1659 réponses à ce sujet

[Nefla]

I agree with everything you're saying except for the conclusion it leads you to, that the Inquisitor needs to be the one to deal with Solas.

 

I would still want there to be a connection between Solas and the new protagonist. As I've said many times, I think they're fully capable of developing that relationship into something interesting. They've demonstrated the ability to do that before. 

 

I think part of my problem is just the idea that the Inquisitor is the only one who could possibly have a personal stake in stopping Solas.

 

If they did it right you could even have a scene late in the game where the new protag confronts the Inquisitor, be it in the form of an NPC(preferably, in my opinion) or dual protag, about which of them has the more legitimate personal dispute with Solas, or they can call the Inquisitor out on being too personally involved while countless lives are at stake, or they can argue about how to deal with him with one arguing to save him and the other one punching that one in the face.

 

Of course the problem with that dynamic is if they're in perfect agreement on everything then what the hell is the point of there being two of them, which is why I'm against dual protagonists.

 

Anyway, another part of the problem is, like I said, Solas wants it. So, in my mind, if the Inquisitor beats Solas, whether by killing him or redeeming him, Solas wins, and I cannot allow that.

There's nothing saying the inquisitor is the only one that can have a personal connection to Solas, but the inquisitor already HAS that connection to Solas. Why throw that out the window and try to do the same thing with some new person? There's also nothing saying the inquisitor is the only one who could possibly stop Solas or that Solas wants the inquisitor to stop him, it just makes for the most appealing story IMO. I really REALLY don't want to see the inquisitor back as an NPC and I don't want dual protagonists either. I don't want a new protagonist at all for the resolution of this Solas conflict.

[leaguer of one]

There's nothing saying the inquisitor is the only one that can have a personal connection to Solas, but the inquisitor already HAS that connection to Solas. Why throw that out the window and try to do the same thing with some new person? There's also nothing saying the inquisitor is the only one who could possibly stop Solas or that Solas wants the inquisitor to stop him, it just makes for the most appealing story IMO. I really REALLY don't want to see the inquisitor back as an NPC and I don't want dual protagonists either. I don't want a new protagonist at all for the resolution of this Solas conflict.

Who say they are throwing it out. they are just not the main character. As i pointed out before, it would be just the case with  professor x and  magneto. The fight they have is personal but the fight via proxy. The guy send a team of teenagers and young adults after him who start out having no personal connect to Magneto at all.

[AllThatJazz]

Yo Obi Wan/Yoda didn't kill Vader/Emporer bruh. We had Luke do it. Pass the torch.

That's not a good comparison. First, Obi Wan and Vader had not one, but two confrontations (at the end of revenge of the sith, and then the one that killed Obi), so it isn't as though the character was denied resolution. Second, We had Luke from the beginning of the first film. The relationship between him and Vader was presented early as being more central than that between Obi Wan and Vader. He had three films to develop as a protagonist with a personal connection to the antagonist. A better analogy would be Luke gets built up to be Vader's nemesis/saviour, then after Vader chops his hand off, he goes 'sod it', takes a back seat and hires Boba Fett to finish the job.

Who say they are throwing it out. they are just not the main character. As i pointed out before, it would be just the case with professor x and magneto. The fight they have is personal but the fight via proxy. The guy send a team of teenagers and young adults after him who start out having no personal connect to Magneto at all.

No problem with this, except that in the X-Men films, there are scenes with Xavier and Magneto talking/confronting one another ( in all the XMen films I've seen anyway). It isn't as though the entire thing is handled by other people, with Professor X deciding he really can't be arsed anymore. I can accept the Inquisitor only returning in such a capacity, in cutscenes with Solas and as a high level mentor character (albeit grudgingly), as long as I am in control of the Inquisitor's dialogue when those cutscenes kick in, which is the key thing for me. I don't think that Hawke worked very well as an NPC, and I think it would be even more difficult to make the Inquisitor work in such a scenario.

[Nixou]

I don't see too many people on this thread agreeing with the 3 or 4 (OK, maybe 5), of you who keep saying the inquisitor should be brought back as a protagonist

 

 

As The sole protagonist of the next game? Certainly not.

