The Inquisitor is, all in all, a pretty terrible protagonist. Not because of his personality or dialogue, which were decent enough, but for where the story attempts to place him.
The narrative constantly, and frankly, rather clumsily tries to sell him or her as the pinnacle of heroism and pretty much completely fails to offer any evidence to back it up.
The Inquisitor is, all in all, a pretty terrible protagonist.
The narrative constantly, and frankly, rather clumsily tries to sell him or her as the pinnacle of heroism and pretty much completely fails to offer any evidence to back it up.
Bland I get, but you're the first guy complaining that the Inquisitor doesn't outright win enough.
Is "the baddest of guys Thedas ever saw cannot come up with a single plan the Inquisitor doesn't foil with ease" not enough empirical evidence for you?
Otherwise I'm probably misreading what you're trying to say.
I liked the lack of auto-dialogue but that's about it. They either deliberately or accidently removed any ability to express tonal differences and what's left is a rather bland samitude. So all in all better than ME3's attempt to murder my protaganist and replace him with a doppelganger but far poorer than ME2 or DA2 imo.
The Inqusitor is much more subdued. Personally I like it for this game, but I won't wish it for the next.
The Inquisitor is, all in all, a pretty terrible protagonist.
The narrative constantly, and frankly, rather clumsily tries to sell him or her as the pinnacle of heroism and pretty much completely fails to offer any evidence to back it up.
Actually, the game initially tries to sell the Inquisitor as the pinnacle of usefulness, since, after all, s/he is the only one that is physically capable of sealing rifts. The real heroism part doesn't occur until the attack on Haven, where the Inquisitor basically saved everyone. Part of me wonders if you actually played the game, or just gleaned stuff from the forum and ran with that.
Bland I get, but you're the first guy complaining that the Inquisitor doesn't outright win enough.
Is "the baddest of guys Thedas ever saw cannot come up with a single plan the Inquisitor doesn't foil with ease" not enough empirical evidence for you?
Otherwise I'm probably misreading what you're trying to say.
The fact that the Inquisitor foils Corypheus with ease is precisely what makes him weak.
Characters winning in stories easily makes them weak. Not strong. Because without the struggle, without the conflict, then it's just a chore. it's just the protagonist snapping their fingers and making problems go away. Like Q from Star Trek. It's pointless.
For characters to be strong in any meaningful sense, they need to be up against an opponent or trial worthy of them. There's no triumph otherwise.
I don't want to say the Inquisitor doesn't lose enough, but I can absolutely sure as hell say he doesn't struggle anywhere near enough. None of the characters really do.
I like the Inquisitor and had no problem building his personality.
Corypheus is -maybe unjustly so- declared to be death himself. The Inquisitor defeats him, as you say, to the point where it becomes a chore.
It may make him a craftsmanwise lazily constructed narrative figure (personally I don't care as much, yet I get where you're coming from)), but it damn sure even exceeds the "hero"-status to close "demigod".
Then again I'm probably just too persistently hung-up on your use of the phrase "pinnacle of heroism".
I was getting this sense from the OP as well, as if having constructive criticism of the Inquisitor is "wrong."
Honestly, the Inquisitor is creatively bankrupt, and it's intentional. As others have suggested, the Inquisitor was an experiment to take the "best" aspects of the Warden and the "best" aspects of Hawke. What we received was a jack of all trades master of none. The Inquisitor, much like his/her role in a large portion of the game, is just out of place and the quality of the rest of the cast further emphasizes how unappealing the Inquisitor is.
Not once did I ever believe the Inquisitor was a hero or a leader. Not once was I ever convinced that he/she could run the Inquisition nor that he/she was actually running it. It was an odd experience in which BioWare tried to give us the illusion that we actually had real power and influence without actually having anything at all.
In DAI, especially, I believe BioWare had to focus extensively on the strengths of their companions and other cast members just because the Inquisitor was so weak and largely vacant. I applaud BioWare's efforts to try and provide BioWare fans creative control as well as some semblance of a character, but I just don't believe it transitioned well.
I think the story, overall, is partly to blame. However, having a poor protagonist can really be an overall detriment to that story. My stance is rather clear in my thread why I believe the Inquisitor failed, and it's for a multitude of reasons. Lack of a defined character. Inclusion of multi-race. DAI being too big and ambitious. The list goes on and on.
For future reference, the term/phrase is "blank slate" not "blank state".
I assume you meant to use the term/phrase, rather than just saying that the protagonist is in a blank state until the player decides their character... if the way I worded that makes any sense.
