356 réponses à ce sujet

[Chiramu]

I am not satisfied with my passive Inquisitor, why must my love interest always be the one to kiss me? Why can I not be the one to engage the romance physically? Why am I on the bottom? Cullen is on the bottom, not the Inquisitor! 

[Torgette]

Replaying the game atm with an Elf is interesting, there's a lot more unique dialogue than when I played as a Qunari.

 

I feel like background plays a great deal into how invested people are into the inquisitor. My first playthrough as a Qunari felt flat because the Qunari had nothing invested in the setting or situation, there were no conflicts of interest or anything interesting really - just "oh hey, it's a big guy, you see how big he is??". On the flip side the Elf is way more invested into the conflict especially because of the war against the Dalish and how Corypheus got his power. There's also (as I said earlier) a lot more unique dialogue specific to an elvan background.

Modifié par Torgette, 05 mai 2015 - 03:48 .

[KennethAFTopp]

I think it really depends on what you want out of the Inquisitor, yes I do think there's some leadership arc to the character which is very cool. But I mean if you want a Clint Eastwood-like Man-With-No-Name hardass character this is not that type of game.

 

With some headcanon you can with Cole, intepret to have som fatherly role with him, which is great.

[KainD]

OP you are satisfied because Inquisitors pre-set personality suits your taste. 

[TheRevanchist]

Am I satisfied with The Inquisitor? Over all yes I am I would say. Considering the Inquisitor was probably never in the original game plan for this series I think they work quite well. Because if we're being honest with ourselves it's fairly obvious Hawke was suppose to be The Inquisitor to begin with, given the cancelled Exalted March expansion that involved the Mage/Templar segments we got and the Temple of Mythal segment. The Inquisitor was likely scrapped together rather quickly after the poor reception of Dragon Age 2. So given those situations I would say yes The Inquistor works quite well. I also loved the Hawke segments because frankly Hawke was portrayed 100% correctly. She was a hard ass b*** who hated mages besides her sister, because Sister.   

[VelvetV]

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. 

That summarizes my feelings about the inquisitor. Whenever people show respect or deference to her, I always find myself in disbelief and have to make a big effort to suspend disbelief. It's jarring.

 

To be a leader of an organization so large and powerful one has to have very potent charisma, and our inquisitor has none. It doesn't matter if one is claimed to be a herald of Andraste: in real life, reputation doesn't mean everything, if a person lacks charisma reputation won't matter. People who come to see a herald would be disappointed to see an ordinary woman after all that hype, and they'd lose much of their respect for the inquisition.

 

Imho, this game would benefit from a clearly defined character for the inquisitor. Choice is nice, but it could be a choice between three clearly defined leadership-focused charismatic personalities, for example.

 

As it is, I can live with the inquisitor, I just have to constantly suspend disbelief that someone like that can command others and be paid attention by empresses and other important figures.

[FumikoM]

Well, I like to look at it like this: What will I remember about Inquisition in say 5 years? 10 years?

 

It won't be the lead character, she's just too neutral. Shepard is what I remember most about Mass Effect, and Hawke does the same for DAII. The Warden was too bland, IMO, and thus I disliked DA. I don't think the Inquisitor is bland, but she does not have a strong personality either. She is closer to being a forgettable character compared to Hawke and Shepard than someone I will think of years from now.

 

I still do not understand why Bioware decided to remove the renegade/aggressive personality in favor of a neutral one, or "realistic" as others seem to see it as. You can still be a hero, or the funny one. But you can no longer be the ruthless one.

 

I wish that I could rule the inquisition with an iron fist. Which I btw actually got the picture that you could before the game was released, considering the trailers and such. But I realized that nope, you can't. That part was just empty words. You can only be a hero who believe she is chosen, or she's not. That's it. There's nothing else to her personality that really defines her. Very far from Shepard and Hawke.

 

As a person who have little desire to play a "sane" and "realistic" character (words I see others use to describe the Inquisitor) but prefer someone more like the dark side Sith Warrior of SWTOR, this part was the most disappointing thing in DA:I. The realistic and sane part I have enough of from that horrible thing called real life...

