232 réponses à ce sujet

[Melyanna]

First of all, I wish games in general had the quality of writing that Inquisition has.

The main reason why I love the Dragon Age saga is the brilliant writing (same goes for Mass Effect, NWN and Baldur's Gate of course).

 

The only bit that really bothered me in Inquisiton, is how sometimes the NPCs do not seem to recognize your character is of a specific race.

I am also a bit disappointed by the dialogues after you finish the game. You can keep playing, but everything feels a bit "dead" in terms of interaction with NPCs.

 

But both things are inevitable, so I am not complaining too much. I think the writing overall is brilliant.

[BansheeOwnage]

First of all, I wish games in general had the quality of writing that Inquisition has.

The main reason why I love the Dragon Age saga is the brilliant writing (same goes for Mass Effect, NWN and Baldur's Gate of course).

 

The only bit that really bothered me in Inquisiton, is how sometimes the NPCs do not seem to recognize your character is of a specific race.

I am also a bit disappointed by the dialogues after you finish the game. You can keep playing, but everything feels a bit "dead" in terms of interaction with NPCs.

 

But both things are inevitable, so I am not complaining too much. I think the writing overall is brilliant.

The lack of acknowledgement of races probably has to do with the fact that they added them in late. It's a shame, but not entirely unexpected. I just hope that for DA4, they decide to either make it human-only, or multiple-raced from the start, and not change their mind partly through development. I'm expecting multiple races to be the standard if they were willing to add them for Inquisition.

[NasChoka]

There were a few things
-how can flemeth survive absorbing the soul of the archdemon? Isn't that how you kill an archdemon?
-why does corypheus need the orb to enter the city? Can't he use bloodmagic or lyrium or what he used the first time?
-hawke leaves while the world is still in danger

[BSpud]

It was introduced hamfistedly and it was poor exposition IMO. The only purpose for DA:I's time-traveling moments was to show "this is what happens if you don't stop the breach" but it felt like Saturday morning cartoon stuff.

 

You not enjoying it is your problem. Still not a deus ex machina.

[Evamitchelle]

There are 2 things that really bother me:

• During "In Hushed Whispers", why are demons still pouring out of rifts ? If the Veil is torn down, the Fade and the real world aren't separate anymore and demons shouldn't need rifts to get through. They'd already be here. 

• What happens to your companions when you face Corypheus in Haven ? Like, do they just leave you to die and make a beeline for the secret passage in the Chantry - and then manage to get far enough during that 5mn conversation with Corypheus to outrun the avalanche ? Or are they only here in a gameplay capacity and not actually present ? They just disappear when Corypheus shows up. 

Am I missing something or are those just examples of gameplay/story segregation ?

[BansheeOwnage]

• What happens to your companions when you face Corypheus in Haven ? Like, do they just leave you to die and make a beeline for the secret passage in the Chantry - and then manage to get far enough during that 5mn conversation with Corypheus to outrun the avalanche ? Or are they only here in a gameplay capacity and not actually present ? They just disappear when Corypheus shows up. 

Am I missing something or are those just examples of gameplay/story segregation ?

This is a pretty weird one, and oddly enough is not due to gameplay-story segregation. Your Inquisitor will yell "Go!" when Corypheus shows up. That on its own makes pretty much no sense.

 

To rectify this, last playthrough I chose to do that mission solo because I thought it was both more heroic and it made more sense. Unfortunately though, you can't dismiss party members mid-mission so you have to fight alone during the first battle instead of after you get to the chantry. Also, you still yell "Go!" to nobody. Oh well, it was cool.

[TammieAZ]

The fact that they made Corypheus the main big-bad of DAI . Was hoping we'd fight someone new or that Corypheus was working for someone else .

And also  that we weren't given the option to bring Connor back with us to Skyhold.  

[ShadowLordXII]

The Dalish mage thing is wrong. Or rather, the Dalish rhetoric about mages never added up. Mages are revered, except for the fact that they're traded like chattel between clans, as if they were brood mares or studs. That's already a pretty dehumanising and radical treatment - to have it also involve population control is entirely consistent.

Dalish treat SOME mages well - the ones who lead them - and that's not particularly different from their attitude toward elves.

While I'm sure this is a DAI originating addition to the lore I think it's 100% consistent with the Dalish we've seen. People just keep thinking the Dalish are way nicer than we see them repeatedly portrayed to be in-game. The first openly friendly clan, with nothing to hide and no effective dictatorship, we meet in DAI is in DAI.

 

Traded like cattle?

