They would alienate part of the fanbase if they'll give people only a death ending with no other choices.
I think they have already learned the lesson with ME3 endings: there are many players who simply don't like to see their character die after they spent hundreds of hours in playing him/her.
Guest_Evie_*
Weekes is a profressional troll, so I wouldn't stake too much on this. Hopefully
.
Myself I think Quizzy dying is an option. But I certainly hope it's not inevitable.
I think it's an option too. On Twitter people are getting hostile at the thought of losing their Inquisitor. Also he did get the book spoiler correct and was not trolling when someone mentioned it, so this is a 50/50 guess until it's released.
Disbanding the Inquisition is a good idea. Killing the Inquisitor is pointless, I mean why does the Inquisitor need to die? Hawke's "death" was needless (there were so many other ways they could have escaped) and the HOF had a good death, but there is no need for the Inquisitor to die. If you wanted to kill the Inquisitor you would have had them die with Cory in one last epic showdown.
Personally I'd like to see them step down, Hawke had no peace even after the events of Kirkwall. HOF maybe had a couple of years before going west, now I want to see the Inquisitor retired and happy with their love interest doing whatever the frig they want. I suspect they will allow the Inquisitor to follow solas so the solasmancers may get their "happy ending?"
A good way to wrap things up would be retire the Inquisitor and remove the mark, that means removing the entire arm to be safe!
Guest_Evie_*
Disbanding the Inquisition is a good idea. Killing the Inquisitor is pointless, I mean why does the Inquisitor need to die? Hawke's "death" was needless (there were so many other ways they could have escaped) and the HOF had a good death, but there is no need for the Inquisitor to die. If you wanted to kill the Inquisitor you would have had them die with Cory in one last epic showdown.
Personally I'd like to see them step down, Hawke had no peace even after the events of Kirkwall. HOF maybe had a couple of years before going west, now I want to see the Inquisitor retired and happy with their love interest doing whatever the frig they want. I suspect they will allow the Inquisitor to follow solas so the solasmancers may get their "happy ending?"
A good way to wrap things up would be retire the Inquisitor and remove the mark, that means removing the entire arm to be safe!
The Vallaslin was meant to be permanent but Solas can remove it, now the Anchor is supposed to be permanent, but where there's a Solas there's a way. 
The Vallaslin was meant to be permanent but Solas can remove it, now the Anchor is supposed to be permanent, but where there's a Solas there's a way.
Haha I like that it'd be the ideal catchphrase for the Solasmance I suppose!
Guest_Evie_*
Haha I like that it'd be the ideal catchphrase for the Solasmance I suppose!
I've romanced both him and Cullen, but I'm actually hoping for some tragic stuff when my Lavellan sees him! He has one of the most realistic romances in a DA game! Just like in real life, you may meet your soulmate before you die, but that doesn't mean you will be with them forever. And in her case, it's pretty impossible to have a long-term relationship with a God that's almost from another world entirely.
The Inquisitor doesn't have to die. Making it a possibility could happen, but I very much doubt they would force it.
Getting closure to a character and ending their story doesn't require the business end of a murder knife, people just need to accept that their character isn't a super hero with a mandate to swoop in and solve every problem in Thedas for the rest of their lives.
Assume we're moving north for the next game: justifying the Inquisitor not appearing is easy.
If the Inquisition still exists, they'll stay in the south, running the Inquisition from Skyhold. If the Inquisition is disbanded, they don't have the immense resources to travel anywhere there's a problem even if they wanted to.
I think that'll be the ultimate choice in the end of this DLC, not the life or death of a character by the life or death of the Inquisition.
I hope you're right. In addition to what you said, I suspect we'll part ways with the Anchor if we live, which will also make it easier for the Inquisitor not to appear in future games if that's what they want.
Personally I do hope that one possibility is for the Inquisitor to perish. I usually rpg as wide a variety of personality traits as possible, so I've got noble Inquisitors who try to save the world right along side those who are hell bent on their personal rise to power, with an occasional cocky smartass who just wants everyone to leave them alone and go take a hike.
Variety is the spice of life; even in a fictional setting!!