 

Edit: I should probably mention that I do still like the Inquisitor. And that I admit that unlike Shepard and Hawke, I could actually see myself as the Inquisitor. Most likely because she was more realistic, she did not jump between personalities but stayed consistent through the whole story. When I play ME or DAII, I play as those characters, I do not see myself as them. This is not the case with DA:I. However I totally see myself being a chaotic evil Sith Warrior in SWTOR. And by that I mean at least the "dark" part of my personalty can finally get out and have some fun when I play SWTOR. Outside the virtual world she always stays hidden.

[FemShem]

I loved my Inquisitor, though there was a slight learning curve the first time I thought...yeah, I'm the chosen one...and then realized the response wasn't sarcastic:)

[midnight tea]

Personally, I think there's a decent balance between picturing how my Inquisitors are in my head and game's set ways to express their personality and agendas during playthrough.

Would I like there were more or maybe more varied ways? Always! But what I got was satisfying.

 

This is a very subjective opinion, I know, and I get that there are many people who prefer different things - but as someone who likes to tell stories and create characters myself, I enjoyed the relative freedom I got - I like that the game didn't really force me into playing well-defined character type per se (as in, a character with more set story and personality), but added enough variety to express different personalities for different characters I choose to take on this variation of classic Hero's journey served in DAI.

[ThePhoenixKing]

One thing that I think contributes to the Inquisitor's relative dullness is the fact that we never see him fail, or find themselves at a lasting low point. With the Warden, there was Ostagar, and whatever your perspective on who to blame for Ferelden's defeat, it clearly was a defeat, and it leaves both you and the country in a weakened state. Post-Ostagar, the Warden has to just claw their way back up, and the repercussions of the army's loss are visibly and meaningfully felt. Hell, examining the Warden's failures is a key point of the Gauntlet as well, and seeing them come back despite the tragedies and losses in their life makes for some great storytelling. With Hawke, there are a couple, most notably the death of Leandra, and the game is good at showing how much that's affected Hawke. Where DAII falters is never really giving Hawke the chance to come back from these losses, but that's a rant for another time.

 

With the Inquisitor, however, everything is smooth sailing. The only real low point for them is the destruction of Haven, and that's almost instantly mitigated by the fact that they find Skyhold immediately thereafter. That's not a grand tragedy, that's called "trading up for a better model," and it illustrates one of the major flaws of Inquisition's story. Hawke and the Warden had to fight tooth and nail for everything they got, which makes their accomplishments far more meaningful. The Inquisitor, meanwhile, gets handed everything on a platter. A shiny new fortress? An army that's somehow the most powerful fighting force in Southern Thedas, and is inexplicably capable of fighting off the Grey Wardens and a massive army of demons simultanuously? The diplomatic leverage needed to have just about every faction in Southern Thedas fighting to the death over who gets to lick your boots first? All of it, with barely any effort on the Inquisitor's behalf.

[midnight tea]

Thing is, you're omitting an important difference in the story - namely, the sheer scale of it. Effectively, what Warden has to do is survive and assemble enough of a group to fight Archdemon, while Inquisitor has to deal with a whole new threat - an ancient darkspawn magister with pet "Archdemon" whom, through majority of story, nobody has any idea how to kill and who threatens to march on Thedas with brainwashed mages, templars, Wardens, plus crazy supremacists from Tevinter and an army of demons... And that's not even mentioning the Breach and Corypheus' plans of becoming a god.

 

In other words, it's a story that can't be really told the same way DAO - it's a tale of a hero on whom greatness has been thrown at from the start. And while, on surface, it's about them dealing with Corypheus, in reality it's a story of them dealing with the struggle of becoming (more or less willing/unwilling) world leader, while building the power that will either save or tear apart Thedas (presumably, we're yet to see how our choices will be reflected in the game or any meaningful DLC).

 

As for things being handled to Inquisitor on silver platter? That depends how you look at it. The "shiny new fortress" was really an abandoned near-ruin far away from populated areas or meaningful roads. And while some improvements were automatic once the story progressed, how well it was restored depended on how we played - same with Inquisition's respect among companions or reputation among people. Hence the ending of the story looks the same only on the surface - but depending on PT, the Inquisition may be viewed as beacon of hope, a sort of "meh" thing people will forget about after Cory's defeat or a worrisome new player with not enough approval of the nobles or allies, but still enough gained fame to become a threat themselves.