 

Those born with magic were given to clans that didn't have as many mages or even no mages at all. Plus, the fact that Lanaya had competition for her position as first implies that there were more than just 3 mages in her clan at that time.

 

Being traded like cattle would mean that the mages are being treated like dirt or animals. But there's nothing in the games to indicate that the mages are being treated as nothing more than tools. Or else why are mages placed into positions of importance or leadership such as being healers, keepers or even support for warriors?

 

If this was Dalish policy the whole time, then the writers are even at more fault for not being clear with this. Now things regarding the dalish's treatment of mages are inconsistent between what we've seen and what we're told. Again, if Minaeve's case was a rare/conditional exception by one or a few clans then fine. But for all of them to throw out mages despite how they revere and need them?  What we've got here is a clear contradiction forced into the game to try to put the Dalish on level with the Chantry to avoid "bias".

[untuvainen]

FREAKING SOLAS and his "identity crisis" considering elves! One moment he's all like "My people.? Oh. You mean elves. You silly sod, I don't consider myself one of THOSE.", then the next "I thought maybe the sound of OUR people's language might tickle your funny bone Sera."

 

//edit

Also the whole infamous "Mythal? Who in blazes is that? Tell me moar Morrigan" when dalish elf.

[The Baconer]

This codex.

 

Supposedly an excerpt from a book called "Edicts of the Black Divine"... but written by a Father of the Imperial Chantry... but utilizes language that implies the author is neither a figure within the Imperial Chantry or a Tevinter at all.

[In Exile]

Traded like cattle?

Those born with magic were given to clans that didn't have as many mages or even no mages at all. Plus, the fact that Lanaya had competition for her position as first implies that there were more than just 3 mages in her clan at that time.

Being traded like cattle would mean that the mages are being treated like dirt or animals. But there's nothing in the games to indicate that the mages are being treated as nothing more than tools. Or else why are mages placed into positions of importance or leadership such as being healers, keepers or even support for warriors?

If this was Dalish policy the whole time, then the writers are even at more fault for not being clear with this. Now things regarding the dalish's treatment of mages are inconsistent between what we've seen and what we're told. Again, if Minaeve's case was a rare/conditional exception by one or a few clans then fine. But for all of them to throw out mages despite how they revere and need them? What we've got here is a clear contradiction forced into the game to try to put the Dalish on level with the Chantry to avoid "bias".

We don't know when a clan might evict someone - for all we know the competition Lanaya had could have fallen within this period. But I agree that whoever wrote that story absolutely wrote it with no particular regard for the idea it would be Lanaya + one other person.

But I have to absolutely disagree that the idea that young mage children are traded between clans isnt fundamentally repugnant to what we recognise as basic human values. Even if we assume the Dalish raise their children communally so this isn't a case of outright ripping children from their parents (which is monstrous) you're just pushing the issue down to ripping children from their home community, which is just as bad.

This is like Tevinter. Some mages - the one who is a Keeper, or a First - gets to be treated well. But not all of them do. This was Dorian's point. And I think it would be entirely consistent with the DAO Dalish to evict kids from a clan, which is only a few steps below just trading them.

[Statare]

We don't know when a clan might evict someone - for all we know the competition Lanaya had could have fallen within this period. But I agree that whoever wrote that story absolutely wrote it with no particular regard for the idea it would be Lanaya + one other person.

But I have to absolutely disagree that the idea that young mage children are traded between clans isnt fundamentally repugnant to what we recognise as basic human values. Even if we assume the Dalish raise their children communally so this isn't a case of outright ripping children from their parents (which is monstrous) you're just pushing the issue down to ripping children from their home community, which is just as bad.

This is like Tevinter. Some mages - the one who is a Keeper, or a First - gets to be treated well. But not all of them do. This was Dorian's point. And I think it would be entirely consistent with the DAO Dalish to evict kids from a clan, which is only a few steps below just trading them.

 

The Circle system was also responsible for taking young children away from their parents / everything they knew, and Andrastrian superstition/bigotry against magic resulted in the general mistreatment of young mages. This is by no means a Dalish only issue; mage children across Thedas are taken from their families/moved around with little or no consent. That's kind of the point of how DA established magic in Thedas: because of the stigma (both good and bad) around magic, mages are dehumanized (or de-elfinized or de-qunarisized).

 

And while we focus on the mage issue because it is obvious, this is really the state of Thedas in general. Most people suffer, while the minority do well. Even with the Dalish problems, their communal values and interest in magic, added to their desire to learn about secrets of the past are revolutionary and subversive in Thedas which is largely a patronage based society, fearful of magic, and completely ignorant of anything that did not happen the day before yesterday. 

