1659 réponses à ce sujet

[Eivuwan]

Well, we'll see how it's handled in DA4, but the disbanded Inquisition basically makes you like The Warden: In charge of a group of random people trying to achieve a singular goal, not really an organization.

 

No, it's clear that "disbanding" is only an official cover. You end up doing the exact same thing, just as an independent force instead of a chantry-lead one. The Keep makes it clear that the effective difference between the two in regards to the next game will be how many resources you have versus the likelihood of being infiltrated by spies. Of course, if you disband, you'd also expect more agency.

 

The difference of disbanding is that you are still an organization, but you don't have to be a religious organization. You are a much smaller and secretive organization so you don't have to worry about other people's opinions (aka politics). Note that the only people who are consistently in the final cut scene are Cassandra, Harding, and Leliana. I don't see how that is still the "Inquisition."

[BansheeOwnage]

The difference of disbanding is that you are still an organization, but you don't have to be a religious organization. You are a much smaller and secretive organization so you don't have to worry about other people's opinions (aka politics). Note that the only people who are consistently in the final cut scene are Cassandra, Dagna, and Leliana. I don't see how that is still the "Inquisition."

You mean Harding? Well you can change the name if you like I guess, but it's much easier to refer to the Inquisition remnant as the Inquisition. And whether it's an organization or a group is mostly semantics, especially since we don't know its exact composition yet.

[Eivuwan]

You mean Harding? Well you can change the name if you like I guess, but it's much easier to refer to the Inquisition remnant as the Inquisition. And whether it's an organization or a group is mostly semantics, especially since we don't know its exact composition yet.

 

Yes sorry I meant Harding. It is much easier to refer to the group as the Inquisition, but the Inquisition is essentially a religious organization. If its nature has changed by disbanding, then it is time to give it a new name. Also my character was atheist and refused to identify as the Herald of Andraste so I think he/she is done being called the Inquisitor now that it is officially disbanded.

[BansheeOwnage]

Yes sorry I meant Harding. It is much easier to refer to the group as the Inquisition, but the Inquisition is essentially a religious organization. If its nature has changed by disbanding, then it is time to give it a new name. Also my character was atheist and refused to identify as the Herald of Andraste so I think he/she is done being called the Inquisitor now that it is officially disbanded.

My character was the same, though she would have always preferred to simply be called Trevelyan if not her first name. (I mean come on Cullen, we're in a relationship and you still call me Inquisitor?) Unfortunately Bioware doesn't like calling our protagonists anything other than the minimum number of variations, so I'm having trouble seeing alternates to so many lines in DA4. Unless the title of Inquisitor is dropped for everyone and they use a new title or last names. Still, there are four last names...

[Eivuwan]

My character was the same, though she would have always preferred to simply be called Trevelyan if not her first name. (I mean come on Cullen, we're in a relationship and you still call me Inquisitor?) Unfortunately Bioware doesn't like calling our protagonists anything other than the minimum number of variations, so I'm having trouble seeing alternates to so many lines in DA4. Unless the title of Inquisitor is dropped for everyone and they use a new title or last names. Still, there are four last names...

 

I would prefer a new title.

[Heimdall]

I would prefer a new title.

Well, Varric did make them a Comte/Comtess

[Nixou]

That is actually pretty stupid, all things considered. First off he's the king; he can overrule Loghain and bring in the Orlesians if he pleases

 

 

And cause a massive political crisis in Ferelden while the country is under assault from a horde of murderous ghouls led by an undying Dracolich? Cailan may have found the business of governing his country boring, but he was not politically illiterate to the point of pulling a Joffrey and going all "I am the King! I do what I want!"

 

***

 

 

Secondly he's insisting on using Orlesians for help instead of waiting for Eamon and Howe's armies which could be of significant aid

 

 

Of course he wants his armies to engage the Darkspawn without Eamon! that's because Eamon's was always supposed to lead Ferelden should something happen to its King: you don't put your whole line of succession in the same place, especially during an invasion.

 

***

 

Really? I heard it was really ugly looking.

 

 

The Hinterlands were really ugly, but then again, it's Ferelden: it's supposed to look like a big pile of brown stuff placed on top of more brown stuff. Once you reach the brightely colored areas, the game stops being ugly.

The facial hair was also problematic: the plastic beards truly reached their apex-plasticness on the old gens.

