1659 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRevanchist]

Do you know what's interesting about the ending of Trespasser?
 
This:

Spoiler

A bigger version of the map:

Spoiler

 

[tanuki]

Nope. As far as Hawke knew, Corypheus was dead. Hawke v Corypheus - resolved. Inquisitor v Solas is very much not AFTER Trespasser. This isn't about my attachment or lack thereof to a character. This is about resolving your story arcs within the narrative of your protagonist. Its Literature 101.

Also, iirc, initially Bioware played with the idea to make Hawke an Inquisitor, and it was scrapped probably due to DA2 being not... very popular.  So at some point they actually weren't so much against protagonist returning in the next game. Besides, Hawke has no racial choice, which is important for some people. And since DAI is vastly more successful than DA2 was, they still can decide that now they have the protagonist who was enough well received to put him into the next game as well.

I actually almost don't see minuses to allow the Inquisitor to return:

- As many people pointed out, it is personal for the Inquisitor because he/she knew Solas and could be his friend/lover, and playing some new random hero will remove the impact from the story. Basically it's the same (but on much larger scale) as playing the Witch Hunt with Orlesian Warden-Commander who has no idea who Morrigan is.

- The Inquisitor is new to Tevinter, so we can explore the lore without breaking the suspension of disbelief when some native new hero has to be educated about how Tevinter functions. Also, losing hand and much smaller/disbanded Inquisition they can start from the square one (i.e level reset)

- The one-armed protagonist allows invention of new interesting game mechanics plus it will give bonus media points to Bioware to have a disabled protagonist in their game.

 

The downside though will be race selection, which is set in the Keep even for new users, but if they implement the mechanism which will allow to switch (or change) Keep worldstates ingame, that wouldn't be a big deal.

I also wouldn't mind to play both a new hero and my Inquisitor, if they go for it and let the Inquisitor deal with Solas (but not as an NPC, because I want to have control over her during their encounter)

[Tielis]

 

Spoiler

 

Source : http://gerryarthur.d...lness-560067738



 

 

 

Ugh, please no crossbow arm.  It's just so... undignified.  I hope we will be able to choose what we want to put there, if that's what happens.  (Yes, I know that's what's shown in the slide.  I still don't like it.)  Discussion thread here:  http://forum.bioware...ioware-spoiler/

 

However, that Inquisitor is hot.  So hot, even for a human.    And the artwork is beautiful.

[AresKeith]

Hell at this point they are not even sure if there will be another dragon age game.

 

Based on what?

[Danny Boy 7]

What about romances

[ComedicSociopathy]

Based on what?

 

Hasn't been green-lit yet. 

[Tython]

A lot of good points in this thread. I loved my Inquisitor so I would like her back with a direct sequel for DA4. Knowing that won't happen, I'd like to play her when the story allows. Her story is nowhere close to being done.

[Arvaarad]

Wouldn't work. Only mages can be magisters.

Which is why it would be a reversal of the usual "oppressed mage PCs / normal rogue and warrior PCs". If mage players got to be magisters, rogues and warriors would be the ones with humbler backgrounds.

[Nixou]

Wouldn't work. Only mages can be magisters.

 

 

From the codex:

 

 

Magisters, meanwhile, come from the ranks of the Circle of Magi and the Imperial Chantry, but most hold their seats by virtue of an Archon having granted it to their family long ago. It is not technically required for a magister to be a mage... indeed, after the Transfiguration that saw the Old Gods abandoned and Andrastianism embraced, most were not.

[Heimdall]

 

From the codex:

 

 

Magisters, meanwhile, come from the ranks of the Circle of Magi and the Imperial Chantry, but most hold their seats by virtue of an Archon having granted it to their family long ago. It is not technically required for a magister to be a mage... indeed, after the Transfiguration that saw the Old Gods abandoned and Andrastianism embraced, most were not.

 

That has pretty much been reversed for the past few centuries after the schism that created the Imperial Chantry.  Now even the Imperial Divine is a mage.

[Bombadyl]

People keep saying that, but that's not how it ended. It ends wih the Inquisitor becoming an invalid and saying "My own adventuring days may be over" and "then we'll find people he doesn't know".

