359 réponses à ce sujet

[Qun00]

Most characters who voice their opinion on the matter including Leliana and Solas pressure the player into losing even more and disband the Inquisition.

I have no doubt in my mind that this is the outcome the writers want and that's gonna be the default version in DA4.

[Beren Von Ostwick]

Have you now consigned me to the ranks of the reactionaries? Did you, perhaps, not understand that this was about the weight of established lore? Make a world like X, and I'll accept it like X. Make it like Y, the same. But don't change it from X to Y in the middle of the story. Put in anything for X and Y, my reaction will be the same. That this clashes with social inclusivity is completely accidental, and actually rather painful, since I value both.

 

You're being a bit unfair to Dieb here, and honestly you're doing yourself a disservice as well.  Graphics capabilities change over time.  You shouldn't let older graphics lock you in on what you view as acceptable lore.  This kind of goes to what I said recently in another post in a different thread.

 

I love the high graphics in these new games, don't get me wrong, but I think sometimes they are counter-productive.  It seems like they're destroying folks' ability to engage their imagination to flesh out their roleplaying experience, causing them to lean on the graphics as some sort of crutch or replacement for imagination.

 

I think it would do a lot of players a world of good to go find a good MUD to play (yes, they still exist) and just immerse themselves in that sort of an environment for an extended period of time.

[Ieldra]

Most characters who voice their opinion on the matter including Leliana and Solas pressure the player into losing even more and disband the Inquisition.

I have no doubt in my mind that this is the outcome the writers want and that's gonna be the default version in DA4.

Which I did. Disband,since I didn't want to be subservient to the Chantry. That was, in fact, the lesser loss, and it was in character for my main Inquisitor, considering the very limited options.

The fact remains that you've come a long way down from the state of things after the end of the Corypheus campaign. It almost qualifies as a "downer epilogue". Ok, perhaps not, since we did survive and remain somewhat capable.

[robertthebard]

No, they didn't *have* to, that's kinda the point the OP made. Golly gee wiz!

Actually, they did. Unfortunately, they didn't go far enough, hence the "but I can get a prosthetic and still be just as good as I was" threads/posts. We have people grasping desperately onto "There's a 'What did you do with the Inquisition' tile, so the Inquisitor is coming back". They needed to do something more final, but then we'd have threads about how the Inquisitor lost, oh, wait, they didn't kill 'em, and we still have one of those, we're posting in it. Even if they had killed 'em, we'd have "but they can come back as a Force Apparition and still kick ass" thread, probably every Tuesday...

[Dieb]

It's important to me to add for anyone potentially having followed this little episode: Ieldra and I have discussed the issue via PM and put aside any differences and mutual misunderstandings.

 

Or differently put: There is no need for the mental Mark of the Deranged Reactionary Bigot™ to potentially tarnish their reputation, I don't want that. I also apologize for being hot-headed over this publicly.

[Al Foley]

I have a proposition to make:  Imagine that the Inquisitor works out and sets out to break the power of Thedas, bend the organizations and institutions over his or her knee and gives them a good spanking.  Disbands the Templars (or Free the Mages), exiles the Wardens, Assassinates Celene, defeats Corypheus, and does everything in their power to build an alliance and tie the Inquisition into the mesh work of THedas society.  Now imagine that because of those actions the Inquisition has now become the very thing they were fighting to eliminate, a massive beurocracy.  What would such an Inquisitor do?  Seriously curtail the Inquisition's power at the very least. 

[Almostfaceman]

Actually, they did. Unfortunately, they didn't go far enough, hence the "but I can get a prosthetic and still be just as good as I was" threads/posts. We have people grasping desperately onto "There's a 'What did you do with the Inquisition' tile, so the Inquisitor is coming back". They needed to do something more final, but then we'd have threads about how the Inquisitor lost, oh, wait, they didn't kill 'em, and we still have one of those, we're posting in it. Even if they had killed 'em, we'd have "but they can come back as a Force Apparition and still kick ass" thread, probably every Tuesday...

