356 réponses à ce sujet

[Yggdrasil]

I became quite attached to my Inquisitor and his personality.  I thought DA:I provided a great balance of freedom and focus.  I'll probably always be most sentimental about my Warden because that's when I fell in love with the series, but my Inquisitor is a close second.

[KaiserShep]

From what I've seen of this forum, BioWare has a very hard time winning with their protagonists. The Warden was a plank, Shepard was a plank (and a moron), apparently Hawke was a clown and was often lambasted for dialogue options. I just can't wait for the next flavor of the year.

 

I personally find the Inquisitor pretty satisfying, more so than the Warden at any rate.

[Cha0sEff3ct]

I'm gonna copy pasta something I posted in another thread...

 

I don't understand the hate with the Inquisitor. People like to default to the original or a prior title and say nothing is better than HOF or Hawke then the next game it they will say that about the Inquisitor should they introduce a new main character.

 

I feel like the Inquisitor was the perfect answer to HOF/Hawke and Shephard. You're not the awkward silent protagonist and you aren't forced into a specific race. HOF was great because of the different back stories but it is hard to implement in the Hawke/Shephard way, in the end you were just that the HOF/Warden. Hawke was engaging because he had a story and a family to get attached to. I also think the tragic events that transpired throughout the game helped you to feel closer to Hawke. In regards to Shephard, Shephard was awesome IMO and I love all 3 Mass Effect games sans the initial unexpanded endings. The expanded endings weren't perfect and not vastly different from each other but I'm glad at the attempt to fix the ridiculous same outcome in either red, blue, or green explosions. Sure you were forced to play human but still the character progression in relation to your companions was amazing.

 

I really hope they keep the Inquisitor because it's a great base. Think of DA:O, you were given your back stories. This time you are essentially creating your character's base story with this Inquisition and now we shall see where that character goes. You're no Hawke or Shephard. You are whoever you created now. This game you develop your relationships with the 9 companions and your advisers. There wasn't as much tragedy on the Inquisitor's side personally to make you feel as attached ...yet. People seem to love tragedy and killing off companions for some reason. I like for the most part the Inquisitor seemed invincible and of extreme luck in every situation and everyone survives. It was a fresh change. I think everyone needed plot armor in the first game because DA:I is the foundation. Should they give the Inquisitor a trilogy, the next 2 games can build off the story you created. Does the inquisition fall from grace? How stable and loyal are your relationships to the ruler you chose for Orlais, or who The Chantry voted as Divine? Do you rule as a tyrant? What happens with your Qunari alliance(if you sacrificed the chargers)? What are the consequences of making Cole more human or more of a spirit? What happens with your love interest, will they introduce new ones and/or make prior companions available romance options? I want to continue the Inquisitor's story. The ending leaves much to be desired. There are so many ways to take it now.

 

I personally like everything I was given to do with my Inquisitor and don't you dare take that away from me!!!!! :cries:

[Cyonan]

I preferred the Warden more, but that's hardly a fair comparison since the lack of a voice actor opens up more possibilities.

 

The Inquisitor seems like good middle ground between the Warden and Shep/Hawke, although a bit more variance would be nice. There are bits of dialogue here and there, but overall the Inquisitor does feel like it really wants you to play a good aligned character.

[wright1978]

From what I've seen of this forum, BioWare has a very hard time winning with their protagonists. The Warden was a plank, Shepard was a plank (and a moron), apparently Hawke was a clown and was often lambasted for dialogue options. I just can't wait for the next flavor of the year.
 
I personally find the Inquisitor pretty satisfying, more so than the Warden at any rate.

Yeah nothing is going to make everyone happy. Some want a silent protagonist all the way through to others who want a fixed emotional. Personally the inquisitor felt like it channelled the silent warden, not partaking of any of strengths of a voiced protagonist. That certainly beat me3's race to the opposite end of the spectrum of a fixed character hands down imo but I didn't find it particularly appealing. Thought they'd throw out baby and the bath water from da2 though so not utterly surprised. It wasn't the biggest issue I had with inquisition though.

