356 réponses à ce sujet

[Qun00]

As far as I know, the player also has a great role in shaping the Warden and Hawke's behavior and interaction. This isn't really new.

[Cha0sEff3ct]

You also have to consider that the Inquisition started out as a relatively powerless and insignificant faction.  Josephine even at one point comments that it is the alliances that have been made that give the Inquisition it's power and legitimacy.  If those alliances and the goodwill associated with them were to disappear, the Inquisition would have been in big trouble.  The Inquisitor does not have the benefit of assuming control of a pre-established power structure like a roman emperor or a medieval king would.  

 

Josephine: Without the infrastructure of the Inquisition we're hobbled!!!!!

[Uccio]

I know I protested against Hawke and his dialogue wheel but that was because there was no middle ground in the comment tones. You could choose the psychotic agressive tone at first and then the angel diplomatic one coming out a bit bipolar person (I don´t blame the voice actor like some do, I think he/she was good). But Inq totally butched the character. He was about as deep as a puddle. 

Totally bland character without any background. The written one did not work as the game barely recognized it, few war table missions did not help at all. Especially with the dalish Inq, who the hell lets your own people to be butchered and doesn´t blink an eye about it??? 

 

The DA2 model with three more tones in each main tone would have been much better. You choose diplomatic, then a sub-line: diplomatic-diplomatic, diplomatic-sarcastic or diplomatic-agressive(stout). Each main tone having its own three sub-tones. Might have worked better.

[Cha0sEff3ct]

Thanks! I'd love to hear about your Inquisitor(s) too, if you're up for it.

 

It's pretty amazing, honestly. I've talked to so many people about their Inquisitors and they are almost all unique--and a lot of it isn't even limited to headcanon. These are things you can express in-game. That's a testament to the freedom BioWare tried to provide for the PC.

 

I mean, there are always things that can be improved on--nothing is without fault after all. But I think the work they put into this really shows.

Wellllll....

 

It's funny I'm in between characters. I had played a female Lavellan first and then a male Trevelyan all the way to the end but I decided to return to earlier saves in both because I wanted to flesh them out a different way. I have a female Adaar and a male Lavellan in the works too but currently I'm focused on my male Trevelyan and a new female Trevelyan. I will post about my Alphonse Trevelyan, who comes from a pious noble family in Ostwick. He was at the conclave because of his vested interest in becoming a Templar. After being marked as the Herald he commits to the role and truly believes that he was sent by Andraste. I have his whole story fleshed out in my head that I can't write it all now. work I will though. I'll leave this for now... my herald's walk of fame...

 

 

and a teaser...

 

[Majestic Jazz]

I hear a lot of defense for it saying "oh, but the Quiz is a good guy, he can't be as evil as previous games" but to me that's kind of hollow. He's been thrust into a powerful position based on the widespread belief that he's a messiah figure. That kind of thing leads often leads to evil, or at least misguided application of power. I was surprised at how little opportunity there was to play as a firebrand religious zealot, given the nature of the story.

Bravo!

I agree with this. People DO like to believe that the IQ HAS to be a good person cause he is the leader of a semi religious organization, but throughout human history, some of the most corrupt and power hungry people have been leaders of religious groups.

You are correct, this was a missed opportunity by Bioware.

[Lilithor]

The Warden is the reason I love a silent PC

Hawke is the reason I questioned myself about that and considered accepting voiced PC

Inquisitor made me sure to hate voiced protagonists forever, I mean, ok, sometimes, perhaps, another Hawke may come around, but to risk a **** so shitty as the Inquisitor shitstorm I would rather stick to silent PC

[Medhia_Nox]

@Majestic Jazz:  If you think diplomacy has anything to do with being "good" - I feel bad for your definition of what a good person is. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Well my issues with the Inquisitor's personality are this...

 

First off, the Inquisitor just kind of comes into the story out of nowhere. You can touch on your past a bit in one convo with Josephine. Other than that, not much in the way of character development. Hawke, for instance, did not have this issue at all. You could express your feelings on leaving your home behind and how you felt about Kirkwall many times. Having a family you interact with also added lots of depth. In Origins, you had those things as well.

