Not caring for the Inquisitor because you can't be a jerk is one thing, but I wouldn't say that makes them linear.

 

Besides I did actually make an argument in this thread. I'll make more actual arguments if anybody bothers replying to it, instead of just ignoring it and telling me that I just want to "dismiss topics like this" =P

[Abraham_uk]

I was taking a shot at the fact that the thread keeps coming back to "I can't be a jerk". Not caring for the Inquisitor because you can't be a jerk is one thing, but I wouldn't say that makes them linear.

 

Besides I did actually make an argument in this thread. I'll make more actual arguments if anybody bothers replying to it, instead of just ignoring it and telling me that I just want to "dismiss topics like this" =P

 

What about sarcastic and passive aggressive?

I know, it's undiplomatic, but very funny.

[Phoe77]

How many times do we have to give our reasons for why we find the Inquisitor interesting?  From a certain perspective, the Inquisitor offers more variance than most other Bioware protagonists in the past, but saying that leads to the opposition essentially saying that the people who feel that way are "doing it wrong" or "imagining things".  That's just as dismissive of simplifying the argument of those who don't like the Inquisitor down to an "I can't be a jerk" complaint.  

 

Nevertheless, I am an optimist so I will say this again.  Always being diplomatic does not mean that every Inquisitor is the same.  Diplomacy is a tool by which one attempts to reach their goals.  It doesn't matter what those goals may be.  Diplomacy can be used to help a dictator assume a throne in much the same way that it can be used to end wars and effect social change.  For another example, lets look at Star Wars.  Chancellor Palpatine and Padme both relied heavily on diplomacy to achieve their goals, but those goals and the people who championed them could not have been more different.