As a guest-star PC with his/her own dialogue wheel? It probably would be a hell to script and implement (how do we do when the two characters are in the same room?) but I certainly wouldn't mind it. Besides, the more the games deviate from the silly "Un Livre dont Vous êtes le Héros" formula, the happier I am.

 

***

 

I don't have the time to read all of this but I'm almost 100% sure this is yet another "bring back the warden" thread now with some bare boned proof!

 

 

Which is one of the reasons I for one favor a fourth (or fifth for those who chose the Ultimate Sacrifice in Origins) protagonist. If the Inquisitor comes back as a controllable guest star, it will be an improved version of the Hawke cameo in Inquisition: everybody wins: those who want a new protagonists get it, those who want the Inquisitor to come back to finish/redeem/jump-like-a-pointy-eared-bonobo Solas get it as well. But if s/he gets to star alone a whole new game, expect the usual crowd howling "Why did the Inquisitor get two full games and not the Warden/Hawke? Bring Back Our favorite protagonists!"

 

***

 

I'm still mostly convinced that Solas' plotline is going to end with him failing to take down the veil but doing so in a way that releases one or more of the Evanuris, who will then take over as the big bads for the next game.

 

 

If I were to take a bet, I'd say that the Veil will end up being irrecuperably damaged but not like the Breach: instead of having holes punched through it, it will start a slow process of dissolving, meaning it will be increasingly easy for spirits to weave in and out the material world and magic will become progressively more present but the change won't be immediate (so the writers and programers don't have to create a widely different Thedas and can keep on woking with its current "Late-Middle-Ages with ancient magical relics" aesthetics.)

 

***

 

I want to vomit after reading your post. DA: Pirate Age? Seriously?

 

 

I, too, hope that Bioware will look at Skies of Arcadia as a source of inspiration... And give us a pirate island HQ, a stolen dreadnought to command and a "find the best crew" game-long quest

 

***

 

On the other hand, I like the idea of new protagonists because they offer the opportunity to make a new character who's very different from the previous ones.

 

 

I agree: that's the reason why my own world-state has a selfish, brutish Warden, a snarky pro-mage Hawke and a conservative Inquisitor: I like the notion that people with widely different personalities, opinions and goals played a role in shaping Thedas' history instead of having the same character with different faces and voices coming back over and over.

[Dieb]

But if s/he gets to star alone a whole new game, expect the usual crowd howling "Why did the Inquisitor get two full games and not the Warden/Hawke? Bring Back Our favorite protagonists!"

 

That is basically the entire argument. It is almost a certainty that the Inquisitor will not be the protagonist, and the reason is this.

 

I for one am only arguing because I find the hubris of assuming there is any different, yet equally striking argument to make people bemoaning the routine seem ignorant or dense, a little uncalled for. Since Trespasser was basically The Arrival for DA, however, it shows a deliberate hinting to a break in said routine, and it is just as sound to speculate in that direction - the fact that sound speculation has no place in a decision primarily based on very "meta" fan feedback and marketing calculations in the end nonwithstanding.

 

If it is done well, I have no objections to anyone stepping in as player controlled character obviously - but I'd be really annoyed if, despite the decisive note on which Trespasser ended, my Inquisitor merely sends me a post card from the land in which he'll remain for the duration of the plot in order to "find a cure for mutilation".

[Former_Fiend]

That's not a good comparison. First, Obi Wan and Vader had not one, but two confrontations (at the end of revenge of the sith, and then the one that killed Obi), so it isn't as though the character was denied resolution. Second, We had Luke from the beginning of the first film. The relationship between him and Vader was presented early as being more central than that between Obi Wan and Vader. He had three films to develop as a protagonist with a personal connection to the antagonist. A better analogy would be Luke gets built up to be Vader's nemesis/saviour, then after Vader chops his hand off, he goes 'sod it', takes a back seat and hires Boba Fett to finish the job.


No problem with this, except that in the X-Men films, there are scenes with Xavier and Magneto talking/confronting one another ( in all the XMen films I've seen anyway). It isn't as though the entire thing is handled by other people, with Professor X deciding he really can't be arsed anymore. I can accept the Inquisitor only returning in such a capacity, in cutscenes with Solas and as a high level mentor character (albeit grudgingly), as long as I am in control of the Inquisitor's dialogue when those cutscenes kick in, which is the key thing for me. I don't think that Hawke worked very well as an NPC, and I think it would be even more difficult to make the Inquisitor work in such a scenario.