[Aren]

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 agree imho, DAA handle this aspect more effectively than DAI,as Arle/teyrn (or even Prince/Queen) you have to do important decisions towards the nobles and the common folk with different means.

You can Intimidate them,Persuade them,take their parents as hostages or even use the Dark wolf

(funny is that the guy stole your title at least in some world state),or fail and forced to defend yourself from their conspiracy.

You decide how to defend your lands,how to use your soldiers how to equip them, and all of those choices have an impact for the ending,you felt like a true leader,especially if you are still using the HoF who have earned the title just from 6th months.

In DAI you do not have any of those things,the execution of the realization of Inquisitor's prestige is just too quick, you seat in judgement but actually you do nothing rather than make some decision that are really pointless compared to what your advisors do for the Inquisition,all of those things make me feel like that the Inquisitor is my golden hand, rather than my character.

[BansheeOwnage]

See? Thread ruined.

Well, you're certainly a downer - in your own thread.

1. I went from this...

to this...

 

 

How is that not character growth.

That's not character growth so much as it growth of prowess and skill. Admittedly though, I thought the Inquisitor subtly improving her control over the Anchor throughout the story was pretty awesome.

[leaguer of one]

Well, you're certainly a downer - in your own thread.

That's not character growth so much as it growth of prowess and skill. Admittedly though, I thought the Inquisitor subtly improving her control over the Anchor throughout the story was pretty awesome.

No look at the face of the characters and reactions. The quis in the first pic is not total fear about whats going on. The second is so much different being that they no longer fear the villain.

I was no show power or skill. I'm just showing the emotional change over time. You start helpless and fearful and change to a near fearless leader who will to take charge...how is that not character growth.

[Revan Reborn]

No look at the face of the characters and reactions. The quis in the first pic is not total fear about whats going on. The second is so much different being that they no longer fear the villain.

I was no show power or skill. I'm just showing the emotional change over time. You start helpless and fearful and change to a near fearless leader who will to take charge...how is that not character growth.

That's not character growth. That's your own headcanon. It's also worth pointing out that a change in emotions and mental state doesn't necessarily mean a growth in character. To have a growth in character, the main protagonist usually has to participate in a difficult scenario that has substantial consequences. These consequences also heavily impact the main protagonist, his/her beliefs, and how he/she will try to rectify them in the future. Corypheus is barely even present in the game for the Inquisitor to really have any substantive growth with respect to the main antagonist.

 

All we see change is a relatively ignorant and inexperienced Herald of Andraste become a more experienced and knowledgeable Inquisitor. There isn't an exceptional change in the main protagonist's tactics or his/her disposition towards the enemy. It had been established since the start that Corypheus was the "bad guy." He wasn't Loghain who felt King Cailan's direction would bring an end to Ferelden. He wasn't Saren who thought appeasing the reapers might save the cycle. He wasn't Master Li who believed that only ruling through an iron fist could true order and peace be established. Corypheus is relatively static throughout the entire experience wanting to become "the Maker." The Inquisitor, in contrast, largely remains a static foil to that realization.

[BansheeOwnage]

No look at the face of the characters and reactions. The quis in the first pic is not total fear about whats going on. The second is so much different being that they no longer fear the villain.

I was no show power or skill. I'm just showing the emotional change over time. You start helpless and fearful and change to a near fearless leader who will to take charge...how is that not character growth.

What Revan Reborn said is correct. That's your headcanon. If your Inquisitor was a scared wreck at Haven and becomes a fearless leader, good for you! Really, not being sarcastic. It's up to you to decide how your Inquisitor felt. Even if a look on her face could be something you perceive as fear, I might perceive it as shock of being grabbed into the air by Corypheus. You keep talking as if what you thought was happening was happening to every other Inquisitor, and that everyone else thought it was too. That's simply not true.

 

And I'm confused as to why you're saying "I was no show power or skill." If I understand you correctly, you're wrong. All this is depicting factually is that Quizzy got better at using the Mark. The Inquisitor didn't beat Corypheus with character, s/he did it with combat prowess and the Anchor.