 

Second, yes, you can respond to things in a number of way -- rude, witty, compassionate -- but the Inquisitor's tone is almost always the same: business casual. It really does not deviate very much from that at all. Hawke was not like that at all. You could really emote with that character. Even with the so-called "emotional wheel" the Inquisitor is just not very expressive. It made Hawke's story and character easier to relate to (to me, anyway), whereas the Inquisitor was dull and not very compelling.

 

I was actually RP'ing recently as a mildly-cured tranquil Inquisitor and it was kind of sad how well that character played. It may as well have been the canon protagonist for this game.

[Kel Eligor]

The Inquisitor was a utilitarian character - he was written well, and the delivery of the voice-actors was on point. He/she is charismatic, and a good protagonist. My only issue is that the Inquisitor, regardless of how you play them, kind of flatlines from a writing perspective, making them far less engaging than Hawke or Sheppard since there's no opportunity to have multiple playthrough deeply contrast from one-another. Sure, you can decide to be an atheist or Andrastian, however there's no opportunity for the Inquisitor to be deeply disturbed by being proclaimed a herald, or a raving lunatic if he embraces it. I was kind of let down by the fact that regardless of how I approached a scenario, I was always forced to be the nice guy... even the "aggressive" options were direct, rather than evil. 

[In Exile]

The Inquisitor was a utilitarian character - he was written well, and the delivery of the voice-actors was on point. He/she is charismatic, and a good protagonist. My only issue is that the Inquisitor, regardless of how you play them, kind of flatlines from a writing perspective, making them far less engaging than Hawke or Sheppard since there's no opportunity to have multiple playthrough deeply contrast from one-another. Sure, you can decide to be an atheist or Andrastian, however there's no opportunity for the Inquisitor to be deeply disturbed by being proclaimed a herald, or a raving lunatic if he embraces it. I was kind of let down by the fact that regardless of how I approached a scenario, I was always forced to be the nice guy... even the "aggressive" options were direct, rather than evil. 

 

The problem is that to work on any realistic level "unstable loon" as an option requires an almost ridiculous level of resources to work properly. 

[sorentoft]

It's alright, but I would have liked some Dalish dialogue where the Inquisitor tried to do a mix of Chantry and Dalish religion. I mean, I am pretty much stuck between "YOUR GODS SUCK, HUMAN SCUM" and "Yeah, my people don't matter. I'm all chantry now, yo". I wish we could do an Ameridan is all I am saying. Hell, even suggesting it as a human when you got the knowledge perk would be cool.

[Estelindis]

On the whole, I'm a fan.  I do wish there had been just one scene before everything kicked off where you saw the Inquisitor with some background-appropriate NPCs, setting the stage for who they were initially and what they were trying to do.  The start felt just a bit too abrupt for me.

[Torgette]

I thought they did a fair job of writing dialogue choices, I just wasn't a fan of the voice acting.

[nightscrawl]

I like my Inquisitor's personality just fine.

 

I will add that I like that with the dialog options in this game there still are the nice, humorous, rough responses many times in positions 1, 2, 3, but they all lean toward neutral rather than the extreme responses we had with DA2. So it doesn't seem bizarre to be having some conversation, respond humorously in one instance, then seriously in the next, like you need to be on medication.

[BansheeOwnage]

I know I protested against Hawke and his dialogue wheel but that was because there was no middle ground in the comment tones. You could choose the psychotic agressive tone at first and then the angel diplomatic one coming out a bit bipolar person (I don´t blame the voice actor like some do, I think he/she was good). But Inq totally butched the character. He was about as deep as a puddle. 

Totally bland character without any background. The written one did not work as the game barely recognized it, few war table missions did not help at all. Especially with the dalish Inq, who the hell lets your own people to be butchered and doesn´t blink an eye about it??? 

 

The DA2 model with three more tones in each main tone would have been much better. You choose diplomatic, then a sub-line: diplomatic-diplomatic, diplomatic-sarcastic or diplomatic-agressive(stout). Each main tone having its own three sub-tones. Might have worked better.