[Aren]

DAO doesn't just deconstruct Wardens. It shows them to be incompetent egomaniacs whose actions actively risk dooming Thedas during the blight. All they have going for them is good publicity.

Everything Duncan does is borderline insanity and actively risks the safety of all Thedas either for no apparent purpose or for the sake of the Warden's compulsive need to keep really important information secret.

Any organization or set of characters that aren't directed tied to your character and your inner circle of friends will always be made out to look clueless and incompetant. Its how it goes in these games. And people are more than happy to go right along with this.

Red Lyrium is never even hinted to exist in such quantities before this game, and not even the people most knowledgable about Lyrium and Blights have ever heard of it. It is a tool that the narrative uses to corrupt the whole Templar Order, and demonstrates a variety of properties that it didn't possess before.

But its the fact that the Red Lyrium just comes out of thin air, and then they hit us with 'Its the Blight in lyrium' despite the Blight beind everywhere in the Deep Roads, and the Lyrium there isn't corrupted. Surely some Grey Wardens or Dwarfs would have seen it over the centuries? And they *all* decided to suppress the information, so not even rumors existed?

The Red Lyrium is just a retconned plot device though, so its unfair to blame the Wardens. Varric mentions that not even the Merchant Guild Dwarfs in Orzammar know anything about it or had ever seen it. And their entire business is Lyrium. They wrote the book on the stuff - with Lyrium! Its just a more visually interesting and expressive way of showing blight infestation. It was far more interesting when is was simply one idol with an implied pseudo sentience about it. Having it suddenly be everywhere makes all the people who should technically have known about it, look incompetant.

Continuity has never been Bioware's strong point, which is hilarious considering the whole 'Your choices have consequences' line they are always pushing.

 

And it leads to the very problem we have been discussing - that if you pull this kind of stunt, it leaves people who by the established lore should have known something, looking like complete and utter fools at best, self aggrandizing frauds at worst.

[BansheeOwnage]

Any organization or set of characters that aren't directed tied to your character and your inner circle of friends will always be made out to look clueless and incompetant. Its how it goes in these games. And people are more than happy to go right along with this.

Red Lyrium is never even hinted to exist in such quantities before this game, and not even the people most knowledgable about Lyrium and Blights have ever heard of it. It is a tool that the narrative uses to corrupt the whole Templar Order, and demonstrates a variety of properties that it didn't possess before.

But its the fact that the Red Lyrium just comes out of thin air, and then they hit us with 'Its the Blight in lyrium' despite the Blight beind everywhere in the Deep Roads, and the Lyrium there isn't corrupted. Surely some Grey Wardens or Dwarfs would have seen it over the centuries? And they *all* decided to suppress the information, so not even rumors existed?

The Red Lyrium is just a retconned plot device though, so its unfair to blame the Wardens. Varric mentions that not even the Merchant Guild Dwarfs in Orzammar know anything about it or had ever seen it. And their entire business is Lyrium. They wrote the book on the stuff - with Lyrium! Its just a more visually interesting and expressive way of showing blight infestation. It was far more interesting when is was simply one idol with an implied pseudo sentience about it. Having it suddenly be everywhere makes all the people who should technically have known about it, look incompetant.

 

Red lyrium isn't necessarily a retcon. We don't know exactly how it works, so it's more than possible almost no one has heard of it at the time of DA:I. Obviously, darkspawn walking through the deep roads isn't enough to corrupt it. It may be that it only originally comes from blighted Titans, but the red lyrium from those Titans can spread afterwards. Who knows? The reason there is so much of it in DA:I is because Corypheus and his minions were purposely making it.

 

Also, why does the text look like that?

[Nefla]

not an actual spoiler.

Spoiler

It's worse than I imagined!

[Eivuwan]

I posted in wrong thread. sorry

[BansheeOwnage]

I posted in wrong thread. sorry

Well, off-topic then: If you still have a save as your Levellan, go to the Black Emporium and take screenshots of her sliders. It's tedious, but that's how I recreated my girlfriend's Inquisitor

[Eivuwan]

Well, off-topic then: If you still have a save as your Levellan, go to the Black Emporium and take screenshots of her sliders. It's tedious, but that's how I recreated my girlfriend's Inquisitor

 

Wow, I completely forgot about the black emporium. Great idea!

[BansheeOwnage]

Wow, I completely forgot about the black emporium. Great idea!

