252 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

I suspect there'd be a lot of fan tears involved with the Hawke-as-Inquisitor story. I can see the story going down with a total companion reset, and an exalted march claims most if not the entire group we had in DA2.

[turuzzusapatuttu]

I suspect there'd be a lot of fan tears involved with the Hawke-as-Inquisitor story. I can see the story going down with a total companion reset, and an exalted march claims most if not the entire group we had in DA2.

 

We had a lot of fan tears and exalted marches anyway 

[sleeping heart]

In other respects, he also has an established voice actor and isn't potentially dead at the end of the story.

 

Considering the voice acting of hte HoF was so very limited, i doubt anyone would even notice. At anyrate the voiced PC was a bad idea. it doesn't really work for the kind of series Dragon age is supposed to be. Takes too much away from player freedom regardless of how talented the voice actors are.

 

1. My warden not a Mage. Many others in the same state. So that doesn't matter.
2. Not everyone has Warden's Keep
3. See 2
4. Again, now you are saying all the issues of 1 but an even smaller subset.

Not to mention dead for the Warden remains a problem. Face it, while you might dream up lots of fanciful scenarios (I could do the same with Hawke) where it is interesting the actual practicalities of trying to make It fit well enough to accommodate the majority of players Wardens - let alone all- means that you would wind up with the same basic generic story.

 

1. i can only speak from my experience of the game. it's been too long since i've played anything other than Human Magi, i cannot give a satisfactory answer. regardless, your question was a general one, not a specific one. your question was answered.

 

2 and 3. doesn't matter at all. considering DA:1 doesn't use the save imports but the Dragon age keep. rather you have the DLC or not is completely irrelevant.

 

4. your the freakin' warden commander. you'd have access to blood mages regardless of your class.

[SofaJockey]

Inquisition was a test of BioWare's ability to move back in the right direction.

 

Yep, succeeded there then, but with more to be accomplished.

 

And most of those awards were won two weeks into launch when the game was barely functional. 

 

Nope, amassed over months from critic and gamer assessment: http://gotypicks.blogspot.co.uk/

 

Also, GotY just means it was the best game out of all those released that year. If all the other games of that year are crap, then the least crappy game wins GotY.

 

Every game of 2014 was crap to prove your deluded point, dream on with that one 

 

The fan base says.

 

Nope, a few do say it (this is the internet),

but the forum is as quiet as it has been for years.

Truly all you can honestly say is that you and a few others say it.

 

BioWare can ignore the fans if they want, but in that case they won't succeed.

 

They had better carry on with their formula of having just released the most financially and critically successful game they have had, then.

 

To concede 5% of your case, 2014 was not the toughest GOTY season, but gaming competition is who it is.

There is clearly development on Frostbite 3 that could go further, particularly without the shackles of last gen.

 

As far as the HoF is concerned, BioWare have said it's not happening for reasons they have explained.

So please get over it rather than continuing to argue illogically and pointlessly, but I recognise that's your choice   .

[Saphiron123]

Yep, succeeded there then, but with more to be accomplished.


Nope, amassed over months from critic and gamer assessment: http://gotypicks.blogspot.co.uk/



Every game of 2014 was crap to prove your deluded point, dream on with that one



Nope, a few do say it (this is the internet),
but the forum is as quiet as it has been for years.
Truly all you can honestly say is that you and a few others say it.



They had better carry on with their formula of having just released the most financially and critically successful game they have had, then.

To concede 5% of your case, 2014 was not the toughest GOTY season, but gaming competition is who it is.
There is clearly development on Frostbite 3 that could go further, particularly without the shackles of last gen.

As far as the HoF is concerned, BioWare have said it's not happening for reasons they have explained.
So please get over it rather than continuing to argue illogically and pointlessly, but I recognise that's your choice .

Many of us care about it and think just writing our hero out is bad design, and this is a feedback forum, and as for what bioware has said, bioware has changed a lot and even has a new head writer in Weekes.

You never know, maybe Weekes is a better head writer then Gaider was. Maybe past games matter more to him.

From software once said they'd never do DLC. Things change.

[Saphiron123]

All that I'm saying is that the HOF's presence alone doesn't necessarily bring out most of the DA:O players out with their wallets because of e.g. lore/etc., so it's not really a great selling point.

I'm sure lots of people would buy a new game that happens to have a returning protagonist (see e.g. how the sequel AC2s sold with Ezio) but that's not really a matter of the protagonist.