I'm not sure how Bioware could have telegraphed their intent to leave the Inquisitor behind as an active protagonist more clearly.

 

I sadly finished my initial play-through I had after working a 12hr shift, so didn't exactly remember all the details, but I did get the general sense that the game would go on but my Inky on his knees, dying from the anchor, only to be saved by the person wanting to (at this moment) destroy my world.  I remember thinking ok, Inky is done but at least we know where we are headed next.  This was even before I watched the Laidlaw interview.

 

 

 

That quote can mean anything and doesn't exclude the Inquisitor's involment. On the contrary, this one is pretty clear.

 

 

 

"We will save our friend from himself... if we can",  Not I will save our friend, but we will.   So who exactly is 'we', well, I look at who is in the final scene to get an idea of who Inky is talking to for one, not to mention that you the human player looking at the screen is where that statement is being directed to. 

 

After going through a ton of endings on Youtube (all hail the tube) I realized how many different bits of commentary there were dependent upon your choices, but a few stood out.

 

Solas, "I will destroy this world if I have to", is a direct quote for all endings, this doesn't imply he will certainly, but will IF he has to.  I chose redemption as I'm one of those few who rather enjoyed Solas as he was a "Every saint has a past, and every sinner a future" type characters, and he makes a specific comment about how he too wishes Inky could show him another way.  This was also a direct quote but I don't think it appears if you were hostile towards him.  He also states that while he sees people like Tranquil, he does not view Inky this way and while he could have just as easily let the anchor consume Inky, he did not.

 

So it leaves the option out there that Solas doesn't have to end the world if shown another way and that "we", whomever we entails, will either try to redeem or stop him.  At the very least this all gives us a general direction of where we are going and part of what 'we' will likely be doing, which is the perfect kind of tension that leads to anticipation and sales come next release.  

 

~ Have you seen the latest numbers!!!   2 million say they watch Howard Stern to hear what he will say next.   (but what about the people who hate him)  Well 8 million viewers say they hate him!  (then why do they listen)  "Because they want to hear what he will say next". 

 

Game of Thrones has a lot of characters people loved and identified with only to watch them get slaughtered, why.... well tune in next week and find out. 

 

Edit*  forgotten text, half a cup of coffee short.

[BansheeOwnage]

"Enjoy the time you have left" only implies imminence not immediacy, as I do not know if he is speaking literally to Inky or in regards to humanity and the world.  Considering Solas's  track record of errors thus far, and just the ones he has admitted to, I am not entirely convinced that the course of action he wishes to take will be the ultimate action he does take.   You mentioned yourself in another thread, at this point he hasn't actually done anything more horrific than giving the orb to Cory.  (which was bad enough, not to mention yet another error) 

 

I do get the sense that the next installment will happen in Tevinter or there abouts, and since it has been stated that there is a war between Tevinter and the Qunari, as well as the dagger in the map, but what exactly this story line will consist of I do not know.  Do you know for sure?  I have no doubts there will almost have to be some continuity between the Inky story and Solas, but I could think of countless ways to weave these together without Inky having to be "The one" to go marching off on another adventure to stop a plot we are not sure of what it consist of, beyond speculation.  Again, the actually developers and main writer of this franchise have explicitly stated that this story is done, but does not mean the next won't have to reference events of this one. 

If nothing else, we can establish that Solas will act very soon based on meta reasons, like not going too far into the future and good story-telling demanding that the Inquisitor doesn't go up against him only for nothing to happen until our new protagonist arrives. It's about momentum. They need to keep it. No, I don't know for sure what they will do at all. I'm just saying what I think needs to happen to ensure good storytelling and no missed opportunities.

 

In regards to time, in the epilogue for Cassandra if she serves on the exalted council it says she is there for several years. So we can expect he doesn't do anything within that time frame.