[ThePhoenixKing]

Thing is, you're omitting an important difference in the story - namely, the sheer scale of it. Effectively, what Warden has to do is survive and assemble enough of a group to fight Archdemon, while Inquisitor has to deal with a whole new threat - an ancient darkspawn magister with pet "Archdemon" whom, through majority of story, nobody has any idea how to kill and who threatens to march on Thedas with brainwashed mages, templars, Wardens, plus crazy supremacists from Tevinter and an army of demons... And that's not even mentioning to tear the Veil and Corypheus' plans of becoming a god.

 

In other words, it's a story that can't be really told the same way DAO - it's a tale of a hero on whom greatness has been thrown at from the start. And while, on surface, it's about them dealing with Corypheus, in reality it's a story of them dealing with the struggle of becoming (more or less willing/unwilling) world leader, while building the power that will either save or tear apart Thedas (presumably, we're yet to see how our choices will be reflected in the game or any meaningful DLC).

 

As for things being handled to Inquisitor on silver platter? That depends how you look at it. The "shiny new fortress" was really an abandoned near-ruin far away from populated areas or meaningful roads. And while some improvements were automatic once the story progressed, how well it was restored depended on how we played - same with Inquisition's respect among companions or reputation among people. Hence the ending of the story looks the same only on the surface - but depending on PT, the Inquisition may be viewed as beacon of hope, a sort of "meh" thing people will forget about after Cory's defeat or a worrisome new player with not enough approval of the nobles or allies, but still enough gained fame to become a threat themselves.

 

Then why is the resolution to every plot thread either hopelessly contrived (ie; the Adamant arc, Cory's final death) or utterly underwhelming (ie; The Mage-Templar War, the Orlesian Civil War, sealing the Breach)? When you completed a main quest in Origins, it was always a real "Hell, yeah!" moment, and nothing in Inquisition ever came close. Yes, the scale was bigger in Inquisition, but that didn't make it more intense or engaging, it was all so shallow that it didn't really matter.

 

And again, it all goes back to that sense of struggle and effort that was missing in Inquisition. If you wanted to get a faction on your side in Origins, you had to work for it. Meanwhile, the Inquisitor closes what is basically the Eye of Terror without much of a fuss.

[Rocknife]

Thankfully, Inquisitor didn't just had to be either (not-so-)funny/angry/diplomatic like in DA2 so we could actually give him/her a personaltiy. Though dialogues were still fairly limited. DAO dialogues were much better, much more varied and Warden had his own unique way with words especially when it comes to humor and Romance. Remember when the Warden gave Morrigan the Golden Mirror saying "it's simply a present, for a beautiful woman". or Remember how Warden mocked Sten by saying "It'll never see it coming" when Sten said "Do you intend to go to north until it becomes south and approach the Archdemon from the rear?". Or how he got scolded by Morrigan for flirting with Isabela. DA2 and it's protagonist's personality and lack of varied dialogue options were one of the main reasons why DA2 failed so hard. Inquisitor seems a bit awkward about some specific matters (like romance and having fun) regardless of our dialogue choices but still nowhere near as bad as DA2. Not as good as DAO either though.

 

In short; I cannot complain about the Inquisitor's personality. Especially comparing to DA2. Though DAO and the Warden is still my favorite. Warden had his own unique way for each variations. In that matter: DAO>DAI>>>>>DA2

 

And That dragon was not a true Archdemon. It was a High Dragon that Cory fed with Red Lyrium. It looked like an Archdemon because of the red lyrium's taint. An Archdemon is a corrupted Old God, not a corrupted High Dragon. Cory wanted to reach to the Black City in order to turn his dragon into a true Archdemon so he could control the Darkspawn Horde like true Archdemons do. Darkspawn Horde cannot be stopped by any army with sheer numbers, that's why the first Blight lasted more than hundred years and completely destroyed and desolated whole Anderfels until the Sentinels found a way to kill the Archdemon. That's why the only way to end a Blight is to kill the Archdemon. Controlling the Darkspawn would also mean immortality for Corypheus, since Architect and Corypheus can transfer their souls to other soulles tainted vessels like darkspawns or dead wardens (or willing tainted vessels with souls like alive wardens who are willing to share their bodies). Architect found another way of achieving this sort of immortality and he doesn't seem to settle for an artificial Archdemon and tries to make Old Gods his disciple. So long story short, that Red Lyrium Dragon could become a true Archdemon only if Corypheus actually reached to the Black City. If that dragon was actually an Archdemon, it could control the Darkspawn Horde and Inquisitor couldn't destroy it since Inquisitor doesn't have the taint.