I swear I remember them saying there was another dialogue wheel in Inquisition, a Tone Wheel. What I got from that was exactly what you suggested (which is awesome). If they meant the occasional "emotional" responses then just... wow. That's not a separate wheel.

[Scofield]

i wasn't as satisfied as i could or maybe should have been i guess but maybe that's because when it comes to voiced characters i was spoiled so much in DA2 by Hawke, who is my fav voiced character tbh

[Jaquio]

@jaquio:  I'm sure, throughout history, there are a handful of "mad tyrants" that had long reigns... but you'll have to provide me proof of them being a "norm" as you suggest. 

 

Bad Roman emperors had notoriously short lifespans... as had any tyrant kind.

 

Don't quote me when you're quoting something I didn't say.   I never said they were the norm.  I said "history is littered with them" insinuating that they're common.

 

 

As for proof?  Hell, I had to limit it to the 20th century just to save time:

 

• Rafael Trujillo.  Ruled 31 years.  Dominican Republic.  Killed 50,000+ citizens in brutal, racist regime.
• Francois ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier.  Ruled 14 years.  Haiti.  Killed 30,000+ through the Tonton Macoute.
• Augusto Pinochet.  Ruled 17 years.  Chile.  Over 2,000 “disappeared” and 30,000+ tortured.
• Hafez al-Assad.  Ruled 30 years.  Syria.  Over 20,000 killed in Hama Massacre.
• Kim il-Sung.  Ruled 46 years.  North Korea.   Political disappearances difficult to measure in this highly secretive and oppressive regime.
• Thanom Kittikachorn.  Ruled 10 years.  Thailand.  Killed 100+ student protestors in university massacre.
• Khorloogiin Choibalsan.  Ruled 16 years.  Mongolia.  Purged 30,000+ citizens labelled “enemies of the revolution.”
• Ho Chi Minh.  Ruled 18 years.  North Vietnam.  Killed 200,000+ citizens in brutal “land reform” program.
• Than Shwe.  Ruled 19 years.  Burma/Myanmar.  Killed 1,000+ religious and political dissidents.  250,000-1,000,000 citizens imprisoned or forced to slave camps.
• Ne Win.  Ruled 19 years.  Burma/Myanmar.  Violently oppressed and killed ethnic Chinese, terrorized villages, burned schools and killed children.  Drove 100,000 Chinese citizens into exile.
• Slobodan Milosevic.  Ruled 11 years.  Serbia/Yugoslavia.  Oversaw death of thousands of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, and ethnic cleansing of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia.
• Francisco Franco.  Ruled 39 years.  Spain.  Killed 20,000-40,000 dissidents to consolidate power in fascist regime.
• Ahmed Sekou Toure.  Ruled 26 years.  Guinea.  Estimated 50,000 killed by regime, and 250,000 citizens have fled brutal oppression.
• Hastings Kamuzu Banda.  Ruled 31 years.  Malawi.  Brutal police state, killed political opponents and ruled through fear.  Allowed and lost free election at age 98.
• Jean-Bedel Bokassa.  Ruled 13 years.  Central African Republic.  Self-proclaimed emperor ruled through terror, murdered political opponents, massacred hundreds of civilians and children.
• Gnassingbe Eyadema.  Ruled 38 years.  Togo.  Oppressive leader who banned opposition and tortured and murdered political opponents and dissidents.  Opened fire on pro-democracy demonstrators.
• Francisco Macias Nguema.  Ruled 11 years.  Equatorial Guinea.  Brutal leader, killed 50,000+ citizens and “intellectuals” another 200,000+ fled the country.  Changed national motto to “there is no other God than Macias Nguema.”
• Mengistu Haile Mariam.  Ruled 14 years.  Ethiopia.  Saw a campaign of repression and the Ethiopian Red Terror.  Killed 500,000-2,000,000.  Later found guilty of genocide.
• Teodoro Mbasogo.  Ruled 33 years.  Equatorial Guinea.  Proclaimed god in his country, directly oversees the torture and death of regime opponents. 
• Robert Mugabe.  Ruled 35 years.  Zimbabwe.  20,000+ killed in ethnic cleansing.  Runs a brutal paramilitary regime.
• Omar al-Bashir.  Ruled 26 years.  Sudan.  Has overseen the genocide in Darfur, over 200,000+ killed.

