417 réponses à ce sujet

[robertthebard]

It's too big a consequence for a DLC.

While DLC content typically has the structure of a side-quest, side-quests are optional. In-game, your character can choose not to do them, and the world-state respects that.

Side-quests can allow only unsatisfying outcomes, because the player can choose to avoid that content.

Not so with DLC. BioWare has decided that your character completes all DLC, regardless of whether you want him to. As such, DLC should never force an unsatisfying ending, because one of those endings will haplen to your character, even if you don't play the content.

My first choice would be that BioWare simply drop the ridiculous requirement that all DLC content be completed in a world state. But failing that, DLC consequences cannot be significant.

Here's the problem I have with this: This game is over, and they're using a new protagonist for the next game, assuming there is one. To DLC or not to DLC is entirely up to each player in this instance, even if it is Canonical for the rest of the series. Ending the Inquisitor now will result in some rage. However, that storm will pass a lot sooner than the rage from "What do you mean I won't be/see my Inquisitor again. What makes me think it's going to happen? Read through this thread, and see how many posts are in it insisting that they see their Wardens again. Just this thread, I don't want you to get overwhelmed by it from the forum in general.

[KaiserShep]

I doubt very much that people would rage that their Inquisitor isn't showing up as an NPC in a future game regardless of fate.

[robertthebard]

I doubt very much that people would rage that their Inquisitor isn't showing up as an NPC in a future game regardless of fate.

I don't. Check out all the options people have listed over the years for ways to get their Wardens involved, some of them did include as NPCs. It's not just for my peace of mind either, although I would get some, but how much time did the writers have to spend trying to figure out a way to put the Warden into DA I? Nope, there's not a lot to what those with living Wardens got, but along with that was OGB stuff that had to be figured out in such a way as to include it w/out breaking the world states for people that don't have him. So much cleaner to just eliminate the problem before it becomes a problem than to dink with it later.

[Wulfram]

My first choice would be that BioWare simply drop the ridiculous requirement that all DLC content be completed in a world state. But failing that, DLC consequences cannot be significant.

They probably only invented that idea to avoid Corypheus issues, they can drop it for the next DA

Mass Effect most definitely didn't follow that principle.

[Darkstarr11]

I doubt very much that people would rage that their Inquisitor isn't showing up as an NPC in a future game regardless of fate.

 

The way they keep going on, it seems that this IS the end of the Inquisitors story, even if the Inquisition lives on.  Sounds like they are getting pushed out the door and off the table live or not.  Though, considering Patrick Weekes is writing Solas, I have a slight amount of trepidation about our encounter with our elusive canine immortal rebel...especially if the words, 'Forgive me' pop up...

[helpthisguyplease]

Well Shepard did sorta died unless you chose destruction and even then I doubt it because lets be honest he is heavily injured with no medical help. So its not the first time the inquisitor might die.

[KaiserShep]

I don't. Check out all the options people have listed over the years for ways to get their Wardens involved, some of them did include as NPCs. It's not just for my peace of mind either, although I would get some, but how much time did the writers have to spend trying to figure out a way to put the Warden into DA I? Nope, there's not a lot to what those with living Wardens got, but along with that was OGB stuff that had to be figured out in such a way as to include it w/out breaking the world states for people that don't have him. So much cleaner to just eliminate the problem before it becomes a problem than to dink with it later.

I don't really see what the big deal is. Origins is the only one thus far that has been complicated, and it seems obvious that this game was made with the uncertainty that there would be more, evidenced by Leliana's notorious "retcon", among other things. Since then, it's only ever been complaints about the Warden, but the Warden is also unique in being inextricably tied to the darkspawn, pending the cure's resolution.

But how does this really relate to the Inquisitor? If the Inquisition disbands, that effectively removes any future stories from that character's sphere of influence, because s/he would essentially have little influence at all at that point. If the mark is undone, then it's doubly so. Something else to consider is that the Inquisitor can basically exist in the form of soldiers on the field. Unlike the Warden or Hawke, the Inquisitor could potentially have the power to show his/her presence without physically being there. The perks of running a massive military organization. All it really requires is to never go to Skyhold as the new PC, which is easy.