 

Another analogy that was brought up by your side was building an epic saga with the Avengers for several films only to have the Fantastic Four to come in and settle the finale.

 

Thing is, they did just do an Avengers movie that's building up to part of an epic saga, and at the end of that movie, spoiler alert, they almost completely changed the Avenger's Line-Up going into Phase Three. And they've announced that after Infinity War, there is likely going to be yet another major cast shake up as well, partly due to actors aging and contracts, but also due to the simple fact that semi-frequent line-up changes are a major part of the Avengers' charm.

 

I will say the Inquisitor as an NPC who's dialogue is controllable is a compromise I'd be willing to accept. I think there might be some technical issues in regards to voice files, but if they otherwise cut down redundant characters - and I see no reason why they would need any, with the possible exception of the Inquisitor's LI - it could well be feasible.  

[Iakus]

 

 

I, too, hope that Bioware will look at Skies of Arcadia as a source of inspiration... And give us a pirate island HQ, a stolen dreadnought to command and a "find the best crew" game-long quest

 

 

They did that already.  It's called Mass Effect 2 

[Aesir26]

I have to admit that I would eventually like to see an end to a new protagonist being used every game as well. It's not that I'm particularly against it but I do have a few reasons for wanting to see an end to it at least for a couple of games.

 

One thing I'm worried about is things getting to a point where the series has "Too Many Heroes Syndrome". Basically where you have too many heroes and too many earth-shattering events happening within a short span of time in the history/lore of the series. I think this could be somewhat alleviated by moving away from the huge events. Not to say that we shouldn't have stories with them but it would probably help to spread them out with smaller, contained stories like what we saw DA2 before Anders blew up the chantry and sparked the mage rebellion. Admittedly, that doesn't seem to be an option for the next game with the way things seem to be building up.

 

Another reason, probably my main reason, is that I really miss the attachment that I developed to Commander Shepherd and certain companions over the course of the three ME games. It was great to be able to see my Shepherd develop (as much as she could) over the course of three games and to feel so attached to both Garrus and Tali simply because they were almost always the first of the crew to join in every one. I would really like to be able to have similar feelings directed towards characters in Dragon Age.

 

One thing I will say, however, is that I do like how Bioware handled Quizzy in Trespasser. With what happened to him/her it does make sense why they wouldn't appear in the next game as opposed to just mysteriously disappearing like HoF.

[Iakus]

 

Another reason, probably my main reason, is that I really miss the attachment that I developed to Commander Shepherd and certain companions over the course of the three ME games. It was great to be able to see my Shepherd develop (as much as she could) over the course of three games and to feel so attached to both Garrus and Tali simply because they were almost always the first of the crew to join in every one. I would really like to be able to have similar feelings directed towards characters in Dragon Age.

 

The absolute last thing I want is another Commander Shepard.  That attachment was taken advantage of in the worst possible way.

 

Another thing you have to take into account is the writers don't stick around forever.  And as such, the characters you grow attached to in previous games may change in later ones.  Not always in ways you like.  You like how Garrus and Tali turned out.  But ask fans of Ashley or Miranda or Legion how they liked the development of those characters.  It's not that the writers were bad.  But they couldn't capture the spirit of who they were as the previous writer did.

[Aesir26]

The absolute last thing I want is another Commander Shepard.  That attachment was taken advantage of in the worst possible way.

 

Another thing you have to take into account is the writers don't stick around forever.  And as such, the characters you grow attached to in previous games may change in later ones.  Not always in ways you like.  You like how Garrus and Tali turned out.  But ask fans of Ashley or Miranda or Legion how they liked the development of those characters.  It's not that the writers were bad.  But they couldn't capture the spirit of who they were as the previous writer did.

 

I certainly do realise that and it's the big reason why I wouldn't put up too much of a fuss if they never did stick with a single protagonist, particularly since I wasn't exactly fond of the changes to Ashley either. If they ever manage to achieve something similar in regards to the protagonist in a single game then I would be ecstatic.

[Abyss108]

I don't want Dragon Age to turn into Mass Effect, where there's the one most important person who has to stop everything that ever goes wrong in the universe.