I wouldn't put much stock in the epilogue slides if I were you. Partly because they almost always get retconned, to the point where Bioware had to actually dismiss them as "hearsay" themselves (meaning that's how they're writing them now), and because all of the epilogue slides in Trespasser don't really make any sense unless they take place after the next game. Just as an example, Leliana's lyrium ghost leaving and saying it will return if needed. Well, that wouldn't happen while she's still needed to help the Inquisitor deal with Solas. So to me, the slides are some combination of non-canon and canon-but-not-when-we-think. I hope that made sense.

 

Ultimately WE are the protagonist.

No! Don't go there. That may be how you feel, but it's as irrelevant to good storytelling as saying DA is about Thedas. For one, a returning Inquisitor wouldn't magically mean it isn't about Thedas, and two, for the hundredth time: Being in control of a new character to confront Solas may have more meaning to us since "we are the protagonist", but it will never have as much meaning, value, and most importantly, impact, as if we were controlling the Inquisitor. Not doing that is just bad storytelling and a giant missed opportunity.

 

People keep saying that, but that's not how it ended. It ends wih the Inquisitor becoming an invalid and saying "My own adventuring days may be over" and "then we'll find people he doesn't know".

I'm not sure how Bioware could have telegraphed their intent to leave the Inquisitor behind as an active protagonist more clearly.

An invalid? Screw that! Many people have explained why the loss of an arm would barely slow the Inquisitor down, and that they can say "I'm going to save the world. Again." And as I've already said, finding new people doesn't automatically mean they won't be active, since no matter what you do, you are active against Solas, using people he does know. The Inquisitor's line just meant they needed to change how they operated, and finding new people would help. Then of course there is the meta opportunity of Bioware showing that disabled people remain awesome after being disabled, which is something they might like showing.

 

The Inquisitor is the one with the deep personal mission and connection to the antagonist. That story thread is heavily implied to be continuing, and it needs to. Anything else would be a missed opportunity that doesn't appear very often to take advantage of in the first place. Solas vs the Inquisitor is one of the best hero/villain relationships I've seen in a long time, and our point is that we don't want that wasted.

 

I'm not sure how Bioware could have telegraphed their intent to have the Inquisitor return more clearly.

[Bhryaen]

Clearly you need to take it again. Luke's story was resolved. His arch was to bring down the Galactic Empire and defeat Vader. He did that. The Inquistor states at the end of Trespasser that they are going to stop/redeem Solas. That is an escalation of conflict. Not a resolution. Your Warden's story was resolved. Hawke's story was resolved. They didn't come up with an epilogue dlc that introduces a new antagonist that your protagonist blatantly states that they are going to deal with.

I agree: the ending of DAI is a tad different than the ending of DAO or DA2. I mean, sure, we met Cory at the close of DA2, but he's dead- or so it seemed- so the Champ can go off. By contrast DAI ends with what appears the beginning of the Inq's new mission in life. So be it. But this still doesn't make the case that we need to play the Inq. They could make DA4 with our Inq's. But not necessarily. After all, Cory wasn't dead, so why weren't we playing Hawke as Inq, coming to finish the job they started? Because Harry came along. And it worked quite well, no? With a completely new character. So maintaining our same Inq's isn't necessary, plans to "deal with" Solas or no.

 

Characters say a lot of things- express their intentionality- without there being any need whatsoever for that character to fulfill them- neither to follow up as stated nor, more importantly in this case, to be able to follow up on their words. And there's no rule of good storytelling that abrogates that fact. Of all the games in which to not recognize that dynamic, DA isn't one: people saying one thing while the facts turn out differently is par for the course in DA. All that the devs are obligated to do is account for the intentionality. Something that they must do or be slackers about their own lore. Resolution of that narrative- at least in the sense of somehow addressing the Inky's intentionality- can't reasonably be ignored. But reemploying the instant Herald in order to resolve the "escalated conflict" is not required. To think that it is demonstrates a failure of imagination, something the DA devs don't tend to have.