 

Your argument is "they did - to achieve X goal". There is no rule that they have to achieve X goal, or Y goal. They have more freedom and can apply more ingenuity and variation in story-telling. That was Ieldra's point, as I understand. There's no argument that you've put forth that indicates they don't have that freedom. 

[robertthebard]

Your argument is "they did - to achieve X goal". There is no rule that they have to achieve X goal, or Y goal. They have more freedom and can apply more ingenuity and variation in story-telling. That was Ieldra's point, as I understand. There's no argument that you've put forth that indicates they don't have that freedom.

There is also no argument put forth that means it has to be X or Y. Everything presented to support "Inquisitor will be back" is based purely on speculation, or deliberate misinterpretation/misrepresentation of what's been presented, such as the tile for the Inquisition's state in the Keep, which will be important for a World State, even if it's 75 years in the future, and there's no possible way for the Inquisitor to be there.

The point to the thread has been "All of my heroes have lost", since the OP. Despite the fact that some of the people posting here have disagreed with that opinion. You see, that's the problem with subjectivity, it gets really easy to assign your own values to everyone else, and then present an argument like you're representing everyone else. In my own opinion, my canon Inquisitor won: She lost the Mark, something that she never wanted and expressed a desire to get rid of at every opportunity, and she shut down the Inquisition, something that she had determined she would do if the opportunity ever presented itself. It had served it's purpose; all of which was stated by Cassandra while confronting Roderick in Haven: Close the Breach, find those responsible and restore order. The Breach was closed, twice even. We found Coryphish and dealt with him, and there's enough order restored that both Ferelden and Orlais are bickering over what should be done with the Inquisition. Mission accomplished. Win/Win. So how am I supposed to believe that my Inquisitor lost, the premise of this thread?

[Almostfaceman]

The point to the thread has been "All of my heroes have lost", since the OP. Despite the fact that some of the people posting here have disagreed with that opinion. You see, that's the problem with subjectivity, it gets really easy to assign your own values to everyone else, and then present an argument like you're representing everyone else. 

 

I don't remember reading anything from the OP that suggests they think their opinion is the opinion of everyone else. I'm not sure why you're even bringing that up, since my part of the discussion with you is... the OP noticed a pattern. In their opinion, Bioware can change up the stories a bit so the stories become less predictable and give the OP more of what they want. I can understand that perspective. The writers have the freedom to vary the story. 

[robertthebard]

I don't remember reading anything from the OP that suggests they think their opinion is the opinion of everyone else. I'm not sure why you're even bringing that up, since my part of the discussion with you is... the OP noticed a pattern. In their opinion, Bioware can change up the stories a bit so the stories become less predictable and give the OP more of what they want. I can understand that perspective. The writers have the freedom to vary the story.

...and my point was: I don't see that pattern, because despite the claim in the OP that the Inquisitor lost, my Inquisitor won.

[Qun00]

Which I did. Disband,since I didn't want to be subservient to the Chantry. That was, in fact, the lesser loss, and it was in character for my main Inquisitor, considering the very limited options.

The fact remains that you've come a long way down from the state of things after the end of the Corypheus campaign. It almost qualifies as a "downer epilogue". Ok, perhaps not, since we did survive and remain somewhat capable.

Yes, yes, it is *the* popular choice.

People have been in favor of disbanding the Inquisition and against becoming the Inquisitor/Herald since long before Trespasser came around.

I, however, don't appreciate being subtly steered by the writters towards the direction they want. If anything, having servitude to the Chantry as the only alternative is one more way to accomplish that.

Of course the players would take disbanding over that option.

Regardless, I don't see what is so hard to understand about wanting to keep what you've earned.

[Almostfaceman]

...and my point was: I don't see that pattern, because despite the claim in the OP that the Inquisitor lost, my Inquisitor won.

 

Whether you see a pattern or not, the point remains that Bioware has freedom in telling stories and they can change up the end state for heroes a bit more. 

[ZombiePopper]

Yes, yes, it is *the* popular choice.

People have been in favor of disbanding the Inquisition and against becoming the Inquisitor/Herald since long before Trespasser came around.

I, however, don't appreciate being subtly steered by the writters towards the direction they want. If anything, having servitude to the Chantry as the only alternative is one more way to accomplish that.

