death would be predictable bioware has a habit of killing heroes ,but its always option too find another. way too live i will go with that dying is boring in predictable. in adds nothing.
What habit of killing heroes? They didn't kill the Warden or Hawke. Hell, the Inquisitor battled a would-be God and suffered very little casualties.
What habit of killing heroes? They didn't kill the Warden or Hawke. Hell, the Inquisitor battled a would-be God and suffered very little casualties.
We had an option to kill Warden in DAO, and we had an option to kill Hawke in DAI. I'd say it would be great to get an option to sacrifice the Inquisitor in the Trespasser.
I think they'll need to take the mark out of play (or atleast out of the hands of a protagonist), dying would be one way to do that, but I think it'll only be one out of 2 or more outcomes.
I'm personally hoping that whether or not the inquisitor drank from the well will impact Trespassor(I don't expect to see how it impacts morrigan as I don't think we'll see her till the next game at the earliest), perhaps drinking from the well will add or remove an option?
John Marston died at the end of Red Dead Redemption and that game got great reviews and was loved by the fans.
That was not an RPG though. Choices... right? I don't mind to have an option for Inquisitor to die (I'd rather even like to have it) but inevitable hero death is overrated.
Also... I think nobody in this thread who would prefer their Inquisitor to live mind to have a death option for him/her. So I wonder why those who'd like Inquisitor to die are so against an option for them to stay alive. 
TIme to let the inquisitor rest in his grave, mourned by his loved ones. Tevinter Imperium awaits for new heroes.
That was not an RPG though. Choices... right? I don't mind to have an option for Inquisitor to die (I'd rather even like to have it) but inevitable hero death is overrated.
Seriously? 
A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which each participant assumes the role of a character, generally in a fantasy or science fiction setting, that can interact within the game's imaginary world
Red Dead Redemption definitely is an rpg. Choices really have nothing to do with the genre, that's just a bonus given by some game developers. RPG is based around assuming the role of a character, whether pre-set to the point of John/Geralt or as player customisable as the Inquisitor (this option is resource devouring).
Seriously?
A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which each participant assumes the role of a character, generally in a fantasy or science fiction setting, that can interact within the game's imaginary world
Red Dead Redemption definitely is an rpg. Choices really have nothing to do with the genre, that's just a bonus given by some game developers. RPG is based around assuming the role of a character, whether pre-set to the point of John/Geralt or as player customisable as the Inquisitor (this option is resource devouring).
By that definition almost every game is an RPG 
And I can quote Wikipedia too: Red Dead Redemption is a third-person, open world, western, action-adventure game.
John Marston died at the end of Red Dead Redemption and that game got great reviews and was loved by the fans.
Never played it and now that I know John Marston dies at the end (I'm guessing that's your avatar/protagonist) I never will. Not really my cup of tea.
Yeah, Bioware committed the most heinous of crimes when they wrote a protagonist physically broken by artillery fire and mentally crippled by PTSD finally acting upon the suicidal impulses hinted at since the first episode.
What habit of killing heroes? They didn't kill the Warden or Hawke. Hell, the Inquisitor battled a would-be God and suffered very little casualties.
Well, they did... IF you want them to die. Which is awesome.
Seriously?
A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which each participant assumes the role of a character, generally in a fantasy or science fiction setting, that can interact within the game's imaginary world
Red Dead Redemption definitely is an rpg. Choices really have nothing to do with the genre, that's just a bonus given by some game developers. RPG is based around assuming the role of a character, whether pre-set to the point of John/Geralt or as player customisable as the Inquisitor (this option is resource devouring).
I guess Pac-Man is an RPG then...
Seriously?
A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which each participant assumes the role of a character, generally in a fantasy or science fiction setting, that can interact within the game's imaginary world
Red Dead Redemption definitely is an rpg. Choices really have nothing to do with the genre, that's just a bonus given by some game developers. RPG is based around assuming the role of a character, whether pre-set to the point of John/Geralt or as player customisable as the Inquisitor (this option is resource devouring).
I guess Pac-Man is an RPG then...
Hyperbolic much? What role is it you're playing in Pac Man, professional athlete?
This is, as far as I can see, a reason for there to be a moratorium on discussion of the definition of RPG. A character sheet was a part of what it meant to sit down and play D&D, of course, it also made it easier to keep track of who my character was, what they had, what skills/feats/spells etc. Of course, that doesn't preclude the fact that I may have been an Elven rogue/wizard, or a dwarven warrior, or any of the various class/racial combinations that came later.