 

They can account for the closing events of Trespasser in any number of ways. They could have narration in an opening sequence like DAO and DA2 which describes how the intentionality was manifest in some relatively comprehensive context- a segue to Prot#4. Or they could work into the player's experience with a new character what the concrete results of that intentionality were... Or they could deliver some combination of those two... And either way to the extent that the Inky even weighs into DA4's plot at all. Or, of course, they could do an arse-pull in which they have to figure out a way to get your same exact character morph from DAI into what may be yet another game engine without mangling it (or force you to re-CC your same character because once wasn't good enough), then mangle them down to lvl 1 with no gear, and then contrive a narrative in which your same, but gutted DAI character must confront a non-gutted (or also gutted?) Solas. Yes, they could also do that... But what sounds more feasible: narrative continuity by character transition or by arse pull? Some options are better than others, even if none fit perfectly...

 

Is the passion to counter Solas with our Inky a compelling narrative? Yes, it is. Does it need to be played out by the Inky to be fulfilling? Not in the least. In fact, the Inky's intentionality being thwarted could be that much more compelling. After spending the longest game in the DA series pretty much being the celebrated Herald from the get-go, now they're at an impasse they can't cross and must reach out, must pass the baton. That desperation, that sense of defeat, particularly after reaching the zenith of power and defeating a demi-god, can be emotionally charged. And it can make the new character that much more intriguing to play. If the Inky is even somehow in trouble due to Solas, it could be even more compelling. I mean, narcissism being what it is, you'd be tasked with having your new fledgling character save the previous exalted one. It's certainly a draw for me, as there was obviously no way for any of my Wardens to interact with each other, but now my Hawke, my Inky, and my new Holy Gobsmacker all coordinating efforts or working together- even if they don't like each other? Good stuff- potentially.

 

There are already games with fixed protagonists. ME does that, more or less. But DA has been different. It's one of its defining features... and it does fairly well in the market as DAO and DAI demonstrated over DA2... Why change DA into another ME at this late stage in the series, much less at all? Immensely better would be a reintroduction of the origins stories so we could get to know our new characters profoundly better than we could with the Inq, make DA4 reflect the origin even better than we could with our Wardens through DAO, and have all converge on the resolution of the Solas cliff-hanger as our Wardens did with Ostagar. Looks good to me.

[Danny Boy 7]

If nothing else, we can establish that Solas will act very soon based on meta reasons, like not going too far into the future and good story-telling demanding that the Inquisitor doesn't go up against him only for nothing to happen until our new protagonist arrives. It's about momentum. They need to keep it. No, I don't know for sure what they will do at all. I'm just saying what I think needs to happen to ensure good storytelling and no missed opportunities.

 

I wouldn't put much stock in the epilogue slides if I were you. Partly because they almost always get retconned, to the point where Bioware had to actually dismiss them as "hearsay" themselves (meaning that's how they're writing them now), and because all of the epilogue slides in Trespasser don't really make any sense unless they take place after the next game. Just as an example, Leliana's lyrium ghost leaving and saying it will return if needed. Well, that wouldn't happen while she's still needed to help the Inquisitor deal with Solas. So to me, the slides are some combination of non-canon and canon-but-not-when-we-think. I hope that made sense.

 

No! Don't go there. That may be how you feel, but it's as irrelevant to good storytelling as saying DA is about Thedas. For one, a returning Inquisitor wouldn't magically mean it isn't about Thedas, and two, for the hundredth time: Being in control of a new character to confront Solas may have more meaning to us since "we are the protagonist", but it will never have as much meaning, value, and most importantly, impact, as if we were controlling the Inquisitor. Not doing that is just bad storytelling and a giant missed opportunity.

 

An invalid? Screw that! Many people have explained why the loss of an arm would barely slow the Inquisitor down, and that they can say "I'm going to save the world. Again." And as I've already said, finding new people doesn't automatically mean they won't be active, since no matter what you do, you are active against Solas, using people he does know. The Inquisitor's line just meant they needed to change how they operated, and finding new people would help. Then of course there is the meta opportunity of Bioware showing that disabled people remain awesome after being disabled, which is something they might like showing.

 

The Inquisitor is the one with the deep personal mission and connection to the antagonist. That story thread is heavily implied to be continuing, and it needs to. Anything else would be a missed opportunity that doesn't appear very often to take advantage of in the first place. Solas vs the Inquisitor is one of the best hero/villain relationships I've seen in a long time, and our point is that we don't want that wasted.