[leaguer of one]

That's not character growth. That's your own headcanon. It's also worth pointing out that a change in emotions and mental state doesn't necessarily mean a growth in character. To have a growth in character, the main protagonist usually has to participate in a difficult scenario that has substantial consequences. These consequences also heavily impact the main protagonist, his/her beliefs, and how he/she will try to rectify them in the future. Corypheus is barely even present in the game for the Inquisitor to really have any substantive growth with respect to the main antagonist.

 

All we see change is a relatively ignorant and inexperienced Herald of Andraste become a more experienced and knowledgeable Inquisitor. There isn't an exceptional change in the main protagonist's tactics or his/her disposition towards the enemy. It had been established since the start that Corypheus was the "bad guy." He wasn't Loghain who felt King Cailan's direction would bring an end to Ferelden. He wasn't Saren who thought appeasing the reapers might save the cycle. He wasn't Master Li who believed that only ruling through an iron fist could true order and peace be established. Corypheus is relatively static throughout the entire experience wanting to become "the Maker." The Inquisitor, in contrast, largely remains a static foil to that realization.

no that's character growth. Character , player control or not, is the characters changing reactions and/or feeling to the events of the story.

 

Example:Cassandra in the start of dai feeling the templers in kirkwall and in general were in the right and then later learning what happen in kirkwall and the general secrets and arrogance that the order when throw and allowed happen cause the event of the war to happen.

 

Change in a characters emotions, mental state, feeling and idioligy in a story is the very meaning of character growth.

 

It sound more that you need to learn what character growth is.   http://en.wikipedia....haracter_(arts)

 

It's not dictated by choices in an event. it's dictated by reactions to an event. just having choice does not make character growth happen, despotically when there is a chance that the character are not emotionally effect by the choice, or/and results. the character has to have interest or care for the choice to effect them. Added, character interaction and world/story event can effect them. like going to the future and seeing a dead and dying world.

 

It's not consequences  that causes character growth, it's reaction, feeling , interest and care.

 

having a character that feelings and thoughts change because of the event in the story is not a head cannon. that character growth.

[leaguer of one]

What Revan Reborn said is correct. That's your headcanon. If your Inquisitor was a scared wreck at Haven and becomes a fearless leader, good for you! Really, not being sarcastic. It's up to you to decide how your Inquisitor felt. Even if a look on her face could be something you perceive as fear, I might perceive it as shock of being grabbed into the air by Corypheus. You keep talking as if what you thought was happening was happening to every other Inquisitor, and that everyone else thought it was too. That's simply not true.

 

And I'm confused as to why you're saying "I was no show power or skill." If I understand you correctly, you're wrong. All this is depicting factually is that Quizzy got better at using the Mark. The Inquisitor didn't beat Corypheus with character, s/he did it with combat prowess and the Anchor.

nope that not  head cannon.

in fact learn what it means before using it.

 

http://en.wiktionary.../wiki/headcanon

 

The fact may character and show , state, and even reaction in fear makes it a point it's not a head cannon. Even more so that it's optional for them to be afraid. this a player control character. Saying the game illustrate a persona for them is asking the game to take control of the character form you. How the character feels is shown by the dialogue choices you pick. Example the game can allows to show the fact your character is angry, unnerved, or  keeping calm about being physically in the fade.

[SerendipitousElf]

I liked my Inquisitors' personalities (all 4 of them) and I don't agree with the notion that they are bland or uninteresting. 

With the available story arcs and race, beliefs and romance options it wasn't hard at all to end up with a unique protagonist with a memorable story. 

The dialogue options are quite suitable for the role of the Inquisitor who should be more diplomatic than anything, trying to build a coalition of unlikely allies.  Still, there are options to play unscrupulous if you so desire, but a totally evil brute would be out of line with the story IMO.

 

The Inquisitor is my favorite protagonist in this series so far, but surely there is always room for improvement.  However, I prefer that the next Dragon Age game remains true to the spirit of Dragon Age and doesn't turn into ME, Witcher or Game of Thrones.

[Aren]

The only character who grow is the Anchor,ah it make me feel sad to be forced to see the glowing hand as my face's profile while the other companions have their face.