Thanks, I'm here to help

[Xetykins]

I can't imagine playing another 50hrs with my Inquisitor I'm sorry

Besides, I'd rather be dealing with Solas with a clean slate protagonist with not a single bias or any kinds of agenda that comes from having previously known him.

I wouldn't mind a quizzy cameo ala Hawke though. And hope they treat him/her better than Hawke.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I wouldn't mind a quizzy cameo ala Hawke though. And hope they treat him/her better than Hawke.

Well, it's not like they can treat them worse than Hawke. 

[Nefla]

Well, it's not like they can treat them worse than Hawke. 

Shh, they'll take that as a challenge

 

I can't imagine playing another 50hrs with my Inquisitor I'm sorry

Besides, I'd rather be dealing with Solas with a clean slate protagonist with not a single bias or any kinds of agenda that comes from having previously known him.

We wouldn't be torn like this if BioWare hadn't gotten the idea that continuing plotlines from one game to the next, making tons of cameos, and returning companions from one game to the next, yet starting over with a new hero was a good idea. If they're going to have us play a new character, there should be a new villain, new plotline, and new companions.

[Ieldra]

We wouldn't be torn like this if BioWare hadn't gotten the idea that continuing plotlines from one game to the next, making tons of cameos, and returning companions from one game to the next, yet starting over with a new hero was a good idea. If they're going to have us play a new character, there should be a new villain, new plotline, and new companions.

We will have a new antagonist (Solas instead of Corypheus), a new plot (Solas sundering of the Veil instead of Corypheus taking over the world) and very likely at least 8 of 9 companions will be new. IMO a new protagonist fits that scenario well. In fact, I'd have preferred if the Inquisitor was left alone completely, but I think for most of our inquisitors, it would be out of character to not involve themselves.

 

A few more points: chances are, if they made a protagonist for the whole series, it would be someone like ME's Shepard, and there is little I'd dislike more than that. Also, the protagonist would dominate the story of multiple games to an unpleasant degree. IMO, it is *way* more plausible, if you have a world-shaking overarching story arc spanning several decades, that there are several big figures involved. That's why epic fantasy book series frequently have more than one protagonist. I would like DA to be like those - and if you take them as an example, there, too, recurring characters exist that meet several of the protagonists over time. I do not see at all why this should be a problem. 

 

So, I am in full support of new protagonists every game. It keeps things interesting. and we're not stuck with the same character for several years.

[Former_Fiend]

New companions is one thing I am very much in favor of. I know some people have Dorian pegged as someone who'll be returning to the roster regardless of who we play as, but I expect him to play more of a prominent NPC role. 

 

I was fine with them bringing Oghren over from DAO to DAA; he was one of my favorite companions, didn't get a whole lot of screen time compared to everyone else for most people(I always went to Orzamar after dealing with the Circle just to grab him). But then they brought him in and undid what character development he did have in DAO and reset his approval to half way despite the fact that he was my Warden's best friend. 

 

But, sure, ok. Rampant alcoholism is a chronic problem so Oghren regressing a bit is understandable and it all works out more or less for the best in DAA.

 

Then DA2 comes around. Isabela and Merrill I kind of forgive. I think there are issues with both of them; Isabela became a bit of an exaggerated caricature of what few traits she had in DAO, though there's some depth underneath that and some growth to be had. Merrill may as well have been a completely different character for what they did with her - she didn't have much personality in DAO but she definitely wasn't ...Merrill. But they wanted to expand on the Eluvian thing, so they tied that in. Still, I ultimately enjoyed both of their characters, but the fact that they share the names and backstories of minor npc's that appeared in DAO is largely incidental.

 

But of course the elephant in the room would be Anders/Justice. Which... yeah, not a fan of that. Didn't hate it as much as some people, and I still appreciate Anders and a bit of what he brought to the table. But damn.

 

Then we go to Varric. Like most people I rather liked Varric in DA2. I didn't care for him much at all in DAI. He was there to say "red lyrium is bad", and to call Hawke in so that he and Hawke can tell you the same thing; that Corypheus can apparently come back from the dead. Also to establish that every problem you had with DA2 was just the result of his writing. Aside from that he just complains and complains and complains.

 

Oh, and his quest introduces Bianca Davri, who is my most hated character in the series thus far because she's just awful. 

