138 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

It's not like she adds anything just by being a dwarf. No, what's actually weird is that Dagna wasn't involved in the DLC whatsoever. You know, the person who is incredibly enthusiastic (not to mention helpful) when it comes to magic, lyrium, stone-sense, etc? Yeah. The fact that they didn't have Dagna even comment on anything that happened in the DLC but had Harding do a couple of lines is beyond ludicrous.

Dagna would have been awesome to have in The Descent. I could just see her in awe of everything on our way down. 

[BansheeOwnage]

Every single thing the Venatori did throughout the game. From making people slaves, to turning people into monstrosities via Red Lyrium, to murdering hundreds if not thousands of innocent people, to helping Corypheus try to destroy/conquer the world.

I'm not arguing that the Venatori took slaves, just that it confuses me because it's inconsistent with Calpernia's personality. She's an ascended slave, and it's been a while since I've done a playthrough with her, but I seem to remember her buying slaves to free them (at least more or less), and disintegrating someone who harmed them. She also didn't want a former slave to do a menial task for her; she'd do it herself. Did I miss something, or is this just inconsistent?

 

I think DA4 could just focus on the inquisitor again, seeing how this game ends. Making possible for him to drink from the well would be quite useless, if they change character again.

I really hope so. They could still have a new location and new companions if they wish. I don't feel like the Inquisitor's or the Inquisition's story is over, especially given the fact that the Inquisition cannot be disbanded and the Inquisitor is not given the option to retire. I'd be quite annoyed if both are pushed to the sidelines in the next game considering the lack of choice we had at the end in that regard.

 

To me, it seems like taking away options that really should be up to the player should only lead to more content, meaning: If we can't disband the Inquisition/retire as our characters would, they better have another game with the Inquisition. I also want this because I'm getting annoyed at our protagonists "mysteriously disappearing", and I would be vexed if that happened to the Inquisition, which is now almost a nation unto itself.

 

Lastly, and foremost, I am sick of character-whiplash (having to meet new people again just after becoming previous companions' friends/having to build a new character right after finally getting some character development). Even though the Inquisitor is my least favourite protagonist of the 3, I'd much rather continue her story, with her friends, and develop her and their characters than have to start yet again.

[BansheeOwnage]

Dagna would have been awesome to have in The Descent. I could just see her in awe of everything on our way down. 

If I were the Inquisitor, I'd have taken her in a heartbeat. She's be very helpful and it would be a great experience for her.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Exactly! I'd much rather have the advisors be able to do their jobs than just have Harding tell us everything and promptly disappear. They are indeed sidelining all of the advisors, even more than they were in the main game. I mean, I may grumble to myself, but I don't go around complaining about the advisors getting a bit less content in the main game, and besides, we can't change that now. But when they aren't in DLC (things that we can change before they come out), the gap becomes bigger, a lot of people miss their favourite characters and I get sad. And I will complain about that.

 

My thoughts exactly. I'd much rather see more of our Inner Circle than add a tiny bit more depth onto a nobody, if it's resources they're concerned about.

 

I agree about complaining about not seeing our favorite characters in future DLC. It's for that reason I'll always complain about not getting enough Scout Harding in them.

 

If it comes down to resources, I'd take more Harding content over more advisers just about every single time. They've already had a fair bit of content, she needs more. They've started developing her and her relationship to the Inquisitor further in Jaws of Hakkon. But it could still use more content to make it feel more complete.

 

It's not like she adds anything just by being a dwarf. No, what's actually weird is that Dagna wasn't involved in the DLC whatsoever. You know, the person who is incredibly enthusiastic (not to mention helpful) when it comes to magic, lyrium, stone-sense, etc? Yeah. The fact that they didn't have Dagna even comment on anything that happened in the DLC but had Harding do a couple of lines is beyond ludicrous.

 

 

She's your main scout, you're expanding further into strange and unknown territory. It's not even slightly strange that Harding showed up. It would have been conspicuous if she didn't appear actually.

[Gilsa]

Dagna was definitely a missed opportunity for the DLC. She might have asked to stay behind with Valta even. The knowledge she'd gain from the DLC might have also impacted her lines in the game with the Samson/Calpernia story arc so it might have just been easier for the writers to leave her behind. Just a theory.