So unless you're a cowboy, running around shooting bad guys, or good guys, all day, I'd say that RDR certainly qualifies as an RPG. Pac Man, for all the hyperbole of "you disregard my narrow world view of what an RPG is, so I'm going to lash out in the most inane way possible to say that all games are RPGs, so there", probably followed immediately by sticking one's tongue out at the monitor for emphasis, does not. An argument could be made for Mario Bros, I guess, since there is at least some kind of story element involved, but running around in circles eating pills and ghosts doesn't really equate to story. You might have had better luck going with Galaga or Space Invaders...
*says wee shouldn't talk about the definition of an RPG*
*Continues to define an RPG*
At any rate, it takes more than a narrative to make something an RPG, as otherwise everything from Age of Mythology to Legend of Zelda would be a role-playing game, and leave it at that.
*says wee shouldn't talk about the definition of an RPG*
*Continues to define an RPG*
At any rate, it takes more than a narrative to make something an RPG, as otherwise everything from Age of Mythology to Legend of Zelda would be a role-playing game, and leave it at that.
I love RDR and I love RPGs, but RDR is not an RPG. No dialogue options, no branching storylines, no skill point allocation; it has none of what I consider to be the hallmarks of an RPG. You have some control over what type of guy Marston is outside of cutscenes; you can kill everyone like a true-blue outlaw, or you can help people out when given the chance (which makes more sense to me--playing the villain clashes tonally with Cutscene Marston).
Anyway, amazing game and one of the best ever, but it's not an RPG just because you have some freedom.
I will never understand this idea of one ending when they can give us a number of endings depending on what we did or even depending on what we want to do. Dying is fine for one character but so very boring if all of my characters have to die.
I agree, this would be pretty good:
Disband the Inquisition and die
- Disband the Inquisition and live
- Continue the Inquisition, name a successor, die
- Continue the Inquisition, name a successor, retire
- Continue the Inquisition and keep leading
I will never understand this idea of one ending when they can give us a number of endings depending on what we did or even depending on what we want to do. Dying is fine for one character but so very boring if all of my characters have to die.
I agree, this would be pretty good:
Disband the Inquisition and die
- Disband the Inquisition and live
- Continue the Inquisition, name a successor, die
- Continue the Inquisition, name a successor, retire
- Continue the Inquisition and keep leading
I expect more than that, you know, we have an army, powerful allies and the support of the common people, I think it's high time to become King/Queen Inquisitor.
What habit of killing heroes? They didn't kill the Warden or Hawke. Hell, the Inquisitor battled a would-be God and suffered very little casualties.
There are the dead characters in Mass Effect.
There are the dead characters in Mass Effect.
You got that right...
What role is it you're playing in Pac Man, professional athlete?
Psycho glutton in a haunted house.
Maybe we should table the discussion about what is or isn't an rpg, since the previous thousand times it was discussed, it went no where.
We had an option to kill Warden in DAO, and we had an option to kill Hawke in DAI. I'd say it would be great to get an option to sacrifice the Inquisitor in the Trespasser.
I already had this discussion with someone, but my stance to that is basically -- we shouldn't always have full control over situations like that. Characters (including our own) should sometimes due to previous choices that aren't as simple as click 1 to live, click 2 to die. We should be able to make choices and have consequences for them, but not be able to play mini-god
Well, they did... IF you want them to die. Which is awesome.
I already had this discussion with someone, but my stance to that is basically -- we shouldn't always have full control over situations like that. Characters (including our own) should sometimes die due to previous choices that aren't as simple as click 1 to 'live', click 2 to 'die'. We should be able to make choices and have consequences for them, but not be able to play mini-god
There are the dead characters in Mass Effect.
Different development teams, no? Although, ME did it right where characters could die due to choices like not upgrading the ship or their abilities/weapons, opposed to DA where it's choose 'A' to have these people live, choose 'B' to have these people die.
I already had this discussion with someone, but my stance to that is basically -- we shouldn't always have full control over situations like that. Characters (including our own) should sometimes due to previous choices that aren't as simple as click 1 to live, click 2 to die. We should be able to make choices and have consequences for them, but not be able to play mini-god
Well, to be fair, if the outcome is still determined by choices made previously, you still kinda have full control, unless it's something random and stupid, like, Harmond's brother seeks out the Inquisitor and just kills him/her all of a sudden at the end because why the heck not.
Retour en haut