 

So, in summary, I haven't seen an example where a carry-over character being a companion, or a companion getting two games, has worked out for the best; at best it's been incidental. At worst they missed everything that was likable about the character in the first place. Oh, and this is just me taking the game mechanics too seriously, but it always bugs me when a character gets de-leveled so they can be a companion in the next installment. Anders should not have regressed from a level 30 demigod to a level...four, I think, in six month's time. I'll give Varric some slack assuming he was lazy and didn't keep up with the marksmanship for the three years after the battle of the gallows, but Anders had no excuse.

 

So I want to see a whole new cast of companions with any returning companions being relegated to NPC status. I want to see a whole new cast of personalities, I want to see a whole new set of backgrounds and perspectives. I want to see character types we haven't seen before, I want to see romances they haven't told before. 

 

And that's part of the reason I don't want the Inquisitor to come back, as I touched on earlier. Mass Effect proved that they can't do satisfying relationships over the course of multiple games without the LI being companions throughout. ME1 LI's got treated abysmally in ME2 unless they were Liara with LotSB installed. ME2 LI's got handled terribly in ME3 except for Garrus and Tali, who were squadmates. The rest were horrible, even with Citadel, except arguably Thane(the one who died) for his death and funeral being so touching.

 

So I don't want a situation where the Inquisitor's LI's get the DAA treatment of sending a letter and that's all you hear from them. And I don't want the ME treatment of one cutscene that amounts to nothing. And I don't want them tagging along, eating up companion slots, romance slots, and disk space with their audio files.

[Ieldra]

Isabela became a bit of an exaggerated caricature of what few traits she had in DAO...

Was there anything in DA2 that wasn't an exaggerated caricature? Between insane blood mages and n*zi templars, Tarohne and sarcastic Hawke, to say nothing of combat animations in general...

On the topic: I, too, prefer new companions. Theoretically, I don't mind the odd returning one here and there, but it appears to be a Bioware problem that they create something or someone interesting for one game, and then don't know what to do with them in future games. You listed Varric,and while I don't dislike Bianca as much, I agree with the other points. Sure, he's somewhat his usual self, but he came across a little bland, and he didn't seem to fit in as well as the other companions.

[Samahl na Revas]

Blight. Taint.

 

I've been loosely following this thread. However, my primary posting here is more an advice of something to consider and is unrelated to the thread. I've noticed some have been using the term blight and taint interchangeably. Nomenclature is esoteric. Please take into consideration that the blight and taint are not the same thing, thank you.

 

On topic.

 

As for the topic at hand, I like Hawke. Whereas, I am not too fond of my inquisitor. In that manner, I understand the OP's position. However, I do not see the same level of issue to be taken with having a new protagonist. DA tried the whole Shepard route, that trilogy played out in three acts.

 

Perspective. Perspective is what a new protagonist will offer the player, a blank slate to exhaust understanding.

 

The problem of dealing with our old protagonist because of a new protagonists will worsen, I agree. Hopefully, a maimed protagonist is not a trend. The bridge you speak of OP is coming, but I foresee the solution being a change in geographic setting requiring a new protagonist that can relate to the culture of that setting; I'm looking at you DA 5.

[Shechinah]

Oh, and his quest introduces Bianca Davri, who is my most hated character in the series thus far because she's just awful. 

 

Yeah, I would have preferred Bianca remaining the story Varric would never tell and her character remaining more or less a mystery. 

 

Out of curiousity, what is it you dislike about her?
 

[Former_Fiend]

Yeah, I would have preferred Bianca remaining the story Varric would never tell and her character remaining more or less a mystery. 

 

Out of curiousity, what is it you dislike about her?
 

 

I just found her to be an example of Bioware trying too hard to make a "cool" character for the players to like. I have a further rant about it further down the page in this thread;

 

http://forum.bioware...aracter/page-19

[Nefla]

We will have a new antagonist (Solas instead of Corypheus), a new plot (Solas sundering of the Veil instead of Corypheus taking over the world) and very likely at least 8 of 9 companions will be new. IMO a new protagonist fits that scenario well. In fact, I'd have preferred if the Inquisitor was left alone completely, but I think for most of our inquisitors, it would be out of character to not involve themselves.