[warblewobble]

Good question. My money's on Varric as the POV character.

[BansheeOwnage]

I agree about complaining about not seeing our favorite characters in future DLC. It's for that reason I'll always complain about not getting enough Scout Harding in them.

 

If it comes down to resources, I'd take more Harding content over more advisers just about every single time. They've already had a fair bit of content, she needs more. They've started developing her and her relationship to the Inquisitor further in Jaws of Hakkon. But it could still use more content to make it feel more complete.

 

She's your main scout, you're expanding further into strange and unknown territory. It's not even slightly strange that Harding showed up. It would have been conspicuous if she didn't appear actually.

Completely disagree. The advisors are supposed to be equal in content to the companions, in other words the entire Inner circle is supposed to get the same amount of love. Personally liking a character is not a good enough reason for them to be included more, whereas including more content for the main cast, and attempting to maintain the equality that was assured is. Trust me, there are a few people in the Inner circle that I don't like at all, but I will fight for more content for them regardless. I will not fight for more content of a side-character if the resources could be spent on something more important, just because I like that character. It's basically asking for more content for one single companion because they're your favourite.

 

Harding only has any small amount of personality because of Jaws of Hakkon, therefore I wish they would have never expanded on her in favour of expanding on every main character, but particularly the ones that had less content to begin with. I also never said it was strange that she was in JoH, I just said that it was ludicrous that she did show up in Descent instead of Dagna, and I am annoyed at her showing up out of nowhere in specific parts of those DLCs at the main game. She has a strange ability to teleport to wherever the Inquisitor is, apparently. I also don't think her relationship to the Inquisitor was fleshed out at all, and barely her personality either, just her backstory.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Completely disagree. The advisors are supposed to be equal in content to the companions, in other words the entire Inner circle is supposed to get the same amount of love.

 

Based on what? Even if they are meant to be important, the fact that they don't travel with the Inquisitor means by their very nature they can't have the same level of content as the companions. 

 

 I will not fight for more content of a side-character if the resources could be spent on something more important, just because I like that character. 

 

By that same logic, the three advisers shouldn't get any more content than they do, because if they deserved it, they would have already gotten it.

 

Personally liking a character is not a good enough reason for them to be included more, 

 

But when they aren't in DLC (things that we can change before they come out), the gap becomes bigger, a lot of people miss their favourite characters and I get sad. And I will complain about that.

 

That's exactly the reason you said you would complain about them not being included. 

 

Harding only has any small amount of personality because of Jaws of Hakkon, therefore I wish they would have never expanded on her in favour of expanding on every main character, but particularly the ones that had less content to begin with.

 

That's clearly an exaggeration. She had a personality that was expanded on in Jaws of Hakkon and yes, her relationship to the Inquisitor was developed further. Both in Jaws of Hakkon and the main game. She talks about what the Inquisitor means to her at various points, as a symbol and as a person.

 

I also never said it was strange that she was in JoH, I just said that it was ludicrous that she did show up in Descent instead of Dagna, and I am annoyed at her showing up out of nowhere in specific parts of those DLCs at the main game.

 

There is literally no reason Harding should not have showed up in Descent. And Dagna is not someone who is has any training in combat, she couldn't have followed the Inquisitor all the way down to the Titan while they were wading through endless waves of strange hostiles. She couldn't have been very useful until maybe having a few comments at the very end. 

[BansheeOwnage]

I forget how to do the multiple separated quote thingy, otherwise I'd respond. Help?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I'm not arguing that the Venatori took slaves, just that it confuses me because it's inconsistent with Calpernia's personality. She's an ascended slave, and it's been a while since I've done a playthrough with her, but I seem to remember her buying slaves to free them (at least more or less), and disintegrating someone who harmed them. She also didn't want a former slave to do a menial task for her; she'd do it herself. Did I miss something, or is this just inconsistent?

It's just inconsistency. Calpernia apparently frees some slaves, yet at the same time the main operations of the Venatori utilize slaves. Like the Red Lyrium shipment to Minrathous we stop with the Qunari and the expedition in the Hissing Wastes, the latter or which reports directly to Calpernia so there is no way she doesn't know about the abuse the slaves go through and yet she keeps giving them more to complete their mission.