[In Exile]

I do not think the Dalish are unique in their mistreatment nor necessarily worse than the common offenders (this being the Circle). I just do not think that it is contrary to their established practice to say that they would maroon Circle because of pragmatic considerations (too many mages) based on what we have seen them do thus far.

I also think you greatly overstate Dalish inquisitiveness. Merrill was inquisitive and she was evicted from her clan for it. The typical Dalish we meet are quite rigid in their approach to magic and knowledge. Apart from their general unwillingness to critically examine their own narrative, they are generally deferential to their keepers in a way that is quite anti-knowledge. The manner in which they failed to investigate Zathrian is a rather clear example, but so too is the attitude adopted by Marethari when it came to the reconstruction of the Eluvian. We even see it with how Merrill used Mythal's title, and Flemeth called her out on it.

The Dalish are every bit as anti intellectual and rigid as the Chantry or Tevinter. That was a large part of Solas' story when it came to the Dalish: they wholly rejected someone who conveyed a tremendous depth of knowledge of their own people based on their cultural isolationism. That is not a subversive culture.

[erilben]

Minaeve says she was kicked out when her magic manifested. She was never trained under the Dalish. It's strange Lanaya could actually have competition if Dalish actually kick out all their extra mages.

[themageguy]

Cole explains that templars and dwarves are a very similar kind of thing. It's his "they reach out for something old and there isn't room for the magic to get it" when he compares templars to Varric.

He then goes on to say that for the inquisitor, the mark 'fills you up'

Interesting stuff.

[NasChoka]

Minaeve says she was kicked out when her magic manifested. She was never trained under the Dalish. It's strange Lanaya could actually have competition if Dalish actually kick out all their extra mages.

True. And would they accept city elves like Lanaya if it means they might have to kick out a mage from their clan later?

This rule seems very strange if their magic is considered a gift that all elves had once. Also the keepers/mages lead the dalish and have the biggest chance to have mage-children. Why would they create or enforce this rule?

[PhroXenGold]

Minaeve says she was kicked out when her magic manifested. She was never trained under the Dalish. It's strange Lanaya could actually have competition if Dalish actually kick out all their extra mages.

 

Don't make the mistake of assuming all Dalish clans act in the same manner.

[Shechinah]

It would not make sense, in my opinon, for all the Dalish clans to share the same culture and rules as each other since they'd be living in different areas with some isolated and some close to human settlements. 

 

While most of them strive for an understanding of their lost culture and past, they'd likely have different interpretations of what they find and would interact differently with outsiders depending on previous experiences; a clan that has experienced heavily hostility would likely not be terribly welcoming towards humans or the idea of trading with them versus a clan that has had good experiences and would see a benefit rather than the risk outweighing that potential benefit.

 

Similarly the situation with mages; one clan might see it as a necessary sacrifice for the good of the clan because of a lack of room, resources, insufficent training or to avoid drawing attention from outsiders while another clan would see casting these people out from the clan as unacceptable and even consider it disrespectful towards their past people's legacy. Trading their mages like in Merill's case is a compromise but in some cases, that might not be an option due to their location or because of lacks with other clans. 

 

TL:DR - For all of the Dalish clans to be rid themselves of their magical youths one way or another would be... odd, in my opinion.    

[In Exile]

True. And would they accept city elves like Lanaya if it means they might have to kick out a mage from their clan later?

This rule seems very strange if their magic is considered a gift that all elves had once. Also the keepers/mages lead the dalish and have the biggest chance to have mage-children. Why would they create or enforce this rule?

It's the same reason as why they treat CEs - from a cultural and religious POV - as inferiors. It would feed into a cultural narrative. The Dalish are not as nice as people seem to think. But that doesn't make them bad - just not better than other groups in Thedas.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

The ending's writing was a bit messy, sudden and anticlimactic, also the lack of presence of your companions, then them suddenly showing up was rather jarring. 

[Shechinah]

In regards to the debacle about the Qunari and transgenderism and my own post at #53, I thought I'd present this theory;

 

The Qun is a strict philosophy which demands adherence to it and that may be exactly why they have their different view of gender; If it is said in their sacred writing that certain roles cannot be fufilled by people of a certain gender then that would create a contradiction when a person displays excellent merit when it comes to fighting. The contradiction would not cease to exist because the person is told they cannot fight because the contradiction lies in that they can fight at all. To ensure the philosophy remains infallible, it is interpretated that the person must then be male because only a male would be capable of that sort of skill. This erases the contradiction while still adhering to the rigid of the philosophy.