[Beren Von Ostwick]

A nice ride into the sunset with no real, he/she then disappeared would work fine.

 

Just pretend it's Scout Harding in the foreground...

 

[Sylvius the Mad]

They probably only invented that idea to avoid Corypheus issues, they can drop it for the next DA

There wouldn't have been Corypheus issues. They'd just have to establish that Corypheus was released some other way (perhaps the surviving Hawke sibling did it in the year between the introduction and Act I).

[robertthebard]

I don't really see what the big deal is. Origins is the only one thus far that has been complicated, and it seems obvious that this game was made with the uncertainty that there would be more, evidenced by Leliana's notorious "retcon", among other things. Since then, it's only ever been complaints about the Warden, but the Warden is also unique in being inextricably tied to the darkspawn, pending the cure's resolution.

But how does this really relate to the Inquisitor? If the Inquisition disbands, that effectively removes any future stories from that character's sphere of influence, because s/he would essentially have little influence at all at that point. If the mark is undone, then it's doubly so. Something else to consider is that the Inquisitor can basically exist in the form of soldiers on the field. Unlike the Warden or Hawke, the Inquisitor could potentially have the power to show his/her presence without physically being there. The perks of running a massive military organization. All it really requires is to never go to Skyhold as the new PC, which is easy.

We had people that believed that Descent would have been better with the Warden, despite what turns out to be the issue not having anything to do with darkspawn. It doesn't matter that the former protagonist may be irrelevant, people will insist that they are best suited. I did ask, in one thread, just what the Inquisitor was supposed to be best suited for after all the rifts and the breach had been closed, but got no response. As I said, it's easier, and cleaner, when the protagonist is done, and you're not going to reuse them, to kill them off, and I didn't start that here, if you check any of the "Where's my Warden" Tuesday threads that I posted in even prior to the release of DA I, you'll find me stating that BioWare would have been better off killing them off.

[robertthebard]

There wouldn't have been Corypheus issues. They'd just have to establish that Corypheus was released some other way (perhaps the surviving Hawke sibling did it in the year between the introduction and Act I).

Which then contradicts what happened in Legacy for those that did play it. It was in the game, and cleaner to go the way they did. The majority of folks complaining about Cory, I'd be willing to bet, were all over how bad DA II was, and didn't buy the DLC for that reason. That's fine, they're entitled to their opinion, but they're not entitled to dictate how the game is developed from there.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Which then contradicts what happened in Legacy for those that did play it.

It wouldn't be true for the players who did play it.

It would be like any other exclusive choice in the Keep. If you played Legacy, what you did there happened. If you didn't play Legacy, you get a default result that doesn't invve Hawke at all.

[Nixou]

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).

 

 

Oh, I've got an even better idea: make the Inquisitor's final fate dependent on the previous protagonists' fates: if both the HoF and Hawke are still alive, then the Inquisitor inevitably bites the dust   

[kracken96]

Hell no!    I threw ME out of the window and never played it again because I oh so hate  bad endings.

I don't  wanna my Inquisitor die.

[Korva]

Yeah, have our protagonist die so that the writers can write off the Inquisition as an irrelevant interlude that didn't result in any lasting changes in the world. Status quo is king after all.

 

I love a good death, be it PC or NPC, but yes: forcibly killing the Inquisitor would be just what you said, and that is the utter opposite of that because part and parcel of a good death is that it respects the character. Going in with a premise of getting rid of the useless dead weight that is the now ex-protagonist does not respect the character. Neither does a one-size-fits-all-death that ignores the fact that not every Inquisitor is alike -- such a death would basically amount to "rocks fall on your head, you die". Arbitrary, spiteful nonsense.

 

Everyone remembers the claims that we "changed the world forver" and whatnot. If that turns out to be so much BS, I will be really upset. And honestly? If their precious meta-story and their nonsensical "one game per protagonist" rule can't handle for something like the Inquisition and the Inquisitor to survive, then they should not have written a game about a "world-changing" person and organization in the first place. If protagonists must be meaningless in the long run, don't make them out to be big heroes.