 

 

Based on what? Even if they are meant to be important, the fact that they don't travel with the Inquisitor means by their very nature they can't have the same level of content as the companions. 

Bioware stated that the adviser characters would receive the same amount of resources as the companion characters. 

[leaguer of one]

Please no more returning characters. I want new never seen characters.

Not going to happen. The need to some how be killed off.

[Dai Grepher]

Is he ever actually confirmed dead?  Do you see the body?

 

Actually...

 

*Warning: Gruesome image depicting death*

 

Spoiler

j/k

 

No, we don't see his body, but based on certain circumstances it can be assumed that he will be executed. For example, if Celene rules alone, has a bad relationship with the Inquisition, and the Grey Wardens were exiled, then it's likely that Thom will follow through on his promise to own up to his crimes and pay the price. There will be no Wardens to get him out of it, and he would not willingly go with anyone else.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Bioware stated that the adviser characters would receive the same amount of resources as the companion characters. 

 

Except they can't banter and can't react to any out in the world that you take your companions to see. That itself is a fair amount of content. In fact it might even be most of their content.

[Dai Grepher]

The Venatori (who Calpernia commands) did kill some Tranquil to create Shard-detecting skulls.

She attacked Haven, but the Inquisition is a military force, so it's hardly an 'atrocity'. 

 

I cannot think of anything more she did, that was objectively wrong.

I can even argue, that murdering Tranquil is not evil, as they are not fully sentient (I don't really think so, but it's a matter of opinion, not an objective fact). 

 

Samson is more of a monster, as he force fed Red Lyrium to prisoners, infected whole areas with it, and was one of the forces behind corrupting most of the Templars, which twisted many of them into monsters like Horrors and Behemoths. 

 

I think the worst she did was kill elves in the temple. Other than that, most of her rage was focused on bad people like Vicenius the slaver who was inflicting physical injury on slaves.

 

Most of her time was spent preparing to become the vessel for the Well of Sorrows. She didn't even command most parts of the Venatori. Those were run by their own separate generals who each had their own tasks.

 

And in the end, she will turn on Corypheus when she learns the truth about him. So I wouldn't even put her on the evil spectrum. She was one of those well intending sorts who will do unsavory things to achieve a positive result that will benefit in the long run. A lot of characters in the DA universe are like that.
 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

She's the head of a cult that's agenda was to "spill the blood of the south" and conquer the world, of course she's evil. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Except they can't banter and can't react to any out in the world that you take your companions to see. That itself is a fair amount of content. In fact it might even be most of their content.

That got matched with the advisers having banter around the War Table and being involved in more of the main story, like showing up in more cutscenes. 

All I know is Bioware said that each adviser and each companion got the same amount of resources. 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

That got matched with the advisers having banter around the War Table and being involved in more of the main story, like showing up in more cutscenes. 

All I know is Bioware said that each adviser and each companion got the same amount of resources. 

 

There's no way there's the same level of banter content between those 3 at the war table and all 9 companions. I'm pretty sure one of the devs also said that the fact that they don't go out in the world or participate in party banter is one of the differences between companions and advisers. 

 

I forget how to do the multiple separated quote thingy, otherwise I'd respond. Help?   

 

It's just a drawn out process of quoting something several times and deleting all the respective superfluous parts each time.

[FiveThreeTen]

To me, it seems like taking away options that really should be up to the player should only lead to more content, meaning: If we can't disband the Inquisition/retire as our characters would, they better have another game with the Inquisition. I also want this because I'm getting annoyed at our protagonists "mysteriously disappearing", and I would be vexed if that happened to the Inquisition, which is now almost a nation unto itself.

 

Lastly, and foremost, I am sick of character-whiplash (having to meet new people again just after becoming previous companions' friends/having to build a new character right after finally getting some character development). Even though the Inquisitor is my least favourite protagonist of the 3, I'd much rather continue her story, with her friends, and develop her and their characters than have to start yet again.