The main problem of the Inquisitor in my opinion are two:
1 - Their lack of character development. The story expands around them, but the Inquisitor never does that him/herself. You never feel like they grow as a person, that they changed and are more mature now. My warden was just an noble kid that rarely ventured out of the Cousland castle. By the end of witch hunt, he was the saviour of Ferelden, slayer of the Archdemon and a father. I mean, my Inquisitor also did a lot of impressive stuff. But I never felt like that changed him.
2 - The lack of a origin. We never see the Inquisitor life before the conclave, we never see them interacting with family or friends. And that was a huge bummer. Both my Warden and Hawke wouldn't have half the amount of personality and charisma if not for me being able to see were they come from, their lives before becoming heroes. It gives a sense of belonging, and it helps when creating some basic character traits for my protagonists.
In short, I didn't like the Inquisitor. They felt too impersonal for me.
The main problem of the Inquisitor in my opinion are two:
1 - Their lack of character development. The story expands around them, but the Inquisitor never does that him/herself. You never feel like they grow as a person, that they changed and are more mature now. My warden was just an noble kid that rarely ventured out of the Cousland castle. By the end of witch hunt, he was the saviour of Ferelden, slayer of the Archdemon and a father. I mean, my Inquisitor also did a lot of impressive stuff. But I never felt like that changed him.
2 - The lack of a origin. We never see the Inquisitor life before the conclave, we never see them interacting with family or friends. And that was a huge bummer. Both my Warden and Hawke wouldn't have half the amount of personality and charisma if not for me being able to see were they come from, their lives before becoming heroes. It gives a sense of belonging, and it helps when creating some basic character traits for my protagonists.
In short, I didn't like the Inquisitor. They felt too impersonal for me.
I can relate in the sense that I felt similarly when it comes to the advisors. "These people are the best at what they do, who am I to lead anything?"Not once did I ever believe the Inquisitor was a hero or a leader. Not once was I ever convinced that he/she could run the Inquisition nor that he/she was actually running it. It was an odd experience in which BioWare tried to give us the illusion that we actually had real power and influence without actually having anything at all.
It's strange that one has to explain the concept of roleplaying in a RPG game.
I can relate in the sense that I felt similarly when it comes to the advisors. "These people are the best at what they do, who am I to lead anything?"
And yet you do. If the advisors ignored your decisions and just did whatever they pleased, I'd agree that it seems like you don't run anything. But every important step was your call.
Even when the stakes are the future of a nation, they still defer to the Inquisitor's decision on who should remain or ascend to the throne.
There is a multitude of reasons why the Inquisitor is horrible, yes. A multitude of complaints born from not paying any attention to the game.
Not all are invalid, of course, and this protagonist isn't perfect. But plenty of these have me shaking my head like "Did you really play it?"
"Roleplaying" is whatever you make it. Having an extensive background via headcanon and imagining your own personality in your head is a very specific and niche kind of roleplay.
But was "every important step your call" really the case? What I witnessed was the Inquisitor making broad and general statements and the advisors actually handling the dirty work. Individuals like Scout Harding, who were actually going into enemy lines and creating a base of operations just so the Inquisitor could step in. Cullen actually training the army and mobilizing troops. Leliana sending out her scouts and compiling information as well as spreading influence. Josephine handling diplomacy as well as public relations for the Inquisition.The issue with "running" such a large organization is the Inquisitor was more of a figurehead than anyone with any tangible or noticeable power. The only time we have a glimpse of actual power are during judgments, and those are largely pointless and few and far between.
I just never bought into the idea that the Inquisitor was a leader. Throughout my 120 hours of my first playthrough, I felt like a secondary participant listening to the story of others and learning about how they were making a difference. All I ever did was close a few rifts with a glowy hand and I was turned immediately into an alleged prophet. I think the poster above explained it well that, unlike the Inquisitor, you really saw the Warden grow as a protagonist. Whatever your background was, he/she wasn't just a normal person anymore. His/Her achievements truly transcended him/her to a new level and his/her actions and choices reflected that. I never saw the Inquisitor actually grow throughout the main story and it just seemed as if he/she was jumping from one misfortune to the next somehow coming out of it alive.
I just never bought into the idea that the Inquisitor was a leader. Throughout my 120 hours of my first playthrough, I felt like a secondary participant listening to the story of others and learning about how they were making a difference. All I ever did was close a few rifts with a glowy hand and I was turned immediately into an alleged prophet. I think the poster above explained it well that, unlike the Inquisitor, you really saw the Warden grow as a protagonist. Whatever your background was, he/she wasn't just a normal person anymore. His/Her achievements truly transcended him/her to a new level and his/her actions and choices reflected that. I never saw the Inquisitor actually grow throughout the main story and it just seemed as if he/she was jumping from one misfortune to the next somehow coming out of it alive.