[Revan Reborn]

I liked my Inquisitors' personalities (all 4 of them) and I don't agree with the notion that they are bland or uninteresting. 

With the available story arcs and race, beliefs and romance options it wasn't hard at all to end up with a unique protagonist with a memorable story. 

The dialogue options are quite suitable for the role of the Inquisitor who should be more diplomatic than anything, trying to build a coalition of unlikely allies.  Still, there are options to play unscrupulous if you so desire, but a totally evil brute would be out of line with the story IMO.

 

The Inquisitor is my favorite protagonist in this series so far, but surely there is always room for improvement.  However, I prefer that the next Dragon Age game remains true to the spirit of Dragon Age and doesn't turn into ME, Witcher or Game of Thrones.

Why would Dragon Age "turn into ME, Witcher or Game of Thrones" when it has already turned into Skyrim?

 

I'm glad you enjoyed the Inquisitor. I just did not have that same experience as none of his/her dialogue options were really all that different from another. It was just various shades of neutral with slightly different dispositions. Obviously BioWare wanted to tell the story of a hero, like they always do. However, it was exceptionally railroaded this time around. Regardless of what you did and the choices you made, the Inquisitor was largely unchanging and left ambiguous throughout the experience. There was never any growth or development because you never had the choice and your previous actions had little consequence on future obstacles.

 

The experience just felt detached and largely meaningless in a very vague and dysfunctional manner. As I've said before, DAI wouldn't be very interesting without the companions and side characters to provide what the Inquisitor lacked.

[leaguer of one]

Why would Dragon Age "turn into ME, Witcher or Game of Thrones" when it has already turned into Skyrim?

 

I'm glad you enjoyed the Inquisitor. I just did not have that same experience as none of his/her dialogue options were really all that different from another. It was just various shades of neutral with slightly different dispositions. Obviously BioWare wanted to tell the story of a hero, like they always do. However, it was exceptionally railroaded this time around. Regardless of what you did and the choices you made, the Inquisitor was largely unchanging and left ambiguous throughout the experience. There was never any growth or development because you never had the choice and your previous actions had little consequence on future obstacles.

 

The experience just felt detached and largely meaningless in a very vague and dysfunctional manner. As I've said before, DAI wouldn't be very interesting without the companions and side characters to provide what the Inquisitor lacked.

*Face palm....

 

When you say it turned into skyrim makes me ask if you really played skyrim. Make some valid points and stop putting your foot in your mouth.

 

And if you think all the diologue choice were the same then you need to replay the game because even a 5 year old can tell that they aren't.  The fact that the first few moment after the prologue I can say what I feel about the mark on my hand makes it a point all the dialogue options are not all the same.

 

As I said before you need to learn what character growth is and the fact in a player control first person character rpg that you need to develop your characters based on the event of the story and not expect the game to hand it to you.

[Revan Reborn]

*Face palm....

 

When you say it turned into skyrim makes me ask if you really played skyrim. Make some valid points and stop putting your foot in your mouth.

 

And if you thing all the diologue choice were the same then you need to replay the game because even a 5 year old can tell that they arn't.  The fact that the first few moment after the prologue I can say what I feel about the mark on my hand makes it a point all the dialogue options are not all the same.

 

As I said before you need to learn what character growth is and the fact in a player control first person character rpg that you need to develop your characters based on the event of the story and not expect the game to hand it to you.

Friend, I've played every main Elder Scrolls game and I've been a fan of the franchise since Morrowind was released in 2002. Not to mention, Morrowind is my favorite game of all time.

 

Regardless, my point was half sarcasm and half truth. DAI blatantly copied the more open world and exploration-based experience that Skyrim delivers. DAI failed miserably to replicate it, but even the Doctors admitted that Skyrim was a major factor in DAI's development. You probably don't know this, but DAI originally had a compass as well instead of the useless mini map we were given. This was taken out because BioWare felt the similarities between Dragon Age and Skyrim were too strong. The game was losing its Dragon Age identity in favor of Skyrim. Not to mention, mounts are terrible at handling just as they were in Oblivion, etc. If you fail to see the similarities, it makes me wonder "if you really played skyrim."