 

And do you remember that one time Solas freaked out? Solas was perfectly calm throughout the entire game except for one time only. He freaked out when he learned what Orlesian Wardens intended to do. When Inquisitor speaks to Solas about it, he says that Orlesian Wardens could unleash something far worse than Corypheus and his dragon. When Inquisitor says "they could give Corypheus a demon army" Solas says "demon army is just a tool, the real threat is Blight. Wardens are like a maiden chasing a butterfly off a cliff, the only difference is they could drag us all to our end with them".  Blight frightens even Solas. That's why after Warden's accomplishments there were celebrations and stuff. And Warden had no trivial accomplishment, that might be another reason. Ending two civil wars (Ferelden and Orzammar), finding the Urn and the Temple of Sacred Ashes, finding the Anvil of Void, ending ages old Werewolf curse, stopping a possible Blood Mage rebellion in the Circle Tower before it actually began. Even Sten was smiling during the celebration in his own way lol   Remember that conversation? Warden: "Don't you ever smile?" Sten: "I'm smiling now, can't you tell?". What Warden did is on a whole different level and so are the celebrations for being successful 

 

And there's capturing the Adamant Fortress thing. Fortress is old and there were only a few dozens Grey Wardens in the Fortress. Number of the Grey Wardens has been declining greatly and only place who has more than a few dozens of Wardens is Anderfels. So capturing Adamant is not a miraculous deed. Actually it was rather difficult for the Inquisition, considering how greater the Inquisition army's number comparing to a few dozens of Wardens.

[midnight tea]

Then why is the resolution to every plot thread either hopelessly contrived (ie; the Adamant arc, Cory's final death) or utterly underwhelming (ie; The Mage-Templar War, the Orlesian Civil War, sealing the Breach)? When you completed a main quest in Origins, it was always a real "Hell, yeah!" moment, and nothing in Inquisition ever came close. Yes, the scale was bigger in Inquisition, but that didn't make it more intense or engaging, it was all so shallow that it didn't really matter.

 

And again, it all goes back to that sense of struggle and effort that was missing in Inquisition. If you wanted to get a faction on your side in Origins, you had to work for it. Meanwhile, the Inquisitor closes what is basically the Eye of Terror without much of a fuss.

 

Contrived? Underwhelming? That's your opinion. Personally I see the resolution of mage-templar and Orlesian conflict a fitting irony - people fight, while somebody takes advantage of it: like HUGE advantage and nearly consumes all Thedas while everyone else is too involved in their (more or less) petty squabbles to either notice it, or do anything about it.

 

And how is sealing the breach underwhelming? First time we've done it, we needed the help of either Mages or Templars finest and didn't even do it right (only to lose Haven), second attempt consumed a priceless artifact that upset greatly the ancient elven god (presumably) and - indirectly - cost the life of another (presumably) and gave us great reveal as well as mystery.

 

Also - Adamant hopelessly contrived? In what sense? Because of the army able to match Wardens power? Aside from Adamant being noted for being old and not built to resist modern warfare equipment, didn't you forget the whole sacrifice of Wardens for demon army - they decimated themselves already, weakened by the false Calling and who else what blood magic Venatori used on them. Also, Cullen's forces were numerous enough to invade Adamant, but if you actually pay attention he says that they'd be able to engage and hold Warden and bound demons forces so Inquisitor could reach Clarel, not necessarily win the battle. It was a gamble, that eventually paid off. 
Or maybe do you mean events in the Fade? 

 

As for Cory's final death - it was underwhelming in a sense that it could be a better fight, but it was hardly contrived. In fact, it was pretty logical - Corypheus power lied in his lackeys, schemes and manipulations and Inquisition's near entire effort went to undermining those plans ever since they got to Skyhold. At the end, he had nowhere to run and his pride and madness pushed him to use one final ace in his sleeve. He overestimated his power and for that he paid the price. A fitting end.