 

I'm not sure how Bioware could have telegraphed their intent to have the Inquisitor return more clearly.

I'm sorry, but something that is really getting on my nerves is this idea that the ONLY way or the BEST way that good storytelling will happen is if the Inquisitor is personally walking the streets of Minrathous or Par Vollen. Good storytelling is good storytelling whichever way the writers put it. We might not enjoy the direction the game goes, but that does not in itself define good storytelling, just like if the Inquisitor returns and is as viable a fighter as when they fought Corypheus mean that it is contrived or bad storytelling.

 

The Inquisitor could have a HUGE role in DA4 and NEVER be controllable. They could have really personal dialogue with Solas and never pick up a dagger, bow, sword or staff. They could be completely divorced from the game for the first two acts and then swoop in and we could have a story that everyone absolutely loves. It's not about the Inquisitor being involved it's about whether they absolutely HAVE to be on the ground.

[BansheeOwnage]

...Okay, name a single character in Dragon Age that has recovered from a lost limb and had it be "hardly a problem". It annoys me that people keep saying "well Dagna could make a magic prosthetic" when there is absolutely no precedent for this type of technology. Yes, the writers could contrive something, they could contrive giving the Inquisitor a dragon arm if they really wanted to, but if they wanted to continue the Inquisitor they would have removed the mark without taking the arm. Instead, they took the arm.

Their intent is unambiguous.

Is there even a character who's lost a limb at all? Probably not one with the resources, wealth, and connections of the Inquisitor, at any rate. Haha, are you serious? No precedent? For one there are creatures like golems and Gate Guardians. You're telling me you're totally okay with a golem controlling their body, but the Inquisitor couldn't do the same thing with an enchanted prosthetic? Or the fact that Gate Guardians don't even have souls and can do that? Give me a break. Furthermore, Iron Bull was originally going to have a prosthetic arm, and that wouldn't have gone past the Ideas Board if they didn't think it was plausible in-universe. Even further than that, you have more unlikely but still plausible ideas like a spirit arm made with the same technique as a spirit blade, or an attached foreign arm with necromancy, which I don't think I need to remind anyone is possible...

 

Their intent is not quite unambiguous. Maybe Weekes thought the Inquisitor should simply finally pay a cost for all they've accomplished. It seems clear enough he wanted to make the story more personal. Maybe he even wanted to introduce new gameplay mechanics. Or maybe you're right. But it's not set in stone yet.

 

The Inquisitor is not going to be the protagonist of the next game. That's it. Bioware has said before that they intent to switch protagonists with each game and the Inquisitor will certainly be avoiding fighting on the front lines now that they're short an arm. I don't doubt that they'll probably play some role in the next game (perhaps as some sort of "Big Good") but they will not be the protagonist.

New lead writer, new story rules. That, or the simple fact that Bioware is allowed to and has changed their minds in the past. If they have a new protagonist, fine. But I have a hard time imagining Weekes setting up this new, personal conflict only to have it be ignored in the next game he makes.

 

Seems to me the biggest issues is that for many people they are just simply unable to ... let go!   The warden story is over!   Hawke's story is over!   The inquisitors story is now over!   Let em go.    They wouldn't have to keep coming up with reasons why they are not in the next game if people would just let their story end.

If we had this discussion before Trespasser, it would have been about letting go. The Inquisitor's story was over... now it's been reopened more than ever before. Now it's about good storytelling, not missing opportunities and losing narrative momentum. They wouldn't have to keep coming up with reasons for protagonists not to be in subsequent games if the players would let their stories end? What? Well, they wouldn't have to come up with any reasons at all if they simply returned, but either way, it's up to the writers to have their stories end, not the players. That's ridiculous.

 

Wouldn't work. Only mages can be magisters. 

I think the idea would involve different backgrounds again. One origin would be a magister, one would be a soporati, slave etc.

[Danny Boy 7]

 

 

New lead writer, new story rules. That, or the simple fact that Bioware is allowed to and has changed their minds in the past. If they have a new protagonist, fine. But I have a hard time imagining Weekes setting up this new, personal conflict only to have it be ignored in the next game he makes.