People get attached to their protagonists. Some would return for the HoF, especially among those who found DAI to be bland and empty. I won't say that nobody would pass on the game due to his/her inclusion, but it'd be an extremely small and unusual minority, especially if the story was excellent and be game well done.

For many of us it'd be awesome nostalgia to update and use the character. It'd also probably lead a lot of keep users to go back and play DAO and DA2 for the complete story.

[In Exile]

People get attached to their protagonists. Some would return for the HoF, especially among those who found DAI to be bland and empty. I won't say that nobody would pass on the game due to his/her inclusion, but it'd be an extremely small and unusual minority, especially if the story was excellent and be game well done.

For many of us it'd be awesome nostalgia to update and use the character. It'd also probably lead a lot of keep users to go back and play DAO and DA2 for the complete story.

Would you pass on DA4 if it didn't have the HOF? That's my point when I say the HOF isn't really highlight. Whether you'd enjoy the game more isn't the same question as whether you'd buy the game.

[dsl08002]

Would you pass on DA4 if it didn't have the HOF? That's my point when I say the HOF isn't really highlight. Whether you'd enjoy the game more isn't the same question as whether you'd buy the game.

the same thing can be applied if HoF is in DA4 even as a PC

[In Exile]

the same thing can be applied if HoF is in DA4 even as a PC

That's my point.

[Il Divo]

Considering the voice acting of hte HoF was so very limited, i doubt anyone would even notice. At anyrate the voiced PC was a bad idea. it doesn't really work for the kind of series Dragon age is supposed to be. Takes too much away from player freedom regardless of how talented the voice actors are.

 

Well, that's neither here nor there. I personally prefer a voiced PC, but that's a whole separate can of worms. 

 

My point though was that Hawke would probably offer more of a "path of least resistance" than the Warden. In addition to the import function, a Voiced Protagonist is probably the feature that I've seen Bioware most resistant to abandoning than any other. 

 

At least with Hawke, we all know what we're getting in terms of VA. I for example would have cringed if my Warden was restricted to the VA offered by Inquisition, which was nothing like how I pictured my Warden speaking. 

[Vault_Tec101]

More costly than what? Again, I was only talking about costs in the context of the compromise proposal to add a Warden option on top of the option to play a new PC. If you want to drop the compromise and just discuss new-PC-vs.-Warden, I'll certainly stipulate that costs aren't relevant. Note that would be a multiple-round comparison since we now have three PCs eligible to return, though I think it's fairly likely the Warden would come out of that with a plurality.

 

Than what else? The other side which advocates for new PCs every iteration. "...proclaim the opposition would be more costly" (Vault_tec101, #166, pg.7) Opposition here meaning the side you're arguing against, what ever side you happen to be on.

 

I'm all about the B here. C isn't my problem, D is silly rhetoric, and I'm not even sure what E is supposed to mean. Unless it's about Bio setting a bad precedent for itself? I suppose I'd be worried about that if I saw it as a serious possibility.

 

"As for E: "Why should Bioware give this particular position compromise compared to the millions of other requests for feature x, y, or z which they ignore on a day to day basis?" (iI Div, #160, pg.7) Implying not only that my that my position is on equal standing with x,y,z but if it is that the consequences of Bioware accepting my compromise would be that they would now have to accept the millions of others." (Vault_tec101, #177, pg.8)

 

And F is just you being confused.

 

It's Bio's job to sort out competing desires among the fanbase; why would it be ours? I'm interested in why you want what you want -- I'm interested in design issues in general -- but I don't see how or why this would have any impact on my own desires for the series. And I figured that works both ways., which is why I didn't bother getting into reasons.

 

That gave me a good chuckle.

 

"So let me counter your question with another: why does Alan have to be the one to answer that question? That's ultimately Bioware's call to make who to shaft. They're the ones making the game. " (iI Divo, #157, pg.7) Since you seem to be keenly aware of my mental state tell me, how I should interpret the above quote? Is there a difference between "F) It's Bioware's job not mine, why should I answer?" (Vault_tec101, #166, pg.7) and the above?. I'll bold it just to be extra sure you're reading it right.

 

Second I didn't ask you to sort out desires among the fanbase (but, again, do you think I did? Quote me) I asked you why you think your position is a superior one without saying "I want it" or from A)-F) I thought I made that clear. Rather than retort with a snarky reply of you being the one who is confused I'll chalk this one up to a simple misunderstanding.

 

 I'm certainly willing to play our reason cards here, as long as we agree there's nothing at stake.

 

One more thing: where does this end? Let's say Bio changes their minds and brings back the Warden for DA4. Do we end up having the same argument about DA5 in a few years?