 

But I do want them to finish this one story they started, with the character that is most involved with it.

 

After that, I want to go back to having new protagonists. Making a new character is part of the fun!

[In Exile]

The Inquisitor doesn't really have a personal connection to Solas in a way that makes a continued plot work, apart from the fact that the Inquisitor 1) happens to know Solas and 2) was played like a fiddle throughout DA:I. The only reason the Inquisitor even counts as an antagonist (from Solas's POV) is that the Inquisitor declares to be in opposition to him, and wants to stop Solas. 

 

Shepard is a bad example re: the reapers, because Shepard does actually do something to one of them. The Inquisitor is more like... Captain Anderson. 

[diaspora2k5]

The Inquisitor doesn't really have a personal connection to Solas in a way that makes a continued plot work, apart from the fact that the Inquisitor 1) happens to know Solas and 2) was played like a fiddle throughout DA:I. The only reason the Inquisitor even counts as an antagonist (from Solas's POV) is that the Inquisitor declares to be in opposition to him, and wants to stop Solas. 

 

Shepard is a bad example re: the reapers, because Shepard does actually do something to one of them. The Inquisitor is more like... Captain Anderson. 

The Inquisitor doesn't even really know Solas either, not even close to the same degree that Solas knows the Inquisitor. She/He makes this admission themselves which is why they're looking for people he doesn't know.

[Reznore57]

The Inquisitor doesn't really have a personal connection to Solas in a way that makes a continued plot work, apart from the fact that the Inquisitor 1) happens to know Solas and 2) was played like a fiddle throughout DA:I. The only reason the Inquisitor even counts as an antagonist (from Solas's POV) is that the Inquisitor declares to be in opposition to him, and wants to stop Solas. 

 

 

 

The reason the Inqui is Solas' antagonist is because Solas sees the Inqui as a peer and tell him the truth, Solas wasn't forced to talk about his plan but he did .

Everybody sane would oppose Solas anyway , thing is Solas doesn't walk around casually talking about destroying the world with random people.

[NoForgiveness]

The Inquisitor doesn't really have a personal connection to Solas in a way that makes a continued plot work, apart from the fact that the Inquisitor 1) happens to know Solas and 2) was played like a fiddle throughout DA:I. The only reason the Inquisitor even counts as an antagonist (from Solas's POV) is that the Inquisitor declares to be in opposition to him, and wants to stop Solas. 

 

Shepard is a bad example re: the reapers, because Shepard does actually do something to one of them. The Inquisitor is more like... Captain Anderson. 

 

That might be true if you want to see it like that. But thing is, whatever relationship they do have is certainly alot more then a new character could ever have. Him being a companion puts him in an interesting position. I don't think I've ever had a companion conflict like this. I mean, I've killed plenty of companions, but it was never like the character was the antagonist. They can't just make him a companion again and there's really no way a new pc will have any connection beyond "big bad. gotta stop" 

[Former_Fiend]

Part of me wants to say that it takes a lack of imagination to think that the only possible connection between Solas and a new pc would be "big bad, gotta stop them". But then another part of me recognizes that I'm the one who can't imagine a single thing that Bioware can do with the Inquisitor/Solas dynamic to make it interesting to me, so I'll cop to pot & kettle on that one.

 

I will concede that there's no way a new PC would be able to have a connection matching that of an Inquisitor who romanced Solas, but I definitely think that there are things that can be done to give a new PC a connection at least matching that of a friendship Inquisitor and far surpassing that of an antagonistic or apathetically neutral inquisitor. 

[Emerald Rift]

I always thought that the best way to introduce a new protagonist in each new game would be to:

 

1) Completely tie up loose ends of characters in each game like in Trespasser sliders/DAO sliders.

2) Don't feature the same country/area at all, I would go further the better.

3) I know some people won't like this but set future game's timelines years away even centuries so that previous events would become legends. Of course we know legends sometimes contain some truth or not at all.

 

I like the idea of consequences but with Bioware there's never been a pay off in the long run as most of the big decisions are swept under the rug. Also I don't mind characters returning but only if it makes sense to the plot not just fan service (and I hate how some characters are resurrected). I will always prefer a good story over seeing my favourite characters again.