 

You really just don't get it. The substance of the actual dialogue isn't identical. I'm not arguing that and for you to perceive that makes me question your ability to understand. What I am suggesting is regardless of the various shades of neutral, nothing really has an overt impact on the story as a whole.

 

Honestly, I really don't need you to tell me how to "play an RPG." I wouldn't be surprised if I've been playing BioWare games longer than you have, not that it would matter. Your understanding of character growth and development is flawed, which is the issue here. You conflate headcanon and character growth being one in the same, when in actuality you couldn't be farther from the truth. Character growth can only happen as a consequence of events in the story that changes the perception of your character. Otherwise, any "growth" is just merely you imagining that growth is happening, and that has never been necessary in a BioWare game before.

[leaguer of one]

Friend, I've played every main Elder Scrolls game and I've been a fan of the franchise since Morrowind was released in 2002. Not to mention, Morrowind is my favorite game of all time.

 

Regardless, my point was half sarcasm and half truth. DAI blatantly copied the more open world and exploration-based experience that Skyrim delivers. DAI failed miserably to replicate it, but even the Doctors admitted that Skyrim was a major factor in DAI's development. You probably don't know this, but DAI originally had a compass as well instead of the useless mini map we were given. This was taken out because BioWare felt the similarities between Dragon Age and Skyrim were too strong. The game was losing its Dragon Age identity in favor of Skyrim. Not to mention, mounts are terrible at handling just as they were in Oblivion, etc. If you fail to see the similarities, it makes me wonder "if you really played skyrim."

 

You really just don't get it. The substance of the actual dialogue isn't identical. I'm not arguing that and for you to perceive that makes me question your ability to understand. What I am suggesting is regardless of the various shades of neutral, nothing really has an overt impact on the story as a whole.

 

Honestly, I really don't need you to tell me how to "play an RPG." I wouldn't be surprised if I've been playing BioWare games longer than you have, not that it would matter. Your understanding of character growth and development is flawed, which is the issue here. You conflate headcanon and character growth being one in the same, when in actuality you couldn't be farther from the truth. Character growth can only happen as a consequence of events in the story that changes the perception of your character. Otherwise, any "growth" is just merely you imagining that growth is happening, and that has never been necessary in a BioWare game before.

first of all. If dai is like any game with it's exploration  and world, it's buldurs gate. point blank. dai is far from being and random and crazy ES can get. Just because you have to travel or fast travel a ways off to get somewhere does not make it like skyrim...Other non-es game did that way before that game.

 

And your statement on the diolaogue choices not effecting the story as a whole, need I remind you that what you feel  say and choose in the game effect who becomes the divine. So that's a big no on dialogu choices not effecting the games story.

 

And learn what a head cannon is.

this is what a head cannon is..

 

You literally look up what a head cannon is and that last thing it even shows is player control character development based on game story event.

 

Saying your pc was a fighting bubbies with the warden or what ever character before they became the quis is a headcannon, saying you your characters view on magic changed forever because you were sent to the furture to see what out of control dangerous magic can do to the world is player control character growth.

[Revan Reborn]

...

If you want to directly contradict Dr. Ray Muzyka and every other lead developer at BioWare Edmonton who have stated Skyrim was a "major influence on DAI's development," who am I to argue? You obviously know BioWare better than they know themselves...

 

You do realize the first Elder Scrolls game, Arena, was released in 1994? Baldur's Gate was released in December of 1998, four years after Arena. Daggerfall, the second main installment in the TES franchise, had been released in 1996. If you are going to make an argument of what RPGs impacted other RPGs, you should at least have proper context and know when they were released...

 

You just don't get it. You stated your Inquisitor was "scared and afraid" the first time you encountered Corypheus to being "confident and taking the initiative" in your last encounter with him. That is not described or expressed anywhere in the game, thus it is your headcanon. If you cannot see the difference between character growth and headcanon, this is a lost cause. I won't indulge you in this cyclical debate any longer.