 

Yes let's do that I think that has the potential to be a much more fruitful conversation and discussion.

 

As for where it ends? Who knows? And why not have the same discussion if new arguments or reasoning is brought to light, I would be more than happy to discuss it whether the Warden (or any other PC for that matter) returns or not.

 

The questions are rhetorical. I think Bioware should could come up with the story first, and the PC should be made to fit into it, which is what they seem to have done with DAI. Since I don't know what the next story is, I'm using Inquisition as an example to illustrate how it can be problematic to (1) do it the other way around, fit the story you want to tell to an already established character, and (2) do so in such away that the HoF is one of two options. (1) is a problem of focus: The HoF doesn't necessarily contradict the religious figure angle, but to me, it would be a distracting convolution added on top of it. And (2), again is resources spent on a divergence in plot I don't find particularly interesting.

 

Sure but why does the story they want to tell exclude past characters whether they be Hawke or Warden or what ever PC you can think of. As we agreed the themes you stated do not exclude the Warden from joining the story. But let's do that, let's assume that the story should not fit the Warden's return, let's suppose we agree on this point, what kind of story would it need to be?

 

Second we both agree that we simply do not know what story the writers want to write next. For all we know it could favour the Warden returning. These are examples of very difficult variable changes that we can both say: "If X was this, then I'd be in the right!" But neither of us know what X is so we can't see that it is in either of our favour.

 

As for me it wouldn't be a distraction but an interesting outlook on how the Warden (or an old PC, lets just use old PC to describe any former PC since, if we cannot agree on returning PCs, it wouldn't really matter using the Warden as a returning PC) develops while taking into account old experiences from past games and events. How would my character view so and so given that he reacted in such and such way in previous games? I would argue that it strengthens the role playing aspect further. After all neither of us enters into dilemmas or problems with a blank slate, how we view new problems and find solutions is by reflections on our past actions and experiences.

 

As stated above, I'd rather Bioware focus on the story and its themes first. I want them to find something they are inspired by first, and create the new PC around it, rather than the other way around. This isn't always the case with sequels. In Mass Effect, it made sense that Shepard was used again, because the way ME1 ended left it open to continue the story around Shepard's struggle against the Reapers, a conflict left unresolved. (And in an ideal world, Bioware would have thought farther ahead about what was in store for Shepard in 2 and 3 when they left the Reaper threat..and origin...unresolved). But I did not feel this way about Origins or Awakening.

And, as others have said, I don't want the next game to contradict how I role-played my Warden in Origins.

 

For the first sentence see above. For the rest I would say I certainly can't argue with what they are inspired by (but given their defence of ME3 ending by using 'artistic integrity' I don't know if they are inspired by much save for social activism). But that's a discussion for another time. Again I'm not here to say nor discuss what Bioware should or shouldn't do, we assume that they would have the inspiration for both our sides so that they are placed on equal standing to determine which has more merit.

 

In regards to ME and the way it left it open the same could be said for the Eluvian after origins (though it turned out Bioware waved a wand and made us go to Dimension C-X31. The same could now be said for however they should leave any game I suppose, that it can be dealt easily) or the Calling after Inquisition.

 

Though you have made your Warden into such a way as that it may be highly probably that it will be contradicted, I did not.

 

I'll point out here why I am for mostly the Warden's return. Almost all of my companions from Origins made a return in other games save for Wynne, Oghren and Sten. And the whole time I can't stop to think: "well if my companions are also included and built upon, where the hell is my Warden?" Would it not be a short step to now return the Warden? You state that stories should be built first then characters made to enter it, why then is Morrigan in the last damn place anyone would expect. In an Orlesian court for crying out loud! They've already returned the companions what the hell is left? Which is it that they want to explore completely new avenues every iteration or what? It seems they want to have a foot in both worlds without deciding. I would be very content to let the returning PC issue go if they didn't keep returning companions every damn time. Not to mention that they keep talking about the Warden like he should be here and all I can say is: "well why the hell isn't he here?" (My characters were all male so feel free to replace 'he' with 'she' whenever we discuss a protagonist).

 

And apologies that last paragraph was more a rant than a coherent argument but I thought that I owed a personal explanation for why I was pushing for my side.

[Dai Grepher]

 

Yep, succeeded there then, but with more to be accomplished.

 

 

Nope, amassed over months from critic and gamer assessment: http://gotypicks.blogspot.co.uk/

 

 

Every game of 2014 was crap to prove your deluded point, dream on with that one 

 

 

Nope, a few do say it (this is the internet),

but the forum is as quiet as it has been for years.