 

And then, of course, there’s this list of classic and better known dictators.  All of these leaders have killed mass numbers of citizens to retain power.  And not one of which was killed by interior forces, but all either died of natural causes, or were killed due to foreign intervention:

• Fidel Castro.  Ruled 47 years.  Cuba. 
• Saddam Hussein.  Ruled 24 years.  Iraq.
• Benito Mussolini.  Ruled 23 years.  Italy.
• Adolf Hitler.  Ruled 12 years.  Germany.
• Joseph Stalin.  Ruled 29 years.  USSR.
• Mao Zedong.  Ruled 27 years.  China.

 

 

This is already off-topic enough.  And I don't want to talk about tyrants any more because compiling this list depressed me.  I don't even want or care about an option to play as evil.  None of these people engaged in any activities that I want to emulate in any form.  But your assertion that only "diplomatic" leaders can maintain power is so fundamentally and thoroughly flawed that it must be challenged.

 

Diplomatic conversation and a diplomatic personality does not reinforce leadership.  Control over perception does.  Control over media reinforces leadership.  Control over the press reinforces leadership.  Squelching dissident voices reinforces leadership.  The term we're talking about is "Cult of Personality" and it usually leads to Very Bad Things.

 

There was nothing diplomatic about Jean-Bedel Bokassa setting a school on fire and burning a hundred children to death for not wearing state-approved uniforms.  Yet he was in the 13th year of his reign and it was only foreign French intervention that removed him.

[BansheeOwnage]

I thought they did a fair job of writing dialogue choices, I just wasn't a fan of the voice acting.

I thought the writing varied, as did the voice acting. I don't know who writes the Inquisitor, but I'd imagine it's a team effort and is usually written by whoever-else-is-in-the-scene's writers. About the voice acting though, I don't blame the actors. How can I when they've delivered such great performances in the past? Both females were in ME and were much more passionate than they were as the Inquisitor, the american male was Zevran, and I'm sure the british male is good too. They're not the problem, and honestly I feel bad for them because of all the criticism they receive. I blame the voice-over direction. If all 4 actors are more-than-capable of being passionate (even without the gift for it that Hawke's VAs had) but weren't, the conclusion I come to is that they were all supposed to sound neutral and... boring. The occasional line where they don't sound like this makes them tolerable.

 

So I guess I felt like I had to keep suffering through (lack of a better term) bland and boring dialogue and delivery until I got to a scene where the writing was superb and the VA managed to break the neutral-direction to have memorable lines. And I'm only critiquing the Quizzy's writing to an extent, the companions are stellar.

[dixophilia]

Wellllll....

 

It's funny I'm in between characters. I had played a female Lavellan first and then a male Trevelyan all the way to the end but I decided to return to earlier saves in both because I wanted to flesh them out a different way. I have a female Adaar and a male Lavellan in the works too but currently I'm focused on my male Trevelyan and a new female Trevelyan. I will post about my Alphonse Trevelyan, who comes from a pious noble family in Ostwick. He was at the conclave because of his vested interest in becoming a Templar. After being marked as the Herald he commits to the role and truly believes that he was sent by Andraste. I have his whole story fleshed out in my head that I can't write it all now. work I will though. I'll leave this for now... my herald's walk of fame...

 

I haven't made an Inquisitor who truly believes they're Andraste's Herald yet, but I like how they special dialogue options for believing so. I've seen some be used in Judgements, which a nice little touch.

 

I'm guessing your Trevelyan is going to jump at the chance to get his Templar specialization then, yeah? haha

 

On the whole, I'm a fan.  I do wish there had been just one scene before everything kicked off where you saw the Inquisitor with some background-appropriate NPCs, setting the stage for who they were initially and what they were trying to do.  The start felt just a bit too abrupt for me.

I was really hoping for this as well. We didn't need a whole origin story, but something would have been nice. We could have met whomever our Inquisitor came to the Conclave with and spoke with them a bit. I think seeing those established relationships would have made the deaths at the conclave more visceral.