 

A few more points: chances are, if they made a protagonist for the whole series, it would be someone like ME's Shepard, and there is little I'd dislike more than that. Also, the protagonist would dominate the story of multiple games to an unpleasant degree. IMO, it is *way* more plausible, if you have a world-shaking overarching story arc spanning several decades, that there are several big figures involved. That's why epic fantasy book series frequently have more than one protagonist. I would like DA to be like those - and if you take them as an example, there, too, recurring characters exist that meet several of the protagonists over time. I do not see at all why this should be a problem. 

 

So, I am in full support of new protagonists every game. It keeps things interesting. and we're not stuck with the same character for several years.

Both the Corypheus thing and the Solas thing were introduced with the previous game's DLC's. I don't think anyone wants to have the inquisitor or any character be the only protagonist until the end of time, those of us that want the inquisitor again just want them to finish what they started with Trespasser. I feel like BioWare assumed "hey, if we amputate the inquisitor's arm and shrink or disband the inquisition then no one will want to play as them and we can make room for the next protagonist to be an inquisition agent/Tevinter ally." Unfortunately that backfired for a lot of us since Trespasser sparked our imagination, put in a personal grudge/redemption element between the inquisitor and Solas and for me at least, making the inquisitor go from special snowflake chosen one to not only normal but handicapped makes them way more interesting. I don't want to play as anyone else in DA4. Like I've said before though, I don't think I'll get my wish. I think my greatest fear will come true and that is:

 

-BioWare maimed the inquisitor to make them "helpless" and get them out of the way.

-There will be a new protagonist but an excessive number of returning companions and cameos.

-The new protagonist will be just as restricted in personality and role playing ability as the inquisitor.

-The new protagonist will have a lame and generic reason to get involved such as: "This evil elf wizard randomly blew up my village", or "the world needs saving from this evil elf wizard that I know and care nothing for so I'll save it."

-The inquisitor will be shoehorned in as an NPC/questgiver.

[CardButton]

Both the Corypheus thing and the Solas thing were introduced with the previous game's DLC's. I don't think anyone wants to have the inquisitor or any character be the only protagonist until the end of time, those of us that want the inquisitor again just want them to finish what they started with Trespasser. I feel like BioWare assumed "hey, if we amputate the inquisitor's arm and shrink or disband the inquisition then no one will want to play as them and we can make room for the next protagonist to be an inquisition agent/Tevinter ally." Unfortunately that backfired for a lot of us since Trespasser sparked our imagination, put in a personal grudge/redemption element between the inquisitor and Solas and for me at least, making the inquisitor go from special snowflake chosen one to not only normal but handicapped makes them way more interesting. I don't want to play as anyone else in DA4. Like I've said before though, I don't think I'll get my wish. I think my greatest fear will come true and that is:

 

-BioWare maimed the inquisitor to make them "helpless" and get them out of the way.

-There will be a new protagonist but an excessive number of returning companions and cameos.

-The new protagonist will be just as restricted in personality and role playing ability as the inquisitor.

-The new protagonist will have a lame and generic reason to get involved such as: "This evil elf wizard randomly blew up my village", or "the world needs saving from this evil elf wizard that I know and care nothing for so I'll save it."

-The inquisitor will be shoehorned in as an NPC/questgiver.

Man these are my exact fears I have with a new PC, though not my greatest.  

 

The reason DA:O worked so well is because it was a self contained and stand-alone story even if you include "Witch Hunt".  Even there, if you romanced Morrigan, your Warden can still go off with her in the end.  As flawed as DA2 was (more because it felt rushed than anything else) one of the main reasons we could except playing as a new PC so readily is because Origins gave us a concrete beginning, middle and end for our Warden.  

 

DA2 (with Legacy) and DA:I (with Trespasser) did not deliver this.  They are not self contained.  They are not stand alone.  In fact one could argue that only reason Inquisition exists at all is tie to up all the loose ends leftover from DA2.  This is sequential storytelling, not stand-alone!  To religiously adhere to the rule of "A New PC for each New Game" doesn't make sense if Bioware keeps having events (and especially villains) bleeding in between games and something tells me DA4 will not be going back to the series Stand-Alone roots.  

 

My greatest fear is that they try to do the same thing as they did with Inquisition and end up with a similar result. Past characters and past events dominating what should be a new grand stand-alone adventure with a new PC and devolving those events and that PC to mediocrity.  At least the return of a PC Inquisitor for one more game (even though it wont happen) will help remove a lot of these narrative pitfalls that Bioware has shown to have trouble avoiding.