 

 

The Lead Writer is not in charge of where the story goes. Mike Laidlaw is the director, he directs where the story is going the writers just, you know, write the story and make it make sense. But the direction the story takes is in Mike's hands (barring the fact that its a team and a collaborative effort after all)

[AresKeith]

If we had this discussion before Trespasser, it would have been about letting go. The Inquisitor's story was over... now it's been reopened more than ever before. Now it's about good storytelling, not missing opportunities and losing narrative momentum. They wouldn't have to keep coming up with reasons for protagonists not to be in subsequent games if the players would let their stories end? What? Well, they wouldn't have to come up with any reasons at all if they simply returned, but either way, it's up to the writers to have their stories end, not the players. That's ridiculous.

 

It's a little early to call something a missed opportunity when we don't know how it'll end.

 

The Inquisitor can still be the one to confront Solas when without being the PC of the story, we don't even know if Solas will be the main villain of the next game. For all we know he could be in background doing his plans for a later story, Bioware could even go as far as doing multiple protagonists while the new character is still the main protag 

[Kimarous]

Is there even a character who's lost a limb at all? Probably not one with the resources, wealth, and connections of the Inquisitor, at any rate. Haha, are you serious? No precedent? For one there are creatures like golems and Gate Guardians.

 

Golem: completely mechanical body with a dwarven brain uploaded to it via the Anvil of the Void

Gate Guardian: Result of red lyrium doing "freaky s***", as Varric puts it

 

There is NO precedent for "artificial 'living' limb attached to living being." Unless your Inquisitor does something monumentally stupid and either makes a red lyrium arm (which, given their history with the Red Templars, is a big fat no) or becomes completely unrecognizable by becoming the next Shale (which is unlikely, given the possibility of the Anvil of the Void being destroyed).

 

So yeah, no precedent exists.

[Bombadyl]

If nothing else, we can establish that Solas will act very soon based on meta reasons, like not going too far into the future and good story-telling demanding that the Inquisitor doesn't go up against him only for nothing to happen until our new protagonist arrives. It's about momentum. They need to keep it. No, I don't know for sure what they will do at all. I'm just saying what I think needs to happen to ensure good storytelling and no missed opportunities.

 

I wouldn't put much stock in the epilogue slides if I were you.

 

 

No! Don't go there. That may be how you feel, but it's as irrelevant to good storytelling as saying DA is about Thedas. For one, a returning Inquisitor wouldn't magically mean it isn't about Thedas, and two, for the hundredth time: Being in control of a new character to confront Solas may have more meaning to us since "we are the protagonist", but it will never have as much meaning, value, and most importantly, impact, as if we were controlling the Inquisitor. Not doing that is just bad storytelling and a giant missed opportunity.

 

 

Stating something is good or bad 'story telling' is based upon your opinion of what good and bad story telling is.  You suggest that how I feel is irrelevant because my view is, according to you, 'not good story telling', thus bad and ultimately wrong.  A bit passive aggressive, but I take no offense, I simply disagree with what constitutes 'good story telling'. 

 

I think a good story telling would be taking someone not yet known and writing it well enough that we could get behind them as the new on-screen protagonist in the wake of how the this segment of the story ended between Inky and Solas.  Some might consider it bad story telling to feel compelled to use the expected character to continue the greater story because of a single unresolved conflict between two characters.  

 

Making the implausible or impossible scenario into a plausible or likely scenario is far better story telling than continuing with what is expected, in my opinion. Momentum is an ancillary aspect of story telling, as it applies to numerous aspects of various scenes or plot points, wheres tension or conflict is typically regarded as a key component of story telling, and with the way this segment of the greater story ended, there is certainly tension and conflict.

 

Ultimately what makes a story or in this case a game with a story good if not the amount of players? 

 

 

 

As to those folks who want an armless Inky back, you won me over and we don't even need a steam punk or magical prosthetic, we can just have him hunt solas down and bite him to death.