Truly all you can honestly say is that you and a few others say it.

 

 

They had better carry on with their formula of having just released the most financially and critically successful game they have had, then.

 

To concede 5% of your case, 2014 was not the toughest GOTY season, but gaming competition is who it is.

There is clearly development on Frostbite 3 that could go further, particularly without the shackles of last gen.

 

As far as the HoF is concerned, BioWare have said it's not happening for reasons they have explained.

So please get over it rather than continuing to argue illogically and pointlessly, but I recognise that's your choice   .

 

 

Months would actually be worse if it were true, since functionality actually hit its peak on patch 2 and then when straight downhill from there.

 

No, I wrote "IF". Please pay attention to what I write if you are going to throw out accusations. The only game that I saw in the same genre as Inquisition that could possibly rival it, was Shadow of Mordor, and that was plagued by it's own problems. I'm just pointing out that GotY is not that big of a deal. It isn't an award based on a game's own merits, it's based on how it measures up to other games.

 

BioWare said the Hero's story was over before DA2, and yet the Hero's story continues even now.

[mjb203]

For the first sentence see above. For the rest I would say I certainly can't argue with what they are inspired by (but given their defence of ME3 ending by using 'artistic integrity' I don't know if they are inspired by much save for social activism). But that's a discussion for another time. Again I'm not here to say nor discuss what Bioware should or shouldn't do, we assume that they would have the inspiration for both our sides so that they are placed on equal standing to determine which has more merit.

 

In regards to ME and the way it left it open the same could be said for the Eluvian after origins (though it turned out Bioware waved a wand and made us go to Dimension C-X31. The same could now be said for however they should leave any game I suppose, that it can be dealt easily) or the Calling after Inquisition.

 

Though you have made your Warden into such a way as that it may be highly probably that it will be contradicted, I did not.

 

I'll point out here why I am for mostly the Warden's return. Almost all of my companions from Origins made a return in other games save for Wynne, Oghren and Sten. And the whole time I can't stop to think: "well if my companions are also included and built upon, where the hell is my Warden?" Would it not be a short step to now return the Warden? You state that stories should be built first then characters made to enter it, why then is Morrigan in the last damn place anyone would expect. In an Orlesian court for crying out loud! They've already returned the companions what the hell is left? Which is it that they want to explore completely new avenues every iteration or what? It seems they want to have a foot in both worlds without deciding. I would be very content to let the returning PC issue go if they didn't keep returning companions every damn time. Not to mention that they keep talking about the Warden like he should be here and all I can say is: "well why the hell isn't he here?" (My characters were all male so feel free to replace 'he' with 'she' whenever we discuss a protagonist).

 

And apologies that last paragraph was more a rant than a coherent argument but I thought that I owed a personal explanation for why I was pushing for my side.

I've got to agree with your rant here.  The bolded is why many of us want to see our Wardens return.  Leliana, Morrigan, Zevran, Alistair, and Anders all made returns in sequels.  And I'm only listing the DA:O/DA:A companions.  Even Sten/Arishok is mentioned if you got his sword back.  This is what drives me, at least, to want to see my Warden again.  The fact that I typically side with the mages in DAI gives the Warden an even bigger reason to return.

 

Now, with all of this said, as far as I'm concerned, after DA:A, the Warden stopped being my character and went back to being Bioware's character.  But, this doesn't excuse the poor way they've handled the Warden's absence.  I didn't mind the letter, but when they say they're out trying to look for a cure for the Calling, and I've got a former Warden mage that no longer has the Taint (and who ALSO met the Architect), I want to write a friggin' letter back and let them know that.  Could Bioware decide to kill off the HoF if they make an appearance in a DLC?  Sure they could, and I might not even mind that if it's in a way that is done well.  But, Bioware has to learn how to approach something like this without having it end in the death of a former PC (I still think the Hawke/Warden choice was nonsense since my Inquisitor really didn't know either of them.  It was a clear metagame choice, which they should try to avoid at all costs).  And, if Bioware doesn't want to deal with our old PCs (and I really couldn't blame them for that), then they need to learn to stop relying on our former PCs companions!

