356 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

Not just a voice actor...but four voice actors. There is clearly a problem when four actors all suffer the same neutrality...

Wait..What?

[Revan Reborn]

See? Thread ruined.

All it took was replying to them once. It's not that I oppose debate but this was, in the past tense, a thread specifically made to talk about the positive points of the Inquisitor for a change.

Why only discuss one side of a coin? It gives an unrealistic and subjective understanding of the character's strengths. In my opinion, it's far more conducive to look at the good and the bad. It leads to a much more well-rounded discussion and one in which we can weigh what worked, what didn't, and perhaps what BioWare can do next. The Inquisitor certainly isn't the worst protagonist ever made. I just don't personally believe he/she was that interesting. One aspect I did like, if it pleases you, is the Inquisitior had more variety of options in dialogue than what is typical in a BioWare game. It made the experience seem less linear and railroaded into a Paragon/Renegade split.

[Revan Reborn]

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?

Believe it or not, but "roleplaying" isn't just headcanon and imagining your character actually having a personality in a game. That's a very specific kind of roleplay, but certainly isn't representative of an entire genre... I don't believe anybody is claiming to want a protagonist in which you cannot mold their choices or have some creative control. A BioWare game has never been that structured, which is part of the reason BioWare is different. The question is how much control should the player have? The open-ended approach of the Inquisitor or the more refined approach of Shepard? They are both still customizable and the player can still craft their own personal protagonist out of them. The difference is how well each is integrated into the story based on how much depth BioWare gave the character.

[X Equestris]

I found the Inquisitor to be satisfying personality wise. Certainly more so than the Warden.

[Qun00]

Why only discuss one side of a coin? It gives an unrealistic and subjective understanding of the character's strengths. In my opinion, it's far more conducive to look at the good and the bad. It leads to a much more well-rounded discussion and one in which we can weigh what worked, what didn't, and perhaps what BioWare can do next. The Inquisitor certainly isn't the worst protagonist ever made. I just don't personally believe he/she was that interesting. One aspect I did like, if it pleases you, is the Inquisitior had more variety of options in dialogue than what is typical in a BioWare game. It made the experience seem less linear and railroaded into a Paragon/Renegade split.

But here's the thing, you're not looking at the good and the bad.

I wouldn't mind negative views being included (I acknowledged part of it in the first page) if they weren't the only point of view that is truly given attention. I've already seen how a regular Inquisitor discussion thread usually develops and arguments that highlight what's been done right are rare.

So I felt that a thread where the good points could be in the spotlight was necessary.

[Majestic Jazz]

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.

Since Revan with KOTOR, Bioware games have allowed me to add personality to my character through choices and to see the results of these choices reflected throughout the game. With DAI, it is hard to do that because the game/writting makes the IQ appear to be so.....neutral and disconnected no matter what choices I made and to remedy this, we are forced to head cannon their personality.

Example: I choose to side with the Templars over the mages but as I got deeper into the game, I never once felt like this decision amounted to any difference as the story barely ever reinforced my choice and thus didnt allow my IQ to grow with the story. At the end of the game he is still that socially awkward noble male who accidently gained powers with his green glowy hand.

So there is a difference between building your character's personality ingame and having it reflected ingame vs just plain out having to imaginate it in your head to "pretend" that he is a certain way.

[leaguer of one]

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.

1. I went from this...

to this...

 

 

How is that not character growth.

[leaguer of one]

Believe it or not, but "roleplaying" isn't just headcanon and imagining your character actually having a personality in a game. That's a very specific kind of roleplay, but certainly isn't representative of an entire genre... I don't believe anybody is claiming to want a protagonist in which you cannot mold their choices or have some creative control. A BioWare game has never been that structured, which is part of the reason BioWare is different. The question is how much control should the player have? The open-ended approach of the Inquisitor or the more refined approach of Shepard? They are both still customizable and the player can still craft their own personal protagonist out of them. The difference is how well each is integrated into the story based on how much depth BioWare gave the character.

I did not do that. I saw a scared Qunari woman chained to the ground with a mass of gurads around her with swords drawn and I ran with it....Knowing what Andrastians feel and do to qunari...

It easy to know how someone who's qunari is going to feel about the situation in hand. It not head cannoning anything. it's setting rules of morality and action for your character. like making an elf who may loose it if the word knife ears is use to describe her or one elf that does not care.