 

I would absolutely hate not only a forced death but also an equivocation of wanting to survive, to keep the Anchor and preserve the Inquisition with the "evil" choice that will "prove" that the world is "right" to resent us, and results in outside forces banding together to destroy us. And of the willingness to throw it all away just because the writers say so with the "good" choice. With the end result that the Inquisition is gone either way and doesn't need to be bothered with anymore. Not everyone who would want to survive is a power-grabbing tyrant. As I said, my Inquisitor wants to protect the people, especially those who have no one else to turn to. She wants to keep the Anchor to peacefully study the Fade and spirits, to fight off demons, and to keep closing rifts (of which there are bound to still be hundreds across the world).

[Wahed89]

I feel like it's almost become cliche for the hero to die in the same way it's cliche for the hero to live.

 

I also think often a lack of creativity and laziness can result in characters dying unnecessarily. Personally I would rather see a well written ending that wasn't just either "lived happily ever after" or "dead". 

 

I'm on my third play through and something we can ask Leliana made me think. You can say you want to be a bard and leliana says she could teach you once this is all over. That would be interesting if it could be written in a way that was believable.

[KaiserShep]

We had people that believed that Descent would have been better with the Warden, despite what turns out to be the issue not having anything to do with darkspawn. It doesn't matter that the former protagonist may be irrelevant, people will insist that they are best suited. I did ask, in one thread, just what the Inquisitor was supposed to be best suited for after all the rifts and the breach had been closed, but got no response. As I said, it's easier, and cleaner, when the protagonist is done, and you're not going to reuse them, to kill them off, and I didn't start that here, if you check any of the "Where's my Warden" Tuesday threads that I posted in even prior to the release of DA I, you'll find me stating that BioWare would have been better off killing them off.

To be frank, I don't really care one bit about the narrative being "cleaner". If I want to "streamline" my world state, I have that option. I'd much rather suffer some story kinks than go through the series with each protagonist getting offed just to keep the narrative tidy. That crap just screams fun and creative.

[robertthebard]

To be frank, I don't really care one bit about the narrative being "cleaner". If I want to "streamline" my world state, I have that option. I'd much rather suffer some story kinks than go through the series with each protagonist getting offed just to keep the narrative tidy. That crap just screams fun and creative.

It's a bit late in the game to be trying to state it's some kind of trend. At the end of DA I we have right now, the Warden, Hawke and the Inquisitor can all be alive. Even if both the former are sort of "up in the air" as it were. However, regarding cleaner, how much dev time could have gone into more story content for some of the other areas, if the writers weren't tied up accounting for the Warden, OGB, and Hawke? In all fairness, however, I wasn't dissatisfied with Hawke's handling. However, what might we have gotten if DA II hadn't been shut down, and the last DLC bled into DA I? I realize neither one of us can know, but it's just something to mull over.

[TreeHuggerHannah]

However, regarding cleaner, how much dev time could have gone into more story content for some of the other areas, if the writers weren't tied up accounting for the Warden, OGB, and Hawke?

 

The writers chose to account for them in the first place, though. There's no reason old characters have to be included at all, or be more than a codex entry if they are. The writers are in control here, and could simply leave it up to player speculation/headcanon.

[robertthebard]

The writers chose to account for them in the first place, though. There's no reason old characters have to be included at all, or be more than a codex entry if they are. The writers are in control here, and could simply leave it up to player speculation/headcanon.

I wish that were true. However, looking through the forums, even just this particular one, we can find lots of "no Warden, no buy" attitudes, and even when it did get covered, it wasn't good enough. You are right though, they should have just stuck to "Their story is over" and left it out, and spent that time on other things. They didn't.

[Andreas Amell]

Also remember Shepard?

That went well.

I have no problem with that. I sacrificed my Shepard for the greater good. That's the kind of hero she was. 

[KaiserShep]

I wish that were true. However, looking through the forums, even just this particular one, we can find lots of "no Warden, no buy" attitudes, and even when it did get covered, it wasn't good enough. You are right though, they should have just stuck to "Their story is over" and left it out, and spent that time on other things. They didn't.