I think the writers could easily go around that. In fact, I assume most of your forces are made of Ferelden and Orlesians folks. Like the previous Inquisition I kinda expect them to return to their farms/respective countries after the conflict with a mainforce remaining as an arm of the Chantry or if not a sort of policing force which main base remain religious. Cullen even mentions this at the end of Inquisition when you talk to him. He says despite most of out forces leaving, we still have people who want to stay. So yes we still have a sizeable force at the end of the game, and the Inquisition could still mobilize people if there is a Qunari conflict but calling it a nation (and I don't think that concept could really be transposed to the Thedas setting) is a bit much.

 

 

There's no way there's the same level of banter content between those 3 at the war table and all 9 companions. I'm pretty sure one of the devs said that the fact that they don't go out in the world or participate in party banter is one of the differences between companions and advisers. 

 

 

It's just a drawn out process of quoting something several times and deleting all the the superfluous parts.

 

This.

 

It already wasn't really "matched" in the main game. The advisors banter are really short. On the other end many people didn't hear many companions banters. If I didn't use Cheat Engine I wouldn't hear them much. And so much of those banters are important for their characterization, because they don't interact much with eachother in Skyhold.

In the end it's all a matter of persperctive, I think advisors had the lion share of content compared to some companions, particularly in terms of cutscenes and being involved in the main plot. Optional companions don't really have that.

 

Bioware saying they spent the same amount of resources on companions and advisors could mean many things and not that it would be 100% equal. It's impossible by virtue of them being advisors and companions accompanying you on missions/being optional.

[Fearsome1]

Dagna was definitely a missed opportunity for the DLC. She might have asked to stay behind with Valta even. The knowledge she'd gain from the DLC might have also impacted her lines in the game with the Samson/Calpernia story arc so it might have just been easier for the writers to leave her behind. Just a theory.

 

It could have been epic experience for The Descent companion party to have been comprised solely of the Inquisitor, Lt. Renn, Shaper Valta, Scout Harding and Dagna. If only?

[Shevy]

I hope that none of our recent companions will come back as DA IV companion. DA IV desperately needs a skip in time and/or space to have the opportunity of ejecting a lot of old ballast. With all the reappearing characters our known Thedas feels so compressed - more like a neighborhood instead of big countries.

 

If we're going to Tevinter next, then please add in only characters that have a good reasoning to be there, e.g. Shale looking for a cure.

[Fearsome1]

Speculation based upon dev teases does lean towards us likely being Tevinter bound for DA4, but whether that proves to be ultimately accurate remains to be seen (and a few years away).

 

If so, then certainly Dorian, Iron Bull and perhaps the popular Scout Harding may make return appearances to some extent in DA4. I could easily see Fenris, Calpernia and possible wild card Shale too. For me, and regardless of my opinion on these few characters; that is about where I feel the continuity should end.

 

I like those who also somehow manage to pop up each time, such as Leliana, Alistair, Morrigan and especially Flemeth, but it is time to widen the scope of our travels throughout Thedas and the credibility of all of them showing up in such diverse locales may become stretched beyond suspension of disbelief if Bioware isn't careful?

[daveliam]

Speculation based upon dev teases does lean towards us likely being Tevinter bound for DA4, but whether that proves to be ultimately accurate remains to be seen (and a few years away).

 

I haven't seen any dev teases that hint towards Tevinter for DA4.  Any links?  I'm genuinely curious.

[Wulfram]

I haven't seen any dev teases that hint towards Tevinter for DA4.  Any links?  I'm genuinely curious.

 

I think this is the main one, which isn't just Tevinter

 

http://www.gamespot....u/1100-6423437/

"I would say we've covered most of the South, I think we've covered the Chantry enough. But I do want to look more toward the North, I want to see what happens to nations like Tevinter, and Rivain, and do more with the Qunari."

[Andraste_Reborn]

My personal hope is that  'north' actually means Seheron. It just seems like such a rich environment for a player character to mess with - contested territory between Tevinter and the Qunari with Fog Warriors on the side and the local population stuck in the middle of it all. It would let us get a closer look at Tevinter culture without requiring the developers to actually build Minrathous in game. (Because we know how that turned out with Val Royeux ...)

[TevinterSupremacist]

None, I hope.