They would alienate part of the fanbase if they'll give people only a death ending with no other choices.
I think they have already learned the lesson with ME3 endings: there are many players who simply don't like to see their character die after they spent hundreds of hours in playing him/her.
I'm pretty sure Mike has already stated the ending of Trespasser depends on your own actions/choices. Death won't be forced on you.
I'm pretty sure Mike has already stated the ending of Trespasser depends on your own actions/choices. Death won't be forced on you.
"The ending" =/= Death. He may mean the fate of the Inquisition, as they've already said you can influence that. I don't want to take too much out of his statement and assume that means you can die or not, because I don't want to give myself any false hope. I'm scared enough already! 
I'm pretty sure Mike has already stated the ending of Trespasser depends on your own actions/choices. Death won't be forced on you.
Fair enough... let's just hope that those choices are not vague or that they are not the consequence of something that the player isn't even aware... like the choices that lead to the new divine.
"The ending" =/= Death. He may mean the fate of the Inquisition, as they've already said you can influence that. I don't want to take too much out of his statement and assume that means you can die or not, because I don't want to give myself any false hope. I'm scared enough already!
Haha, I can see how that can be scary. I'm not overly concerned but we'll find out where this train goes soon enough
I'm pretty sure Mike has already stated the ending of Trespasser depends on your own actions/choices. Death won't be forced on you.
Oh, I hope that is the case.
Regarding the "The story's not about Thedas because NPCs" argument:
They exist to tie you into the story.
What ties me to an interactive story is my character. Not some ever-so-mysteries supermages whose plans are way too complicated and important for us lowly players, not a gaggle of recurring NPCs, not cameos from tie-ins that I haven't even read. Do I care about favored NPCs as well? Of course I do. But that, too, happens primarily in the context of their bond to my character -- be it friendship or enmity. That is why I want fewer cases of ex-companions of ex-protagonists popping up: I'd actually like to be able to imagine that their friendships endured and that they remain together for once instead of scattering to all corners of the world without looking back as soon as the big bad is defeated.
I'm perfectly fine with an optional, well-written, meaningful death for my own characters if it fits them and the situation. As I said, I would never choose anything but the sacrifice in Origins, that was brilliantly and beautifully done. Likewise, I'm fine with an ex-protagonist no longer being involved in everything under the sun. But here is the thing: if the writers bring back 101 mysteries, friends, enemies, plotlines, places, and areas of expertise connected to an now ex-protagonist, then they only have themselves to blame when players wonder why the bleep said ex-protagonist is just about the only thing that isn't coming back.
I'm as sick and tired as anyone of the neverending clamor about the Warden, or the nonsense about how the optional Awakenings protagonist or an entirely new character could totally take the Warden's place and how we sacrifice-players thus totally need to get behind the demands for the Warden to come back as a protagonist. And that's if we're not ignored to begin with. So, yeah, I do get the desire to avoid such nonsense in further games if possible. But forcing the same death on each Inquisitor (or other future protagonists) no matter their past actions, goals, values or personalities is not the way to go about it.
Thedas is a big world. If Bioware actually lived up to their claim, they could easily move their focus to entirely new characters, faraway places, new themes. Or they could simply drop that inane, entirely arbitrary, not based on any in-world needs or logic "one game per protagonist, then it's off to the refuse pile with you" rule. Let us experience mysteries, plotlines and NPC arcs with the protagonist that was first connected to them. The experience would be all the stronger for it.
Okay, if it is an OPTION...then I'd be okay with it. If it was based off choices, I'd be okay with it.
As LONG as there are choices that lead you to other results. Like if you were offered a particularly sadistic choice by say...Solas...who would either stabilize or remove the Mark as long as you ceded power to/agreed to join him. Or if you could continue the Inquisition in a different form, albeit smaller and with oversight. OR you could drop the mic...I mean book...tell them to stuff it, and walk...after burning Skyhold to the ground because SCREW YOU THEDAS you ain't gettin' my castle you ungrateful pukes!
As long as we have more than one way to end it, then yes, I'd be okay with the Inquisitor leaving the mortal coil.