 

Bottom line: Bioware wrote themselves into this mess, so it's really their own fault. The "disappearing" act of Hawke and the HoF should never have been done and they should've just moved on with new PCs.  I don't mind a few returning characters, but I do mind it when they feel forced.  Varric's return made sense as he was being questioned by Cassandra at the end of DA2.  Leliana's appearances in DA2 didn't make any sense to me and felt horribly forced (as was Zevran's and Anders').  Not only does Anders in DA2 not make a whole lot of sense timeline-wise, he also didn't seem to mind being a Warden in my playthroughs of DA:A, so it surprised me that he was wanting to run from them.

 

Anyway, /endrant

[AlanC9]

Than what else? The other side which advocates for new PCs every iteration. "...proclaim the opposition would be more costly" (Vault_tec101, #166, pg.7) Opposition here meaning the side you're arguing against, what ever side you happen to be on.

(Hey, are you an alt of Bioware-Critic? He used to do a lot of funny font stuff too.)

For the third time, the "more costly" objection had only ever been raised against the "compromise" position of both bringing back the Warden and letting us play a new character. I don't know what I can tell you about an argument that no one's actually making.

Edit: though it occurs to me that one could make this case. A Warden will come with a suite of relationships that will burn a lot of zots to implement properly, and those zots don't need to be spent for a new PC where all relationships default to neutral. This would be a particular case of a general argument that save imports aren't worth doing.

"As for E: [/size]"Why should Bioware give this particular position compromise compared to the millions of other requests for feature x, y, or z which they ignore on a day to day basis?" (iI Div, #160, pg.7) [/size]Implying not only that my that my position is on equal standing with x,y,z but if it is that the consequences of Bioware accepting my compromise would be that they would now have to accept the millions of others." (Vault_tec101, #177, pg.8)[/size]

So my guess was correct. Well, like I just said, I would worry about that if I thought it was a serious possibility. But I don't, so I don't. I don't think precedents matter.

"So let me counter your question with another: why does Alan have to be the one to answer that question? That's ultimately Bioware's call to make who to shaft. They're the ones making the game. " (iI Divo, #157, pg.7) [/size]Since you seem to be keenly aware of my mental state tell me, how I should interpret the above quote? Is there a difference between "F) It's Bioware's job not mine, why should I answer?" (Vault_tec101, #166, pg.7) [/size]and the above?. [/size]I'll bold it just to be extra sure you're reading it right.

(Ooh... you are Bioware-Critic, aren't you.)

What are you actually asking for here?

Second I didn't ask you to sort out desires among the fanbase (but, again, do you think I did? Quote me) I asked you why you think your position is a superior one without saying "I want it" or from A)-F) I thought I made that clear. Rather than retort with a snarky reply of you being the one who is confused I'll chalk this one up to a simple misunderstanding.

What does "superior" mean here? My position is "superior" for me because when adopted it will lead to a better game for me. If you want to discuss some other kind of superiority, I'll need specifics.

Yes let's do that I think that has the potential to be a much more fruitful conversation and discussion.

As for where it ends? Who knows? And why not have the same discussion if new arguments or reasoning is brought to light, I would be more than happy to discuss it whether the Warden (or any other PC for that matter) returns or not.

(Suddenly I have a vision of being stuck with the Warden forever. Good thing I don't believe that precedent is a thing.)

I think that there's a sort of weight that comes from dragging along a character for a long time. Sometimes that weight can be interesting. Sometimes it can be nice to get out from under it. I like having a new character with new relationships. Ideally we wouldn't have had save imports at all, but regrettably, that ship has sailed.

Also, the power-curve for the DA games is too steep; the PC at the end of the game is too much of a badass to be worth playing anymore.

And finally, I prefer to leave my RPG characters with adventures left to them, unless they die a glorious death with me in the saddle.

Second we both agree that we simply do not know what story the writers want to write next. For all we know it could favour the Warden returning. These are examples of very difficult variable changes that we can both say: "If X was this, then I'd be in the right!" But neither of us know what X is so we can't see that it is in either of our favour.

It's hard to reconcile that with the devs' statements over the past few years. They've been saying that DA will always involve new PCs for a long time, and the new head writer has said that he doesn't think bringing the Warden back is a good idea.

[Vault_Tec101]

(Hey, are you an alt of Bioware-Critic? He used to do a lot of funny font stuff too.)

 

No. I have no time for these petty accusations of being another username or person and neither was it amusing. I don't know the norms on this particular forum but it strikes me as pretty childish to even levy such a thing. If this is what it is going to devolve into then you can stop. You offered to "play the reason card", is this it? You had me held in bated anticipation, it has been a let down to be honest. I expected more.