[leaguer of one]

If you want to directly contradict Dr. Ray Muzyka and every other lead developer at BioWare Edmonton who have stated Skyrim was a "major influence on DAI's development," who am I to argue? You obviously know BioWare better than they know themselves...

 

You do realize the first Elder Scrolls game, Arena, was released in 1994? Baldur's Gate was released in December of 1998, four years after Arena. Daggerfall, the second main installment in the TES franchise, had been released in 1996. If you are going to make an argument of what RPGs impacted other RPGs, you should at least have proper context and know when they were released...

 

You just don't get it. You stated your Inquisitor was "scared and afraid" the first time you encountered Corypheus to being "confident and taking the initiative" in your last encounter with him. That is not described or expressed anywhere in the game, thus it is your headcanon. If you cannot see the difference between character growth and headcanon, this is a lost cause. I won't indulge you in this cyclical debate any longer.

Sorry, but skyrim does not have a segmented world map with blocked off areas which you can only unlock once you get enough tokens.

 

And I know the context of these rpgs. i just know arena and daggerfall don't have much I'm pact to bw's rpg being that those games are far more free form then any bw game to date. (daggerfall alone is way to free formed.) The fact areas are blocked off due to story progressing , level and  tokens makes it  not like any es game.

 And the fact that my character  was begging Cassandra not  kill her and to let her go at the start of the game shows she was very much scared while my same character was at the yelling angrily at Cory"I don't believe in Gods" makes it a point she was really taking initiative.

The games give you plenty of times of letting you show your characters feeling and emotions based on what going on at the time. And the fact it can go from one extreme to another over time shows character development.

[Revan Reborn]

Sorry, but skyrim does not have a segmented world map with blocked off areas which you can only unlock once you get enough tokens.

 

And I know the context of these rpgs. i just know arena and daggerfall don't have much I'm pact to bw's rpg being that those games are far more free form then any bw game to date. (daggerfall alone is way to free formed.) The fact areas are blocked off due to story progressing , level and  tokens makes it  not like any es game.

 And the fact that my character  was begging Cassandra not  kill her and to let her go at the start of the game shows she was very much scared while my same character was at the yelling angrily at Cory"I don't believe in Gods" makes it a point she was really taking initiative.

The games give you plenty of times of letting you show your characters feeling and emotions based on what going on at the time. And the fact it can go from one extreme to another over time shows character development.

I never claimed DAI was a full-fledged open world game. If you actually re-read through my posts, you'll notice I made a distinction that it wasn't entirely open world. BioWare actually considered going completely open world, but recognized this would adversely affect their story. Regardless, the concepts behind exploration and these much larger environments are still because of the success of Skyrim and the impact it had on BioWare. You can deny this all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true.

 

The problem with your argument is you have to combine headcanon as well as the various shades of neutral dialogue in order to create your illusion of character development. This was never the case in previous BioWare games. The Inquisitor is just too undefined for his/her own good. Whether you accept that reality or not doesn't really matter.

[SerendipitousElf]

Why would Dragon Age "turn into ME, Witcher or Game of Thrones" when it has already turned into Skyrim?

 

I'm glad you enjoyed the Inquisitor. I just did not have that same experience as none of his/her dialogue options were really all that different from another. It was just various shades of neutral with slightly different dispositions. Obviously BioWare wanted to tell the story of a hero, like they always do. However, it was exceptionally railroaded this time around. Regardless of what you did and the choices you made, the Inquisitor was largely unchanging and left ambiguous throughout the experience. There was never any growth or development because you never had the choice and your previous actions had little consequence on future obstacles.

 

The experience just felt detached and largely meaningless in a very vague and dysfunctional manner. As I've said before, DAI wouldn't be very interesting without the companions and side characters to provide what the Inquisitor lacked.

 

The quoted are just your opinions.  You are entitled to them as I am to mine and they are no more valid or objective than my opinions.

I can say the same about DA2 (which is my least favorite DA game) - the story was exceptionally railroaded and none of the choices mattered. Hawke was a hapless victim of an absurd plot where logic eluded the story most of the time.