Of course, if we got to go all Scarface on the Orlesian Nobility at the same time...I wouldn't complain... 
I see the same problem, but I would prefer they went the other direction and stopped carrying over so many NPCs in favor of new ones.Thedas is a big world. If Bioware actually lived up to their claim, they could easily move their focus to entirely new characters, faraway places, new themes. Or they could simply drop that inane, entirely arbitrary, not based on any in-world needs or logic "one game per protagonist, then it's off to the refuse pile with you" rule. Let us experience mysteries, plotlines and NPC arcs with the protagonist that was first connected to them. The experience would be all the stronger for it.
The character should get an ending. They don't need to die, but giving them a definitive end would curtail the hordes of people screeching for said character to come back for the next game. And I think the creating an epilogue for the character and game is all the indication we need that the Inquisitor is not coming back for DA4.
@Heimdall: I agree. Especially, as I said, a former protagonist's friends.
I like having a different protagonist each game; getting to explore different cultures, backgrounds and atmospheres.
If the franchise extends far enough in in-game time, I may be able to make one protagonist the child of a former protagonist: "'Lot of weird things seems to happen to you." "It... runs in the family."
What ties me to an interactive story is my character. Not some ever-so-mysteries supermages whose plans are way too complicated and important for us lowly players, not a gaggle of recurring NPCs, not cameos from tie-ins that I haven't even read. Do I care about favored NPCs as well? Of course I do. But that, too, happens primarily in the context of their bond to my character -- be it friendship or enmity. That is why I want fewer cases of ex-companions of ex-protagonists popping up: I'd actually like to be able to imagine that their friendships endured and that they remain together for once instead of scattering to all corners of the world without looking back as soon as the big bad is defeated.
I'm perfectly fine with an optional, well-written, meaningful death for my own characters if it fits them and the situation. As I said, I would never choose anything but the sacrifice in Origins, that was brilliantly and beautifully done. Likewise, I'm fine with an ex-protagonist no longer being involved in everything under the sun. But here is the thing: if the writers bring back 101 mysteries, friends, enemies, plotlines, places, and areas of expertise connected to an now ex-protagonist, then they only have themselves to blame when players wonder why the bleep said ex-protagonist is just about the only thing that isn't coming back.
I'm as sick and tired as anyone of the neverending clamor about the Warden, or the nonsense about how the optional Awakenings protagonist or an entirely new character could totally take the Warden's place and how we sacrifice-players thus totally need to get behind the demands for the Warden to come back as a protagonist. And that's if we're not ignored to begin with. So, yeah, I do get the desire to avoid such nonsense in further games if possible. But forcing the same death on each Inquisitor (or other future protagonists) no matter their past actions, goals, values or personalities is not the way to go about it.
Thedas is a big world. If Bioware actually lived up to their claim, they could easily move their focus to entirely new characters, faraway places, new themes. Or they could simply drop that inane, entirely arbitrary, not based on any in-world needs or logic "one game per protagonist, then it's off to the refuse pile with you" rule. Let us experience mysteries, plotlines and NPC arcs with the protagonist that was first connected to them. The experience would be all the stronger for it.
If the franchise extends far enough in in-game time, I may be able to make one protagonist the child of a former protagonist: "'Lot of weird things seems to happen to you." "It... runs in the family."
That would be very hard to do.
IF the inquisitor has to die, the only way I'd be able to accept such a death would be a "Galuf's final stand" moment, the inquisitor fighting the "villain/enemy swarm/big bad" until your health reaches 0 and then the game doesn't end, you keep going, you keep fighting.
no wimping out by having just a choice to *die* and then cutscene happens, If the inquisitor's going down he's going to take as many of those heathens as is inhumanly possible.
That would be very hard to do.
No, no, I meant as in headcanon and not as something implemented by Bioware. I do not even want to imaging the nightmare that would be for them.
Would be cruel, but interesting if the survival or death of the Inquisitor were dependent on decisions made during the main game (did you drink from the Well, were you friend with Solas? that sort of thing).
Kind of like the resolution of the Geth/Quarian conflict in ME3.
Retour en haut