[Torgette]

And I'm only critiquing the Quizzy's writing to an extent, the companions are stellar.

 

I agree they really were

[Medhia_Nox]

Jaquio: Well done, but you're still missing my point.  They had an army that wasn't reliant on the good nature of the people.. and I promise you that they treated their armies well... and at the point that they no longer do, they are removed. 

 

If I had said:  "There are no cruel rulers."  Then all those tyrants you posted would be great. 

 

Also - how long did they consolidate their power before slaughtering those thousands (or tens of thousands)?  What was the climate like in their countries?  

 

I appreciate that you're doing everything you can to prove your point - but you're answering a question I didn't really ask.  Also I don't consider 30 rulers in one century "littering" the globe.  But that's subjective. 

 

The Inquisitor had nothing.  A bunch of rabble - and no support (no money, no military, no regime).  In the year of gaming that the game takes place in... being one of those rulers would be unsuccessful - but you can believe in it if you like.

 

I don't mind having snarky and a-hole options for dialogue regardless of the fact of how I feel about them and that I'd never use them.  But arguing that leaders BEGIN their regimes being this way - and that they don't treat their army extremely well (which was my argument to begin with) - you'll never convince me of that (figure I'd say that just to stop wasting time).

[phaonica]

I hated my inquisitor. He was such a dork. For example - playing tricks on people with Sera had me wondering why she would want to hang out with him. He is like Thedas' Urkel. I should have made him an elf as there is no way someone with his personality has that male model body.

And the Bear puns....totally something I think the inquisitor would say! In real life I would be rolling my eyes along with Cassandra. Even his backstory (all two sentences of it) seeped in social awkwardness - like when he said he had a crush on a Templar but it didn't go anywhere. Go figure. Who would have wanted him? During Dorians personal quest when the Inquisitor said he had sex before - I didn't believe him. I think he made it up to sound cool in front of others but I was not buying it.

I can't think of a moment where I found him to be cool. Like in the Fade when an elderly lady stays back so Urkel Travelyan can run away. -.- Maybe it's because I had the British voice and found him to be such an annoying character I would pick the Crying icon for his dialogue choices whenever I could. It's no wonder he surrounds himself with an almost completely unlikeable group aside from Cass and the advisors who have no choice but to be stuck with him. I was half expecting Varric to beg to leave with Hawke - I know I wanted to and would have been fine if the story diverged there and I got to be Hawke again.

I had a horrible time relating to this character. My HoF, Hawke, and Shepard I adored.

 

This sounds hilarious. I may have to try this.

[In Exile]

Don't quote me when you're quoting something I didn't say. I never said they were the norm. I said "history is littered with them" insinuating that they're common.


As for proof? Hell, I had to limit it to the 20th century just to save time:

• Rafael Trujillo. Ruled 31 years. Dominican Republic. Killed 50,000+ citizens in brutal, racist regime.
• Francois ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier. Ruled 14 years. Haiti. Killed 30,000+ through the Tonton Macoute.
• Augusto Pinochet. Ruled 17 years. Chile. Over 2,000 “disappeared” and 30,000+ tortured.
• Hafez al-Assad. Ruled 30 years. Syria. Over 20,000 killed in Hama Massacre.
• Kim il-Sung. Ruled 46 years. North Korea. Political disappearances difficult to measure in this highly secretive and oppressive regime.
• Thanom Kittikachorn. Ruled 10 years. Thailand. Killed 100+ student protestors in university massacre.
• Khorloogiin Choibalsan. Ruled 16 years. Mongolia. Purged 30,000+ citizens labelled “enemies of the revolution.”
• Ho Chi Minh. Ruled 18 years. North Vietnam. Killed 200,000+ citizens in brutal “land reform” program.
• Than Shwe. Ruled 19 years. Burma/Myanmar. Killed 1,000+ religious and political dissidents. 250,000-1,000,000 citizens imprisoned or forced to slave camps.
• Ne Win. Ruled 19 years. Burma/Myanmar. Violently oppressed and killed ethnic Chinese, terrorized villages, burned schools and killed children. Drove 100,000 Chinese citizens into exile.
• Slobodan Milosevic. Ruled 11 years. Serbia/Yugoslavia. Oversaw death of thousands of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, and ethnic cleansing of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia.
• Francisco Franco. Ruled 39 years. Spain. Killed 20,000-40,000 dissidents to consolidate power in fascist regime.
• Ahmed Sekou Toure. Ruled 26 years. Guinea. Estimated 50,000 killed by regime, and 250,000 citizens have fled brutal oppression.
• Hastings Kamuzu Banda. Ruled 31 years. Malawi. Brutal police state, killed political opponents and ruled through fear. Allowed and lost free election at age 98.
• Jean-Bedel Bokassa. Ruled 13 years. Central African Republic. Self-proclaimed emperor ruled through terror, murdered political opponents, massacred hundreds of civilians and children.
• Gnassingbe Eyadema. Ruled 38 years. Togo. Oppressive leader who banned opposition and tortured and murdered political opponents and dissidents. Opened fire on pro-democracy demonstrators.
• Francisco Macias Nguema. Ruled 11 years. Equatorial Guinea. Brutal leader, killed 50,000+ citizens and “intellectuals” another 200,000+ fled the country. Changed national motto to “there is no other God than Macias Nguema.”
• Mengistu Haile Mariam. Ruled 14 years. Ethiopia. Saw a campaign of repression and the Ethiopian Red Terror. Killed 500,000-2,000,000. Later found guilty of genocide.
• Teodoro Mbasogo. Ruled 33 years. Equatorial Guinea. Proclaimed god in his country, directly oversees the torture and death of regime opponents.
• Robert Mugabe. Ruled 35 years. Zimbabwe. 20,000+ killed in ethnic cleansing. Runs a brutal paramilitary regime.
• Omar al-Bashir. Ruled 26 years. Sudan. Has overseen the genocide in Darfur, over 200,000+ killed.

And then, of course, there’s this list of classic and better known dictators. All of these leaders have killed mass numbers of citizens to retain power. And not one of which was killed by interior forces, but all either died of natural causes, or were killed due to foreign intervention:

• Fidel Castro. Ruled 47 years. Cuba.
• Saddam Hussein. Ruled 24 years. Iraq.
• Benito Mussolini. Ruled 23 years. Italy.
• Adolf Hitler. Ruled 12 years. Germany.
• Joseph Stalin. Ruled 29 years. USSR.
• Mao Zedong. Ruled 27 years. China.

This is already off-topic enough. And I don't want to talk about tyrants any more because compiling this list depressed me. I don't even want or care about an option to play as evil. None of these people engaged in any activities that I want to emulate in any form. But your assertion that only "diplomatic" leaders can maintain power is so fundamentally and thoroughly flawed that it must be challenged.

Diplomatic conversation and a diplomatic personality does not reinforce leadership. Control over perception does. Control over media reinforces leadership. Control over the press reinforces leadership. Squelching dissident voices reinforces leadership. The term we're talking about is "Cult of Personality" and it usually leads to Very Bad Things.

There was nothing diplomatic about Jean-Bedel Bokassa setting a school on fire and burning a hundred children to death for not wearing state-approved uniforms. Yet he was in the 13th year of his reign and it was only foreign French intervention that removed him.

This kind of power works because the tyrant had an institution and individuals behind him (or notionally her) that back up the authoritarian abuse.

That doesn't work in a Bioware game where the party is large lawful to chaotic good.

[In Exile]

I do wish the dialogue perks were used more often. I rather enjoy having a more educated PC.

They were used effectively, at least. The Well is a great example of an arcane knowledge perk being really useful.

[The Elder King]

I swear I remember them saying there was another dialogue wheel in Inquisition, a Tone Wheel. What I got from that was exactly what you suggested (which is awesome). If they meant the occasional "emotional" responses then just... wow. That's not a separate wheel.

They specifically stated that the Third wheel (because the Second is the one Where you make a determinate choice, like the one in the prologue about the path to follow) was about emotional responses. Gaider made a lenghty post back then. They never mentioned a subwheel like the one in Ukki's post (expecially because Gaider in the same post said the three tones of DA2 were scrapped).