 

For the third time, the "more costly" objection had only ever been raised against the "compromise" position of both bringing back the Warden and letting us play a new character. I don't know what I can tell you about an argument that no one's actually making

 

"2) Implementing the Warden requires resources which would come at the expense of other aspects of game design." (iI Divo, #162, pg.7)

 

"Personally, I think your suggestion is laughable under two criteria: either implementing the Warden with such little resources that it will satisfy a very small number of gamers or that it will require significant resources, resulting in a dramatic reduction of other aspects of the game, while quite possibly compromising the entire experience for everyone involved." (iI Divo, #163, pg.7)  That is to say it would be more costly to implement the Warden than not. Your reading comprehension is poor and it is aggravating having to spell things out for you.

 

(Ooh... you are Bioware-Critic, aren't you.)

 

The first time I will explain I am not interested, the second time I will ignore it, it could be that you're having a bad day. The third time I won't.

 

Do you want to take this discussion down that path? I've held back in this post, let's see how you reply.

 

 

What are you actually asking for here?

 

Think for a moment. You accused me of being confused with regards to F), I showed you that I was correct to interpret iI Divo's post. You have not refuted the point. Instead you ask me what I am asking for. Let me try that again with a play by play illustration:

 

1) You tell me that I am confused regarding F)

2) I showed you that I was not confused and that there is no other way to interpret iI Divo's post

3) You ask me "What are you actually asking for here?"

 

So to recap I defend myself against an accusation, and rather than you saying "ah okay mate my mistake I misunderstood" you retort, nonsensically, "what are you actually asking for here?"

 

Something happened in your thought process between 2) and 3). I don't mind explaining further if you don't understand.

 

 

What does "superior" mean here? My position is "superior" for me because when adopted it will lead to a better game for me. If you want to discuss some other kind of superiority, I'll need specifics.

 

Did we not agree to play our reason cards? Superior by virtue of their merit and reasoning, if we agree on the reasoning but first we would need to try which we haven't.. I gave more than enough examples to show you how, to which you have replied "I'm interested in why you want what you want -- I'm interested in design issues in general -- but I don't see how or why this would have any impact on my own desires for the series. And I figured that works both ways., which is why I didn't bother getting into reasons.

 I'm certainly willing to play our reason cards here, as long as we agree there's nothing at stake." 

 

To what were you referring when you said you were willing to play your reason cards? There could be a misunderstanding here though I see nothing else you could have been referring to.

 

 

I think that there's a sort of weight that comes from dragging along a character for a long time. Sometimes that weight can be interesting. Sometimes it can be nice to get out from under it. I like having a new character with new relationships. Ideally we wouldn't have had save imports at all, but regrettably, that ship has sailed.

 

I don't think that there's a weight that comes from tagging along with a character for a long time.

 

 

Also, the power-curve for the DA games is too steep; the PC at the end of the game is too much of a badass to be worth playing anymore.

And finally, I prefer to leave my RPG characters with adventures left to them, unless they die a glorious death with me in the saddle.

 

Firsly, Inquisition had you start out not only as a prophet but as a commander in chief and that was at the beginning of the game. Did you stop playing after the first hour? Was it no longer worth playing? The danger is prevalent for both propositions.

 

Secondly, ME1 had you interfere with something closely resembling a God. It continued with interesting and tougher challenges ahead. ME2 had you survive a suicide mission. And still there were interesting and tougher challenges lying ahead. That is to say no matter what level you reach you never become a God that can no longer be challenged nor defeated. Sheppard was worth playing even after ME1 and ME2. 

 

Thirdly, regarding your final statement how is that prevented by returning a PC? Are we assuming that at the end of every returned PC is forced cannon death by devs?

 

 

It's hard to reconcile that with the devs' statements over the past few years. They've been saying that DA will always involve new PCs for a long time, and the new head writer has said that he doesn't think bringing the Warden back is a good idea.

 

We were discussing problems with stories that exclude, or at least are not a good idea for, a returning PC (specifically in this case the Warden). Not whether the writers wanted new PCs but whether they were making a story that excluded, or was hindered by, returning PCs. So unless there was a post by the devs which stated which story Bioware wants to tell next (which by the way both Zatche and I conceded that we simply don't know) the point still stands.

[Il Divo]

2) Implementing the Warden requires resources which would come at the expense of other aspects of game design." (iI Divo, #162, pg.7)

 

"Personally, I think your suggestion is laughable under two criteria: either implementing the Warden with such little resources that it will satisfy a very small number of gamers or that it will require significant resources, resulting in a dramatic reduction of other aspects of the game, while quite possibly compromising the entire experience for everyone involved." (iI Divo, #163, pg.7)  That is to say it would be more costly to implement the Warden than not. Your reading comprehension is poor and it is aggravating having to spell things out for you.