 

In DAI you get different adversaries depending on who you ally with. There are two arcs in the main story and race and background choices for the protagonist - the elven is particularly relevant and to me plays a lot different than the rest.  The dialogue choices while important are not the only thing that makes or breaks a game. However,  I found the dialogue to be satisfying and relevant to the hero that is portrayed in the DAI story.

 

I get it. You are very disappointed in DAI, but surely you don't have to jump at every post I made and try to discredit it just because I happen to be happy with this game.

[Phoe77]

Popping in to say that I am quite fond of my Inquisitor.  I found the personality to be pretty satisfying even if I do think that he could be more emotive from time to time.  It's a difficult balance to strike.  I'm one of those people who think that the expressiveness of Hawke's dialogue occasionally made him feel like more of a caricature than an actual person, and I also think that it was jarring to choose dialogue options that deviated from Hawke's main personality.  I still like Hawke as a character (like a lot!), but his dynamism was at times problematic.  The situation with the Inquisitor is a complete reversal.  Though I still quite like my Inquisitor as a character, he does, at some points, seem too reserved.

 

While I think that there's room for many motivations behind most of the Inquisitor's actions, I do agree that he does seem to be meant to be a "good" person, at least in the general sense.  I don't personally see that as a problem because, in my opinion, every Dragon Age protagonist has had some set of values that could not be altered by the player.  Your Warden was always committed to stopping the Blight and couldn't be a nihilist that let things fall apart around them.  It was impossible to play as a Hawke who didn't care about the fate of his family and his city.  Some dimensions of a protagonist are typically going to be set in stone for the sake of the narrative.

[leaguer of one]

I never claimed DAI was a full-fledged open world game. If you actually re-read through my posts, you'll notice I made a distinction that it wasn't entirely open world. BioWare actually considered going completely open world, but recognized this would adversely affect their story. Regardless, the concepts behind exploration and these much larger environments are still because of the success of Skyrim and the impact it had on BioWare. You can deny this all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true.

 

The problem with your argument is you have to combine headcanon as well as the various shades of neutral dialogue in order to create your illusion of character development. This was never the case in previous BioWare games. The Inquisitor is just too undefined for his/her own good. Whether you accept that reality or not doesn't really matter.

if it's not a full-fledged open world then how can it be like skyrim  .... Also, dai started out as an mmo.

 

And again that's not head cannon. Head cannon is taking people in the story and making your own story bout what they do and feel with no event in the  actual story showing that. That's not happening with may character in dai. I developing feelings and emotions based on the story and events on hand, stating and showing those feelings through my character and making choices based of that.

[Revan Reborn]

The quoted are just your opinions.  You are entitled to them as I am to mine and they are no more valid or objective than my opinions.

I can say the same about DA2 (which is my least favorite DA game) - the story was exceptionally railroaded and none of the choices mattered. Hawke was a hapless victim of an absurd plot where logic eluded the story most of the time.

 

In DAI you get different adversaries depending on who you ally with. There are two arcs in the main story and race and background choices for the protagonist - the elven is particularly relevant and to me plays a lot different than the rest.  The dialogue choices while important are not the only thing that makes or breaks a game. However,  I found the dialogue to be satisfying and relevant to the hero that is portrayed in the DAI story.

 

I get it. You are very disappointed in DAI, but surely you don't have to jump at every post I made and try to discredit it just because I happen to be happy with this game.

It's not "just [an] opinion," however. The Inquisitor, in terms of flexibility and personality, was railroaded on a neutral disposition of being a default "good guy."

 

In DAII, you had three strikingly different personalities (diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive). This significantly changed how NPCs responded to you and the overall experience of the game. Whereas the Inquisitor did not have this same level of variance with only several options that largely were not all that different.

 

Again, I like DAI. I just find that it has the weakest story and protagonist out of all of the BioWare games. The reason it is redeemed is because of the great supporting cast sa well as the overabundance of fan service we receive from DAO and DAII. I'm not trying to "ruin your experience," but merely suggest that we aren't explicitly referring to the same thing.

 

The issue is nuanced, but it is there and it's worth explaining.