 

 

And again, it all goes back to that sense of struggle and effort that was missing in Inquisition. If you wanted to get a faction on your side in Origins, you had to work for it. Meanwhile, the Inquisitor closes what is basically the Eye of Terror without much of a fuss.

 

Without much fuss? So it doesn't matter that we have to pick and gain allies, get enough power and reputation to get anywhere, or unlock better choices by - oh wait, that's right - working for it?

 

You may not like it, which is fine and Origins did or might have done better than DAI, true, but while straightforward comparisons are inevitable, Inquisition is simply a somewhat different game with a different story, that puts in focus on different objectives and dealing with a different scope as well as outcome of the tale. HOW Inquisitors rule or what is their character is reflected in how their companions or people treat them and how much they've done aside from amassing power to fight Corypheus. There are those who worked for it and have respect of Thedosians and those who didn't. 

 

 

And That dragon was not a true Archdemon. It was a High Dragon that Cory fed with Red Lyrium. It looked like an Archdemon because of the red lyrium's taint. An Archdemon is a corrupted Old God, not a corrupted High Dragon. 

 

I'd like to point out that I wrote pet "Archdemon" in quotation marks for this specific reason.

 

I'd also like to point out that while Corypheus takes/tries to take control of nearly everyone, he never tried to control darkspawn, for whatever reason, nor he had any plans for it. The reason he got himself a pet dragon has been pretty clearly stated in the game - so he could emulate the gods of old. He's just dramatic that way

 

 

Blight frightens even Solas.

 

No, the first thing that frightened him were deeds of Wardens themselves. He doesn't have a high opinion of them, remember? Their plan was crazy in his eyes, as he feared that they may unleash something far worse - and he didn't necessarily meant Blight per se, as in darkspawn horde led by Archdemon, but maybe something even worse than that.

 

And since there would be no Archdemons and the Blight/darkspawn turn out to spread uncontrollably (most of darkspawn are now preoccupied with digging to remaining Old Gods... what will happen if the Calling won't  be there anymore to divert their attention form the surface world??) Wardens wouldn't be able to do anything. Neither they could against creatures like Corypheus - the creature that was immune to their power, unlike Archdemon.

[Knight of Dane]

I was fine with it. I missed some of the fluidity in the Hawke personalities, but I was happy enough with what the Inquisitor got.

[Killdren88]

Wrong thread! sorry.

[rapscallioness]

If the Inquisitor's story was a weapon, I'd be calling for it to be nerfed. It's overpowered. Overpowered weapons make it too easy. Too easy is no challenge, or struggle in this case. No challenge is no fun.

 

Although, that's not specifically about the Quiz's personality.  Look, I don't want to disrespect others' enjoyment of their Inquisitor. I think that's awesome. I really do. As a Hawke lover I know that feel of loving a character only to see them being verbally abused. It makes you angry. Irrationally so because they're not real, but...it still ticked me off.

 

I just wish I connected with my Inquisitor like some others in this thread. I've tried many variations and none really stirred any spark for them in me. The female elf PT came the closest. And it's a little frustrating for me because I've never had this issue with a BW PC.

 

I will say that one of my favorite scenes with the Inquisitor was dealing with Florianne at the end of the Winter Palace quest. I liked that Quiz...a mild taunting, "what about our dance? see how you are," or something like that. And then a good shanking right then and there in front of the entire Winter Palace to a loud collective, "GASP!"

 

So, yeah. Enjoy yourselves, and may you have awesome dlc in the future to continue your story.

[In Exile]

One thing that I think contributes to the Inquisitor's relative dullness is the fact that we never see him fail, or find themselves at a lasting low point. With the Warden, there was Ostagar, and whatever your perspective on who to blame for Ferelden's defeat, it clearly was a defeat, and it leaves both you and the country in a weakened state. Post-Ostagar, the Warden has to just claw their way back up, and the repercussions of the army's loss are visibly and meaningfully felt. Hell, examining the Warden's failures is a key point of the Gauntlet as well, and seeing them come back despite the tragedies and losses in their life makes for some great storytelling. With Hawke, there are a couple, most notably the death of Leandra, and the game is good at showing how much that's affected Hawke. Where DAII falters is never really giving Hawke the chance to come back from these losses, but that's a rant for another time.