 

 

To be absolutely clear, that was meant in reference to the idea of implementing both a Warden and a new protagonist at the same time. 

 

I suppose I could've laid it out better, but what I was getting at is that Bioware has quite a bit of work as it is implementing one protagonist at a time while people accuse them of all sorts of "out of character" actions. That becomes even more difficult as you add further protagonists to the mix. In this case, Bioware could implement so few resources to the Warden that people might question why implement him at all. At the same time, the new protagonist potentially has fewer resources available to him, which increases the likelihood of those complaints as well. 

 

End result could be: people who chose the new protagonist are unhappy and people who chose the Warden are unhappy.

[Vault_Tec101]

To be absolutely clear, that was meant in reference to the idea of implementing both a Warden and a new protagonist at the same time. 

 

I suppose I could've laid it out better, but what I was getting at is that Bioware has quite a bit of work as it is implementing one protagonist at a time while people accuse them of all sorts of "out of character" actions. That becomes even more difficult as you add further protagonists to the mix. In this case, Bioware could implement so few resources to the Warden that people might question why implement him at all. At the same time, the new protagonist potentially has fewer resources available to him, which increases the likelihood of those complaints as well. 

 

End result could be: people who chose the new protagonist are unhappy and people who chose the Warden are unhappy.

 

Fair enough, though directly below that you said "Why they won't implement the Warden could be for a number of reasons" with no reference to a compromise neither in this quote nor the one I used so I saw no reason to presume you meant both. I suppose though what you mean is always more important than what you say.

[Il Divo]

It was ambiguous on my part, apologies. It was one of those "I was thinking it but forgot to type it" sort of deals.

[Saphiron123]

Would you pass on DA4 if it didn't have the HOF? That's my point when I say the HOF isn't really highlight. Whether you'd enjoy the game more isn't the same question as whether you'd buy the game.

Truthfully I'd hesitate to pick up DA4 right now, inquisition was pretty disappointing in a lot of ways - the bosses you don't even realize are bosses until they're half dead, the move away from cinematic conversations, the fetch questing and grindy MMO style item collection and like 60 quests from discarded pieces of paper, the loss of tactics, attribute points, the crappy handling of the warden in a text box, recycled and reskinned enemies, the incredibly short story and the fact basic commands in tactical mode and simple concepts like hold position don't even work.

Mostly it was a lack of emphasis on story, and the way the world just felt empty and static. It's the first game in a long time where I felt a real sense of disappointment.

I'll wait to see a lot of reviews before I buy the next one, and yeah, having my hero back with a darker storyline that might have some choices that are actually hard and upto the standards I hold for bioware would help.

The inquisitor is far more limited then the warden, maybe part of that is the fact there weren't any "origin" stories to separate the races and give them a more personal feel.

In the end I just want a great story, and for many of us the warden have us a far superior one... It's easy to want to see him/her again as a result.

[dsl08002]

Truthfully I'd hesitate to pick up DA4 right now, inquisition was pretty disappointing in a lot of ways - the bosses you don't even realize are bosses until they're half dead, the move away from cinematic conversations, the fetch questing and grindy MMO style item collection and like 60 quests from discarded pieces of paper, the loss of tactics, attribute points, the crappy handling of the warden in a text box, recycled and reskinned enemies, the incredibly short story and the fact basic commands in tactical mode and simple concepts like hold position don't even work.
Mostly it was a lack of emphasis on story, and the way the world just felt empty and static. It's the first game in a long time where I felt a real sense of disappointment.
I'll wait to see a lot of reviews before I buy the next one, and yeah, having my hero back with a darker storyline that might have some choices that are actually hard and upto the standards I hold for bioware would help.
The inquisitor is far more limited then the warden, maybe part of that is the fact there weren't any "origin" stories to separate the races and give them a more personal feel.
In the end I just want a great story, and for many of us the warden have us a far superior one... It's easy to want to see him/her again as a result.

Even if the warden was the inquisiter it wouldnt have solved DAI:s problems with story and so on. But you would feel a connection to the character and advance his/hers story. Like continuing a relationship with a LI or strenghten friendship with another chatacter like alistair or morrigan and so on. Those reasons alone can bring joy in a otherwise avarage game.