[wright1978]

Since Revan with KOTOR, Bioware games have allowed me to add personality to my character through choices and to see the results of these choices reflected throughout the game. With DAI, it is hard to do that because the game/writting makes the IQ appear to be so.....neutral and disconnected no matter what choices I made and to remedy this, we are forced to head cannon their personality.

.....

So there is a difference between building your character's personality ingame and having it reflected ingame vs just plain out having to imaginate it in your head to "pretend" that he is a certain way.

 

Agree completely. Imaginating fringe things to add flavour works imo but you need to see major building blocks being reflected in game. When instead the whole thing becomes a imagine it but never see it but instead just see bland it is just disconnecting.

[Majestic Jazz]

1. I went from this...

to this...



How is that not character growth.

Sigh, I will let Revan Reborn handle this.....

[leaguer of one]

Since Revan with KOTOR, Bioware games have allowed me to add personality to my character through choices and to see the results of these choices reflected throughout the game. With DAI, it is hard to do that because the game/writting makes the IQ appear to be so.....neutral and disconnected no matter what choices I made and to remedy this, we are forced to head cannon their personality.

Example: I choose to side with the Templars over the mages but as I got deeper into the game, I never once felt like this decision amounted to any difference as the story barely ever reinforced my choice and thus didnt allow my IQ to grow with the story. At the end of the game he is still that socially awkward noble male who accidently gained powers with his green glowy hand.

So there is a difference between building your character's personality ingame and having it reflected ingame vs just plain out having to imaginate it in your head to "pretend" that he is a certain way.

You still do hat in Dai.... Just none are super evil. All are just gray.

[MoonDrummer]

Wait..What?

Spoiler

All that video does is prove that the voice actors make the 'funny' lines bland too. 

[leaguer of one]

Sigh, I will let Revan Roborn handle this.....

nope,seriously.

 

i went from a scared qunari woman chained to the ground trying to not to get killed to a person who would do everything to save the world.... how is that not character growth. The only reason why my character even stayed with the inquisition was to stay safe and all she planned to do was close the breach and then maybe run.....Then the time travel bit with in redcliff happened and that changed everything. she saw the end game of everything that could lead to and it shook her. she the world ending and dieing change her perspective form someone looking out for herself and her kith to a someone who would defend the world and the people in it as her own. So yes, there is character growth for the quis that 100% based of the event of the game and non-head cannon.

[leaguer of one]

All that video does is prove that the voice actors make the 'funny' lines bland too. 

how is it bland in any way?

[Medhia_Nox]

@leaguer of one:  Character growth to some people is equated in mechanics and some people feel that the mechanics were inefficient.  

 

No, I am not one of them.  You could give me a single word and I could "roleplay" around it.

[Orian Tabris]

Not just a voice actor...but four voice actors. There is clearly a problem when four actors all suffer the same neutrality...

 

Yes... The problem is clear.

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

It's you.

[Sah291]

No, I liked how my Inquisitor turned out a lot actually...I like how subtle and inquisitive I was able to play her. It's not every game where you get to play a nuanced protagonist like that.

I do see where people feel more limited though, in not being able to play a more aggressive, dark, or evil character. There is no equivalent to, say, a renegade Shepard, or a wild and over the top sarcastic Hawke.

In my opinion, the Inquisitor's personality leans more diplomatic, and comes off as more of a classic hero type than an anti hero...and you can't play the bad guy. But it fits the story, I think.

[Lilithor]

It's exhausting, honestly.

Arguing over this again and again in an endless loop that is ever supplied with more complaints.

Really, I just might create a The Inquisitor's Support Thread in the Story/Campaign section just to get some different opinions for once.

There are funny dialogue options, compassionate and soft, rude and blunt, etc. I've never found myself bored as far as interactions go.

Asskissing? What asskissing? Not long ago, I had my Inquisitor tell Dorian to quit whining when he was complaining about the lack of Tevinter lore in the library.

In some RPG games the protagonist is fully preestablished while in others it's a blank state.

DA:I's main character is a perfect blend where there is a clear background but you get to determine the details and how your character feels about it (all in game).

So, while I know that negative opinions unfortunately can't be kept out of this thread, I hope they won't be the only ones.

Another tranquil. Great. See, tranquils are not majority but I'm sure you will find a lot of people who can identify with Inquisitor personality, just look for people who had their conection to the fade completely severed, cut, destroyed, and so on. As long as you are 100% deprived of emotions and subjectivity the Inquisitor is GREAT!