 

I can't agree with that at all. Ostagar has no connection with you as the Warden. Everything leading up to it is a disaster: Cailan is obviously an idiot and Loghain couldn't look more ominous if he just broke out in maniacal laughter at that war table meeting. It was so painfully obvious the darkspawn were going to win that I can't imagine how Bioware could telegraph it more without actual time travel. 

 

DA:O is an endless parade of victory. The Warden wins at absolutely everything, no matter what. No decision backfires. The only roadblock you ever experience is cutscene magic - the arrow that hits you and knocks you out of commission. 

 

I mean, it's great that you feel that Ostagar was this magical moment that brought the Warden low. But it's no different from Haven in DA:I. 

[In Exile]

Then why is the resolution to every plot thread either hopelessly contrived (ie; the Adamant arc, Cory's final death) or utterly underwhelming (ie; The Mage-Templar War, the Orlesian Civil War, sealing the Breach)? When you completed a main quest in Origins, it was always a real "Hell, yeah!" moment, and nothing in Inquisition ever came close. Yes, the scale was bigger in Inquisition, but that didn't make it more intense or engaging, it was all so shallow that it didn't really matter.

 

And again, it all goes back to that sense of struggle and effort that was missing in Inquisition. If you wanted to get a faction on your side in Origins, you had to work for it. Meanwhile, the Inquisitor closes what is basically the Eye of Terror without much of a fuss.

 

I have to say this again, but what struggle? Let's go through the list: at the Circle tower, you single handedly massacre your way through so many abominations that you literally cover the tower in blood while the templars are pissing themselves with fear waiting for the Rite of Annulment. In Redcliffe, you can curbstomp an entire demon invasion with absolutely 0 loss of life, including Connor and Isolde. At Haven, you massacre your way through a bunch of cultists, potentially even kill a high dragon on your way, and come back with the thinly-veiled equivalent of the Holy Grail to bring Eamon back from the mostly dead. In Orzammar, you slaughter you way through the Deep Roads, have a paragon give you a Crown, and then have the Orzammar assembly literally shrug their shoulders and go "Story sounds legit to us, we approve of your choice, strange Grey Warden with no connection to our city." Same thing with the Brecillian Forest, and then the Landsmeet. 

 

There's one difference between DA:O and DA:I - offscreen, the blight actually has some success. But that's it. 

[KaiserShep]

I will say that one of my favorite scenes with the Inquisitor was dealing with Florianne at the end of the Winter Palace quest. I liked that Quiz...a mild taunting, "what about our dance? see how you are," or something like that. And then a good shanking right then and there in front of the entire Winter Palace to a loud collective, "GASP!"

 

Yeah I loved that scene. It had everything going for it, like showing all of those masked party props who's boss.

[FumikoM]

I've been thinking about this since yesterday. In a sense the Inquisitor feels almost like Shepard in the first ME - her/his personality was a quite rough around the edges. Shepard did not have that defined personality you got in ME2 and 3, because of her/his experience in ME1. I'm hoping that if there is more for the Inquisitor, that who she/he is will change and result in a more defined dialogue choices. Not necessarily Hawke's 3 different ones, but something else. That all that has happen to her/him will show.

 

You don't get marked and live through so much and still stay that neutral, and in a sense lighthearted she/he is now. Unless of course the next DA will again feature another protagonist all together, in that case the Inquisitor will never change. Which would be sad, I want to see the Inquisitor grow, not be replaced.

[PhroXenGold]

I can't agree with that at all. Ostagar has no connection with you as the Warden. Everything leading up to it is a disaster: Cailan is obviously an idiot and Loghain couldn't look more ominous if he just broke out in maniacal laughter at that war table meeting. It was so painfully obvious the darkspawn were going to win that I can't imagine how Bioware could telegraph it more without actual time travel. 

 

DA:O is an endless parade of victory. The Warden wins at absolutely everything, no matter what. No decision backfires. The only roadblock you ever experience is cutscene magic - the arrow that hits you and knocks you out of commission. 

 

I mean, it's great that you feel that Ostagar was this magical moment that brought the Warden low. But it's no different from Haven in DA:I. 

 

Yeah, while I do agree with ThePhoenixKing's point that the Inquisitor's constant success does in many ways make them a less interesting character, DA:O was guilty of all the same things. I actually just pointed out in the thread on how "dark" the DA games are that DA:O shies away from any real "darkness" such as failure or genuine negative consequences (in game at least).