 

[Bombadyl]

 

 

They could be completely divorced from the game for the first two acts and then swoop in and we could have a story that everyone absolutely loves.

 

 

I'm pretty sure, "swooping is bad".   Sorry, could not resist.

[Kimarous]

Even further than that, you have more unlikely but still plausible ideas like a spirit arm made with the same technique as a spirit blade, or an attached foreign arm with necromancy, which I don't think I need to remind anyone is possible...

 

Because that won't draw attention and have superstitious Andrastians forming one constant lynch mob to kill you for flagrant usage of blood magic. No siree...

[Hanako Ikezawa]

So yeah, no precedent exists.

Other than the DA lore having arms grow back via magic, already having prosthetics both in concept and ingame, and Patrick Weekes when asked about it saying "Anything is possible.".

[BansheeOwnage]

 

The downside though will be race selection, which is set in the Keep even for new users, but if they implement the mechanism which will allow to switch (or change) Keep worldstates ingame, that wouldn't be a big deal.

I also wouldn't mind to play both a new hero and my Inquisitor, if they go for it and let the Inquisitor deal with Solas (but not as an NPC, because I want to have control over her during their encounter)

I agree with your post but I'm a bit confused by what you mean in regards to race selection. They could have race selection in the new game with the Inquisitor or someone new.

 

Ugh, please no crossbow arm.  It's just so... undignified.  I hope we will be able to choose what we want to put there, if that's what happens.  (Yes, I know that's what's shown in the slide.  I still don't like it.)  Discussion thread here:  http://forum.bioware...ioware-spoiler/

Well, part of the idea of new game mechanics would involve a choice in your prosthetic.

 

I'm sorry, but something that is really getting on my nerves is this idea that the ONLY way or the BEST way that good storytelling will happen is if the Inquisitor is personally walking the streets of Minrathous or Par Vollen. Good storytelling is good storytelling whichever way the writers put it. We might not enjoy the direction the game goes, but that does not in itself define good storytelling, just like if the Inquisitor returns and is as viable a fighter as when they fought Corypheus mean that it is contrived or bad storytelling.

 

The Inquisitor could have a HUGE role in DA4 and NEVER be controllable. They could have really personal dialogue with Solas and never pick up a dagger, bow, sword or staff. They could be completely divorced from the game for the first two acts and then swoop in and we could have a story that everyone absolutely loves. It's not about the Inquisitor being involved it's about whether they absolutely HAVE to be on the ground.

It's not the only way, but I do think it's the best way. That's why I'm arguing so passionately about it. And I think it's the best way because I fear that having them return but not be controllable simply wouldn't end well, even more than Hawke because of the more specific feelings you have about Solas and how to counter him than can be predicted and expressed by an NPC Inquisitor. I'm totally open to playing as the Inquisitor and someone else though, I just think controlling the Inquisitor is key.

 

It's a little early to call something a missed opportunity when we don't know how it'll end.

 

The Inquisitor can still be the one to confront Solas when without being the PC of the story, we don't even know if Solas will be the main villain of the next game. For all we know he could be in background doing his plans for a later story, Bioware could even go as far as doing multiple protagonists while the new character is still the main protag 

Did I say it was already a missed opportunity? I said it might be in the future.

 

Golem: completely mechanical body with a dwarven brain uploaded to it via the Anvil of the Void

Gate Guardian: Result of red lyrium doing "freaky s***", as Varric puts it

 

There is NO precedent for "artificial 'living' limb attached to living being." Unless your Inquisitor does something monumentally stupid and either makes a red lyrium arm (which, given their history with the Red Templars, is a big fat no) or becomes completely unrecognizable by becoming the next Shale (which is unlikely, given the possibility of the Anvil of the Void being destroyed).

 

So yeah, no precedent exists.

Yes, that's exactly what a golem is. That was my point. It's a still a person controlling what is essentially a foreign body. Why couldn't the Inquisitor control an arm if golems can function perfectly well with an entire prosthetic body? Only the Gate Guardians that Meredith summoned were powered by red lyrium. Most are powered by blue lyrium, as is mentioned in a codex. With what the Sha-Brytol have done using lyrium, I would find it perfectly acceptable for a skilled enchanter or artificer to create a usable limb. Luckily for the Inquisitor, they know one of each, and they can't be dead.