 

Eh, you know most of those folks are buying it anyway, and so do they XD

[robertthebard]

Eh, you know most of those folks are buying it anyway, and so do they XD

Heh, don't be tellin' their secrets...

[BansheeOwnage]

It wouldn't be true for the players who did play it.

It would be like any other exclusive choice in the Keep. If you played Legacy, what you did there happened. If you didn't play Legacy, you get a default result that doesn't invve Hawke at all.

Legacy sort of requires Hawke, though.

 

I love a good death, be it PC or NPC, but yes: forcibly killing the Inquisitor would be just what you said, and that is the utter opposite of that because part and parcel of a good death is that it respects the character. Going in with a premise of getting rid of the useless dead weight that is the now ex-protagonist does not respect the character. Neither does a one-size-fits-all-death that ignores the fact that not every Inquisitor is alike -- such a death would basically amount to "rocks fall on your head, you die". Arbitrary, spiteful nonsense.

 

Everyone remembers the claims that we "changed the world forver" and whatnot. If that turns out to be so much BS, I will be really upset. And honestly? If their precious meta-story and their nonsensical "one game per protagonist" rule can't handle for something like the Inquisition and the Inquisitor to survive, then they should not have written a game about a "world-changing" person and organization in the first place. If protagonists must be meaningless in the long run, don't make them out to be big heroes.

 

I would absolutely hate not only a forced death but also an equivocation of wanting to survive, to keep the Anchor and preserve the Inquisition with the "evil" choice that will "prove" that the world is "right" to resent us, and results in outside forces banding together to destroy us. And of the willingness to throw it all away just because the writers say so with the "good" choice. With the end result that the Inquisition is gone either way and doesn't need to be bothered with anymore. Not everyone who would want to survive is a power-grabbing tyrant. As I said, my Inquisitor wants to protect the people, especially those who have no one else to turn to. She wants to keep the Anchor to peacefully study the Fade and spirits, to fight off demons, and to keep closing rifts (of which there are bound to still be hundreds across the world).

So much this. I'll be angry if wanting to live and/or continue the Inquisition is viewed in a negative light.

 

I have no problem with that. I sacrificed my Shepard for the greater good. That's the kind of hero she was. 

My Shepard isn't going to sacrifice herself when there is no need to, that's just stupid.

[N7recruit]

Reading through some of the replies that are against the idea say that it ruins player agency or that it wouldn't be it character for their PC.

 

I know context & execution is everything regardless if it's a set of Choices or an unavoidable defeat. Bioware have produced both good & bad content for each. 

 

For me I'd accept a well written story/plot/quest where everything is set in stone over some piece meal wishy washy plot that accommodates all the choices in the world.

 

All choice in games is an illusion anyway, I do appreciate it when it's done well but repeat playthrough's of CRPG's have shattered that illusion for me. 

 

Of course I'd rather they produce more unique narrative & gameplay content biased on decisions, but when you look at the last couple of years of CRPG's they seem to have maxed out or stagnated. All offering roughly the same amount of C&C content and reactivity until a new break through in production or a Sh*t tone of cash raises the bar. 

 

So it is with this viewpoint that I advocate for the inquisitors death @ the end of the DLC. If he/she survives they will fade into obscurity (or Head Canon Territory) & maybe have a cameo appearance in 3 to 5 years in some other games sideplot as an NPC.

 

The inquisitor is a HUGE character story wise. It wouldn't make sense for this world's Action Jesus to just "Hang around" in skyhold when we know that **** is going to hit the fan again before the series is over.  

 

Alive or Dead the inquisitor & their choices are going to matter jack sh*t in the grand scheme of things once DA:I is finished. The series will progress the same way no matter what you did in DA:I.

 

This DLC is the inquisitors last real moment of relevance in the series, the last moment for us to be in their shoes & I want it to end in a memorable way (hopefully not for it's bad writing) & I don't think having the PC just continue as before would do that.

 

Or maybe it's just cuz I prefer darker stories so whatevs