 

DA2 was the only of the three that actually made you face up to failure on behalf of the lead character. Which is probably a big part of why, for all that it was a flawed game that was rushed through development, I'm firmly of the opinion that it had best story and protagontist of the three (and, I suspect. part of why many people don't like the story and character. Acting out heroic fanatsies is rather popular after all.).

[MissOuJ]

I have to say that I 100% agree with you, although it didn't really occur to me how different your Inquisitor's personality and story can develop through the story until I did my obligatory pro-Templar playthrough - and ended up with a Inquisitor I despised. I actually hated her so much I wanted to completely erase all my safe files. And it's not like I set out to do it on purpose - I was just trying to role-play a character who I could see siding with the Templars (devout Andrastian, with relatively close ties with the Nobility / Templar order, and so on).

 

In the end, I ended up with a non-mage, super-elitist Trevelyan who was sure she was the Maker's Chosen One and rationalized it away even after the Fade and meeting Justinia made it clear there was no divine intervention involved. She didn't care about anyone who couldn't be of any use to her, or who she considered "dangerous" or "irrelevant". When I was playing, I got access to new dialogue choices and decisions I hadn't seen before, like absolving ser Ruth "in the name of the Maker", telling Corypheus that I am the Maker's Chosen One during the final fight, etc. It would've been amazing, if I hand't wanted to strangle her most of the time. Ever since that playthrough, I've had completely new appreciation for my other Inquisitors and how different they are.

[Majestic Jazz]

One thing that I think contributes to the Inquisitor's relative dullness is the fact that we never see him fail, or find themselves at a lasting low point. With the Warden, there was Ostagar, and whatever your perspective on who to blame for Ferelden's defeat, it clearly was a defeat, and it leaves both you and the country in a weakened state. Post-Ostagar, the Warden has to just claw their way back up, and the repercussions of the army's loss are visibly and meaningfully felt. Hell, examining the Warden's failures is a key point of the Gauntlet as well, and seeing them come back despite the tragedies and losses in their life makes for some great storytelling. With Hawke, there are a couple, most notably the death of Leandra, and the game is good at showing how much that's affected Hawke. Where DAII falters is never really giving Hawke the chance to come back from these losses, but that's a rant for another time.

With the Inquisitor, however, everything is smooth sailing. The only real low point for them is the destruction of Haven, and that's almost instantly mitigated by the fact that they find Skyhold immediately thereafter. That's not a grand tragedy, that's called "trading up for a better model," and it illustrates one of the major flaws of Inquisition's story. Hawke and the Warden had to fight tooth and nail for everything they got, which makes their accomplishments far more meaningful. The Inquisitor, meanwhile, gets handed everything on a platter. A shiny new fortress? An army that's somehow the most powerful fighting force in Southern Thedas, and is inexplicably capable of fighting off the Grey Wardens and a massive army of demons simultanuously? The diplomatic leverage needed to have just about every faction in Southern Thedas fighting to the death over who gets to lick your boots first? All of it, with barely any effort on the Inquisitor's behalf.

Great insight!!

Also do not forget that Shepard had a low moment in the middle if the game with the Virmire mission.

But yeah, when it is all said and done the IQ was too clean cut and sterile. There was no edge to him/her, nothing, just a blank stale state that requires you to head cannon everything.

Going back to Shepard, in Mass Effect 1 we physically encountered people from our past which was based around your personal background of being a Spacer, Earthborn, or Colonist and military background of being a War Hero, Sole Survivor, or Ruthless. Most of these side quest took place on the citadel and allowed you to better flesh out your character instead of having to imagine. Like an escaped slave who had extreme PTSD due to being treated less than human by the Bartarian slavers and sort of makes Shepard feel guilty because he/she was saved by the Alliance before being enslaved. Or being able to have a conversatiom with your mother if your Shepard has the Spacer background. In DAO you experienced all this in your origins story and was touched upon more when you went back to your origin locations later in the story. In DA2 you had the entire prologe which had you escaping Lothering with your family, seeing a sibling die, meeting Flemeth, and selling yourself to indentured servitude to make money all before the start of ACT 1. Then throughout the game through conversations with family members, you learned more about your past and your place within the family. Again DAI had NONE of these.