 

So unless each game is completely separate and consequences are dealt in each game as it goes OR we have the same protagonist with a tight plot so that the decisions matter I don't think you can please everyone.

[Iakus]

I'm just gonna go with Babylon 5...

 

"You are the One who Was. You are the One who Is. You are the One Who Will Be. You are the beginning of the story, and the middle of the story, and the end of the story. That creates the next great story.  Ah, in your heart, you know what Zathras says is true."

 

[leaguer of one]

The reason the Inqui is Solas' antagonist is because Solas sees the Inqui as a peer and tell him the truth, Solas wasn't forced to talk about his plan but he did .

Everybody sane would oppose Solas anyway , thing is Solas doesn't walk around casually talking about destroying the world with random people.

That just makes it a Professor X/Magneto rivalry.

[Nixou]

I'm just gonna go with Babylon 5...

 

"You are the One who Was. You are the One who Is. You are the One Who Will Be. You are the beginning of the story, and the middle of the story, and the end of the story. That creates the next great story.  Ah, in your heart, you know what Zathras says is true."

 

 

That didn't stop Sheridan from replacing Sinclair, you know

[Phoe77]

I don't necessarily think that there's no way for a new protagonist to be given a personal stake in opposing Solas.  However, I also don't personally think that it's necessary to do so in the first place.  I would be fine with the protagonist stepping into his role simply because he doesn't, in fact, want to see Thedas experience a widespread cataclysm.  In a way it would be kind of refreshing to have a character who steps up because they can rather than because they have to thanks to some circumstance or another.  

[BansheeOwnage]

Conversely, at least in my opinion, it makes things start to feel more contrived by having every single important event on a vast continent be resolved by the same group of super special people.  I hate how nothing important happens in the Star Wars universe without a Skywalker or a Solo being personally involved, and I would hate for a single group of adventurers to right all the wrongs in Thedas.

That's a valid point. I'm not trying to say you should never have new main characters and protagonists. If ME3 ended in a satisfying way I'd be fine with ME4 having a new protagonist too. I'd be fine with Dragon Age having a few, I just don't want them to make a new one every game like clockwork, because it limits their options. In an alternate reality, I'd be really interested if Dragon Age had a game about the Warden, then Hawke, then the Inquisitor, then the Warden, Hawke, and the Inquisitor again. Or if they each had a couple of games. You don't need a trilogy, but I absolutely love revisiting relationships as the same character and getting to build them up more. I don't find I can properly build up my character and her relationships in only one game. So it's personal preference.

 

I just think that in this case, the Inquisitor's story is not over, whether we'll play as them again, whereas the HoF and Hawke's were much more finished. So I wouldn't mind a change of pace, and in this case, that means the same protagonist.

 

And so many storys with multiple characters and shifting cast says no. Te same case and main character means the same perspectives to a world that can be seen in many ways. Being able to see the world with a new cast and pc allow for a new perspective for the world of thedus the old cast and pc would not have. Sticking to one character counters that point.

 

ME is the biggest example of how one pc narrows the perspective of the universe the pc is in. We just know how a human military perspective is and even then the cast does shift.  

I loved how ME did it. You had most of the characters return, though only a couple would return as squadmates, and we also got a lot of new characters to meet. That gives us new perspectives more than new protagonists does, in my opinion.

[BansheeOwnage]

A better analogy would be Luke gets built up to be Vader's nemesis/saviour, then after Vader chops his hand off, he goes 'sod it', takes a back seat and hires Boba Fett to finish the job.
 

Made me laugh, because of how weirdly similar that is

[Iakus]

That didn't stop Sheridan from replacing Sinclair, you know

Exactly.  The One gets passed from person to person.  Ending one story and starting a new one.  And on and on and on...

[leaguer of one]

 

 

I loved how ME did it. You had most of the characters return, though only a couple would return as squadmates, and we also got a lot of new characters to meet. That gives us new perspectives more than new protagonists does, in my opinion.

And that's the thing. This is not ME. Sure you get more perspectives but you see other places of that universe. You just a person of a ship the get off it from time to time and ether sight see some other things going on or have it told to you.. With DA you live it. In mass effect you are told about the war that are happening at the side of ME2. In DA you are living it and meaning people who were a part of it as part of your team.