 

Stating something is good or bad 'story telling' is based upon your opinion of what good and bad story telling is.  You suggest that how I feel is irrelevant because my view is, according to you, 'not good story telling', thus bad and ultimately wrong.  A bit passive aggressive, but I take no offense, I simply disagree with what constitutes 'good story telling'. 

 

I think a good story telling would be taking someone not yet known and writing it well enough that we could get behind them as the new on-screen protagonist in the wake of how the this segment of the story ended between Inky and Solas.  Some might consider it bad story telling to feel compelled to use the expected character to continue the greater story because of a single unresolved conflict between two characters.  

 

Making the implausible or impossible scenario into a plausible or likely scenario is far better story telling than continuing with what is expected, in my opinion. Momentum is an ancillary aspect of story telling, as it applies to numerous aspects of various scenes or plot points, wheres tension or conflict is typically regarded as a key component of story telling, and with the way this segment of the greater story ended, there is certainly tension and conflict.

 

Ultimately what makes a story or in this case a game with a story good if not the amount of players? 

Yeah, I know it's my opinion, and I wasn't really trying to be passive aggressive either. I just skipped the pointless formality of labeling everything I say with "In my opinion." And I do even say it sometimes anyway. And in this case I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about where we'd each like the game to go. That's fine. But I do believe passionately that I, and apparently others, would get more out of it if I could control the Inquisitor, at least when the plot is about Solas. We have no way of knowing how much of the entire fanbase would or wouldn't. If the next game doesn't finish Solas' arc I'll be surprised.

 

Because that won't draw attention and have superstitious Andrastians forming one constant lynch mob to kill you for flagrant usage of blood magic. No siree...

Look, it was just another example that has been proven to work in the past, so I thought I'd throw it out there. I don't think they'll use it, and I don't even want them to. But to defend the idea: It only needs to be attached once, presumably, but even if it needed sustenance, there is no reason why any blood magic would be done in public. No one would know. Also gloves.

[Kimarous]

Yes, that's exactly what a golem is. That was my point. It's a still a person controlling what is essentially a foreign body. Why couldn't the Inquisitor control an arm if golems can function perfectly well with an entire prosthetic body? Only the Gate Guardians that Meredith summoned were powered by red lyrium. Most are powered by blue lyrium, as is mentioned in a codex. With what the Sha-Brytol have done using lyrium, I would find it perfectly acceptable for a skilled enchanter or artificer to create a usable limb. Luckily for the Inquisitor, they know one of each, and they can't be dead.

 

Concerning the golem idea: unless they have their own mind of their own, like Shale, golems respond to orders from control rods, and while we have had control rods exist in the games, I'm pretty sure we haven't actually seen one on-screen. We don't know how exactly they work. I think this might pose a problem if you were trying to operate one hand with the other hand...

 

Concerning Gate Guardians: do you have a source to cite for that? The only Gate Guardians I recall were the ones created by Meredeth. If this is entirely based on a codex entry (an in-universe document that may or may not be accurate), this raises the questions of whether 1) the Gate Guardians are ACTUAL Gate Guardians or just CALLED Gate Guardians, and 2) if the lyrium was indeed regular lyrium. There are plenty of documents in DA:I that show that many people outside the Inquisition don't draw a differentiation between regular lyrium and red lyrium, treating the latter simply as "more potent lyrium."

 

Concerning lyrium itself: correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought lyrium was toxic to the body when ingested or introduced to the blood stream. If we are going to get an animated prosthetic arm, odds are that it will have to connect to the body through the nervous system. If any substance were to do so, I imagine it would be the lyrium, which... well... again, toxicity concerns.

[Homeboundcrib]

I think the gearlt/ciri play style would be great, as it was mentioned earlier that way most people get what they want, playing as a new hero and the inqusitor, hopefully the Inquisitior deals with Solas and hopefully we can control him or her when it comes to that time so the conversations have more meaning then to a new hero who has no relationship with Solas.