Actually, I think those two are the same problem. Just giving us a chance to play the Inquisitor and figure out who they are before the crisis point would have helped a great deal in giving the character a stronger arc.The main problem of the Inquisitor in my opinion are two:
1 - Their lack of character development. The story expands around them, but the Inquisitor never does that him/herself. You never feel like they grow as a person, that they changed and are more mature now. My warden was just an noble kid that rarely ventured out of the Cousland castle. By the end of witch hunt, he was the saviour of Ferelden, slayer of the Archdemon and a father. I mean, my Inquisitor also did a lot of impressive stuff. But I never felt like that changed him.
2 - The lack of a origin. We never see the Inquisitor life before the conclave, we never see them interacting with family or friends. And that was a huge bummer. Both my Warden and Hawke wouldn't have half the amount of personality and charisma if not for me being able to see were they come from, their lives before becoming heroes. It gives a sense of belonging, and it helps when creating some basic character traits for my protagonists.
In short, I didn't like the Inquisitor. They felt too impersonal for me.
I agree. Like many others have said, we are supposed to "use our imagination" to give depth/personality to the IQ which right there shows and confirms that the IQ IS a bland character that we must head cannon to enjoy.
So to answer the OP question, no I did not like my IQ's personality because he had none. Shepard, Hawke, The Warden, Revan, our heros from SWTOR, and our heros from Jade Empire all had varying personalities. The IQ is the most stale, bland, dull, boring, monotone protagonist that Bioware has ever created.
Agreed. It's truly remarkable how BioWare was able to create such an empty protagonist even with the benefit of a voice actor.
People do know the player makes the Quis' personality right?
My fem Adaar is a blunt, but cautious person to who she first meets, who is really open to her friend and family,who uses alot of dead pan humor and sarcasm to make a point. she also teases the people she is closest to and is nervous with being the center of attention.She's also very protective with the people she cares for and who she is in charge of.
People do know the player makes the Quis' personality right?
My fem Adaar is a blunt, but cautious person to who she first meets, who is really open to her friend and family,who uses alot of dead pan humor and sarcasm to make a point. she also teases the people she is closest to and is nervous with being the center of attention.She's also very protective with the people she cares for and who she is in charge of.
We are aware. This is largely the problem. BioWare gives players too much control, thus leaving us an empty carcass to animate. The problem with this approach is the interactions, dialogue, relationships, and various other components of the story are impacted negatively by this vacant character. I do not believe the quality of a BioWare game should be compromised in order to force us to "headcanon" why the game is good and why are characters are amazing. The game should reflect that, not my imagination. If I have to make something up to rationalize the game being good, it's probably not a good game to start.
Agreed. It's truly remarkable how BioWare was able to create such an empty protagonist even with the benefit of a voice actor.
Not just a voice actor...but four voice actors. There is clearly a problem when four actors all suffer the same neutrality...
I found it to be a benefit, not a problem, not to say it couldn't have been done better.We are aware. This is largely the problem. BioWare gives players too much control, thus leaving us an empty carcass to animate. The problem with this approach is the interactions, dialogue, relationships, and various other components of the story are impacted negatively by this vacant character. I do not believe the quality of a BioWare game should be compromised in order to force us to "headcanon" why the game is good and why are characters are amazing. The game should reflect that, not my imagination. If I have to make something up to rationalize the game being good, it's probably not a good game to start.
I agree. Like many others have said, we are supposed to "use our imagination" to give depth/personality to the IQ which right there shows and confirms that the IQ IS a bland character that we must head cannon to enjoy.
So to answer the OP question, no I did not like my IQ's personality because he had none. Shepard, Hawke, The Warden, Revan, our heros from SWTOR, and our heros from Jade Empire all had varying personalities. The IQ is the most stale, bland, dull, boring, monotone protagonist that Bioware has ever created.
Agreed. It's truly remarkable how BioWare was able to create such an empty protagonist even with the benefit of a voice actor.
Have you not played a rpg before?
if you don't input in placing characterization in your character they are always going to be bland. Even Hawke from da2 will be bland if you don't put characterization into him or her. Even the warden. you need to learn the difference between a first person character and a third person character.
We are aware. This is largely the problem. BioWare gives players too much control, thus leaving us an empty carcass to animate. The problem with this approach is the interactions, dialogue, relationships, and various other components of the story are impacted negatively by this vacant character. I do not believe the quality of a BioWare game should be compromised in order to force us to "headcanon" why the game is good and why are characters are amazing. The game should reflect that, not my imagination. If I have to make something up to rationalize the game being good, it's probably not a good game to start.
That makes no sense. With out that control it ends all the roleplaying part of the game. This is not a game series which your play a third person character like Nathan Drake or Solid snake.(Why did is use 2 people with reptiles in their names? 
) Every bw rpg does this and your surprised now?
Retour en haut