 

TL:DR - The Qun does not define gender by a biological sex but by which skill an individual displays.

 

"You are a Grey Warden so it follows you cannot be a woman" (...) "I am a woman and I fight." "One of those things can't be true." - Sten & F!Warden dialogue.

 

A interpretation of this dialogue could be that since Sten has seen the Warden fight and knows them to be capable of it then the thing that cannot be true is their claim to be female since that claim is clearly contradicted by their role. Sten can accept that they are a warrior and Sten can accept that they are a female but he cannot accept both of the two beause they are contradictory to each other. If the Warden denied their gender and claimed to be male then there'd be no contradiction to Sten. He has an issue with the claim, not with their biology.

[Dieb]

TL:DR - The Qun does not define gender by a biological sex but by which skill an individual displays.

 

That's pretty much what The Gaider said in a thread criticising this precise thing a couple of weeks ago, yes.

[Shechinah]

That's pretty much what The Gaider said in a thread criticising this precise thing a couple of weeks ago, yes.

I wanted to try and explain it a bit differently since I thought of a better way than my last post.

 

Different perceptions of gender can be a difficult thing to grasp especially if it is removed from perception of biological gender. I think some of the response it got was because of how it was explained in Inquisition by Iron Bull as it is not as much acceptance of transgenderism as it is a way of adhering to the Qun philosophy when faced with things that would occur and be seen as contradiction to a philosophy claimed by to be infallible.

 

It is still not up to the individual person to decide whichever role they wish to have and whichever gender they have; if a male wants to be a baker but lacks the skill to fill the role which he has when it comes to a male role then he'd likely be re-educated for claiming to belong to the female role because his lack of skill in that role is contradictory to his claim.

 

Krem could claim to the high moons and down that he was male but if he did not have the skill of combat to present as evidence then his claim would no evidence to back it up.

[In Exile]

In regards to the debacle about the Qunari and transgenderism and my own post at #53, I thought I'd present this theory;

 

The Qun is a strict philosophy which demands adherence to it and that may be exactly why they have their different view of gender; If it is said in their sacred writing that certain roles cannot be fufilled by people of a certain gender then that would create a contradiction when a person displays excellent merit when it comes to fighting. The contradiction would not cease to exist because the person is told they cannot fight because the contradiction lies in that they can fight at all. To ensure the philosophy remains infallible, it is interpretated that the person must then be male because only a male would be capable of that sort of skill. This erases the contradiction while still adhering to the rigid of the philosophy.

 

TL:DR - The Qun does not define gender by a biological sex but by which skill an individual displays.

 

"You are a Grey Warden so it follows you cannot be a woman" (...) "I am a woman and I fight." "One of those things can't be true." - Sten & F!Warden dialogue.

 

A interpretation of this dialogue could be that since Sten has seen the Warden fight and knows them to be capable of it then the thing that cannot be true is their claim to be female since that claim is clearly contradicted by their role. Sten can accept that they are a warrior and Sten can accept that they are a female but he cannot accept both of the two beause they are contradictory to each other. If the Warden denied their gender and claimed to be male then there'd be no contradiction to Sten. He has an issue with the claim, not with their biology.

 

To build on this point, the Qun solves the logical incoherence differently from Sten. We can illustrate with formal logic and elementary philosophy.

 

1. The Qun says, "Warrior" <=> "Man". We don't know what either of these terms actually refer to in the Qun because the Qunari don't work on a correspondence theory of truth. Their understanding of terms seems to basically be the Platonic idea of "Forms" but applied to categories.
2. One implication of the above bi-conditional is NOT "Man" => NOT "Warrior". The Qun seems to assume NOT "Man" <=> Woman and NOT Woman <=> Man. Let's accept for the moment that this is true.
3. The Qun further says "Woman" <=> NOT "Warrior". This leads to the conclusion that "Warrior" => NOT "Woman". 
4. The HOF tells Sten two things: (i) HOF = Warrior; and (ii) HOF = Woman. 
5. Sten reasons it out. Warrior => Man. HOF = Man. 
6. But then Sten remembers HOF = Woman. And Woman => NOT Man. But HOF = Warrior. But Warrior => Man. And Man => NOT Woman. 
7. Sten can't handle the logical black hole. He has two options. HOF = Warrior is false OR HOF = Woman is false. 
8. Sten has eyes. HOF = Warrior. This must be true. Therefore, he reasons, HOF = Woman is false.

The Qun sorts this mess out the other way. It would say HOF = Woman is false. This is presumably pragmatic. It's worth more to society to get someone like the HOF to = Warrior than = Woman.