[Saphiron123]

Even if the warden was the inquisiter it wouldnt have solved DAI:s problems with story and so on. But you would feel a connection to the character and advance his/hers story. Like continuing a relationship with a LI or strenghten friendship with another chatacter like alistair or morrigan and so on. Those reasons alone can bring joy in a otherwise avarage game.

Yeah, part of what makes us miss the warden is his quest was pretty epic. Sure we has more forests and big environments, but it felt like the warden was on a journey. The inquisitor had a fairly short story and a lot of fluff to lengthen the game, and I never quite felt like the world was in real trouble... And honestly having a castle to go back to made me feel less like I was fighting to save the world and more going out for afternoon walks in forests filled with angry bears. Wanna spend 40 hours mining rocks? Corypheus will wait.

I remember my warden offering to find some blacksmith's suit of chainmail at ostagar, and him making fun of me for it and telling me I had better things to do. The inquisitor though will spend time in the middle of a war running around in his ugly pajamas collecting 48 copies of Varrick's book.

Maybe it's not all about the warden (though I loved all my wardens and want to see them again), it's about the feeling of origins. And delivering flowers to a grave for +2 power and quest complete just didn't deliver that.

In some small way I hope bringing back the character I love will bring back the spirit of the series, a great story, cinematic and memorable.

[In Exile]

Yeah, part of what makes us miss the warden is his quest was pretty epic. Sure we has more forests and big environments, but it felt like the warden was on a journey. The inquisitor had a fairly short story and a lot of fluff to lengthen the game, and I never quite felt like the world was in real trouble... And honestly having a castle to go back to made me feel less like I was fighting to save the world and more going out for afternoon walks in forests filled with angry bears. Wanna spend 40 hours mining rocks? Corypheus will wait.

I remember my warden offering to find some blacksmith's suit of chainmail at ostagar, and him making fun of me for it and telling me I had better things to do. The inquisitor though will spend time in the middle of a war running around in his ugly pajamas collecting 48 copies of Varrick's book.

Maybe it's not all about the warden (though I loved all my wardens and want to see them again), it's about the feeling of origins. And delivering flowers to a grave for +2 power and quest complete just didn't deliver that.

In some small way I hope bringing back the character I love will bring back the spirit of the series, a great story, cinematic and memorable.

 

I remember running 5 errands to beg 5 political figures for an army I didn't get to command. Don't put DA:O on a pedestal - you're even more of an errand runner in that game, when the whole main plot is 5 errands. 

[sleeping heart]

I remember running 5 errands to beg 5 political figures for an army I didn't get to command. Don't put DA:O on a pedestal - you're even more of an errand runner in that game, when the whole main plot is 5 errands. 

You actually did get to command them to an extent. commanding and entire army would be a bit complex for the type of game Dragon age is. you'd need to completely overhaul the entire gameplay to make it work.

 

I did feel more significant though. and it was a mission to restore unity not just gain an army.

[berelinde]

You actually did get to command them to an extent. commanding and entire army would be a bit complex for the type of game Dragon age is. you'd need to completely overhaul the entire gameplay to make it work.

 

I did feel more significant though. and it was a mission to restore unity not just gain an army.

Dragon Age Inquisition is a quest to restore order to the world. Yes, you have to recruit allies and some of them want favors for their help, but you're also building an infrastructure to (temporarily or permanently) replace the floundering Chantry, stop a Civil War that is adding to the instability, and prevent demons from literally taking over the world. And you're doing all that while battling the first darkspawn, who commands the power of the Blight and who wields an artifact capable of tearing down the barrier between worlds. It's pretty epic.

[sleeping heart]

Dragon Age Inquisition is a quest to restore order to the world. Yes, you have to recruit allies and some of them want favors for their help, but you're also building an infrastructure to (temporarily or permanently) replace the floundering Chantry, stop a Civil War that is adding to the instability, and prevent demons from literally taking over the world. And you're doing all that while battling the first darkspawn, who commands the power of the Blight and who wields an artifact capable of tearing down the barrier between worlds. It's pretty epic.

I disagree. to me it felt cheap and limited with a severe lack of ability to inspire the players imagination. with dragon age origins i had a multitude of choices into how i wanted to end each conflict. Did i want to allow the werewolves to massacre the Dalish?. Did i want to allow Branka to Sacrifice lives to construct an army of Golems?. Did i want to Kill Connor, Kill the demon, or let the demon possess Connor so i could learn blood magic?. i felt these interactive choices where missing in Dragon Age: inquisition. which regardless of it technically being labeled an open world, felt far more linear than Dragon age Origins.

 

Well, each to his own i guess.