[X Equestris]

Another tranquil. Great. See, tranquils are not majority but I'm sure you will find a lot of people who can identify with Inquisitor personality, just look for people who had their conection to the fade completely severed, cut, destroyed, and so on. As long as you are 100% deprived of emotions and subjectivity the Inquisitor is GREAT!

The hyperbole is strong with this one.

[Sah291]

Another tranquil. Great. See, tranquils are not majority but I'm sure you will find a lot of people who can identify with Inquisitor personality, just look for people who had their conection to the fade completely severed, cut, destroyed, and so on. As long as you are 100% deprived of emotions and subjectivity the Inquisitor is GREAT!

Haha, I see a lot of people say that, but to be more specific, that was actually what I did like about it. As an INTP myself, I enjoyed the more objective, logical, and reserved undertones to the Inquisitor. It meant I got approval from Solas left and right, so perhaps it helped that I enjoyed that character a lot and romanced him. But I did at times wonder if my Quizzy actually did die in the fade. But like I said, it fits the story...who else would have such great power to restore order, close the breach, and hold back chaos, but someone very...objective and logical? The Inquisitor is the anti thesis of Hawke, who seemed to bring disaster and chaos everywhere he went.

[Gileadan]

I wouldn't say that I disliked the inquisitor's personality, but I had hoped for more. One of the great things about voice acted protagonists is that they can convey so much more emotion than mere text, but it in retrospect it looks like an at least partly missed opportunity. Even male Shepard, who tends to get some flak for the voice work, had his moments of rousing speeches and angry reactions.  I have a hard time remembering any (voice related) outstanding moments for the inquisitor, nothing overly emotional and nothing "hell yeah" either. (But I *do* remember the silly, out of nowhere school boy giggle during the early Cassandra romance). Much like in Origins with the silent Warden, it's still the other people who do the pep talk, like when you're made inquisitor.

 

The voice acting certainly isn't bad, but it just didn't give me the grand moments ME had gotten me used to.

[Majestic Jazz]

I wouldn't say that I disliked the inquisitor's personality, but I had hoped for more. One of the great things about voice acted protagonists is that they can convey so much more emotion than mere text, but it in retrospect it looks like an at least partly missed opportunity. Even male Shepard, who tends to get some flak for the voice work, had his moments of rousing speeches and angry reactions. I have a hard time remembering any (voice related) outstanding moments for the inquisitor, nothing overly emotional and nothing "hell yeah" either. (But I *do* remember the silly, out of nowhere school boy giggle during the early Cassandra romance). Much like in Origins with the silent Warden, it's still the other people who do the pep talk, like when you're made inquisitor.

The voice acting certainly isn't bad, but it just didn't give me the grand moments ME had gotten me used to.

That is a big complaint on mine. The game fails to show the emotion of the IQ. He is just so dull and a pure blank state.

[Lilithor]

Haha, I see a lot of people say that, but to be more specific, that was actually what I did like about it. As an INTP myself, I enjoyed the more objective, logical, and reserved undertones to the Inquisitor. It meant I got approval from Solas left and right, so perhaps it helped that I enjoyed that character a lot and romanced him. But I did at times wonder if my Quizzy actually did die in the fade. But like I said, it fits the story...who else would have such great power to restore order, close the breach, and hold back chaos, but someone very...objective and logical? The Inquisitor is the anti thesis of Hawke, who seemed to bring disaster and chaos everywhere he went.

Exactly why Inquisitor should die and Hawke should be a goddess.

[agonis]

I was thinking of an answer to OP´s question but then I read the responses and had such a déjà-vu that I decided not to bother.

[leaguer of one]

@leaguer of one:  Character growth to some people is equated in mechanics and some people feel that the mechanics were inefficient.  

 

No, I am not one of them.  You could give me a single word and I could "roleplay" around it.

that makes no sense. Character growth is a choice for the player. It how the player feels about character should feel about the events around them. Character growth is deturmine by what the person feels about the people around them and the events around them. it's not just a mechanic. And dai has many events going on to effect the characters feels, beleifs and choices.

 

Example: A person can play a dalish elf who blames humans for everything wrong that happen to the elves and make choices based on that. but later they find out what really happen to start the war in the dales and the fall of the ancient elves, that it was pride and arrogance that undid all that they were and lose all their faith in what they were and later lessen there hate for humans.

If you want character growth with you pc then you must give them their own reaction to the events in the story. if you don't they become unchanged.