Of course the players would take disbanding over that option.

Regardless, I don't see what is so hard to understand about wanting to keep what you've earned.

While I agree with your points,
I wouldn't say there was anything "subtle" in the way BW pushes the player, at least for me.

[AlanC9]

...and my point was: I don't see that pattern, because despite the claim in the OP that the Inquisitor lost, my Inquisitor won.

Do we have a workable general definition of "lose" that we can apply to future games? The specifics of DAI, ME3, etc. aren't very useful since the next game will have a diffferent plot.

[Ieldra]

Regardless, I don't see what is so hard to understand about wanting to keep what you've earned.

Oh, I fully agree. That was the point of my OP after all. My post you replied to may have come across in an unintended way.

[Rappeldrache]

World consequences: Templer or Mages? Disband or "surrender" the Inquisition? I would make here FEWER possibilitys (stop throwing stones   ). So they don't have to make the next Dragon Age 4 than 12 years and thousands of miles away. I know: Not a very popular solution.

 

Companions consequences: Would mix dem a bit with the Heros consequences. I would make it more important how close the companions is to the hero. I liked the "Iron Bull"- betrayal. You do so mutch for their sympathy and then ... nothing (or not a lot).

 

Heros consequences: The Hero should always dissapear from the "big world stage". And the player should have about 6 or more possibilitys what happen to his "personal hero" during / after the end: Drama-Dying-End and Happy-Butterflies-Eding and so on. A few pictures more at the end .... should not make so mutch more work. AND: This decission of the player should still  "exist" in the next Dragon Age part.

[ZombiePopper]

I'd agree particularly concerning companions.
And DAI isn't the only title to suffer from this, ME2-3 (among others) were guilty of this as well.
I've always thought BW dropped the ball in this regard.
On missions with serious impact (sad, depressing, etc.)
Why don't companions approach the protag?
To ask "you ok? Blah blah blah."
instead we run around to each one, talking to companions and all they do is dump more missions on us with no awareness of the characters story.

[Ieldra]

Do we have a workable general definition of "lose" that we can apply to future games? The specifics of DAI, ME3, etc. aren't very useful since the next game will have a diffferent plot.

Hmm.....this is not easy. "Lose" of course can't mean "lose the plot" because that never happens.

 

What I meant in the OP is "lose, in the end, most of what you gained for yourself in the course of the story, rather than for the world or whatever you're trying to save." While I wouldn't exactly like it, the loss of the hand wouldn't bother me nearly as much if (1) it had occurred in the middle of the story as a personal loss the hero must deal with, and (2) If it hadn't carried the Mark. Losing something you consider an intrinsic part of who you are would also qualify (such as for me, a mageborn hero losing their magical ability)

 

I am aware that there are many players who don't value the things we lose at the end of Trespasser as much as I do, for my main Inquisitor. Those, I ask to consider what *you* would hate to lose at the end of the story, apart from your life. What about your Wardens being forcibly stepped down from their positions as Arls of Amaranthine? What about your Hawkes who became Viscounts of Kirkwall only to be forcibly stepped down from that by fiat of the writers? Those didn't bother me, but they still contribute to the pattern I find dislikeable.

[Rappeldrache]

I'd agree particularly concerning companions.
And DAI isn't the only title to suffer from this, ME2-3 (among others) were guilty of this as well.
I've always thought BW dropped the ball in this regard.
On missions with serious impact (sad, depressing, etc.)
Why don't companions approach the protag?
To ask "you ok? Blah blah blah."
instead we run around to each one, talking to companions and all they do is dump more missions on us with no awareness of the characters story.

 

Thanks *HUG*

 

6 Possibilitys how Trespasser could end (General) - depending on "Friendship"

Just an example!

 

1.) You try to kill Solas - NO friends. You are successful to hurt him hart, but he will not bother your friends for a long time, he need time to recover. You die as a glorious hero.

 

2.) You try to kill Solas - NO friends. You fail and he kills you. You die as a dramatic Hero.

 

3.)  You try to kill Solas - friends. You are successful to hurt him hart, but he will not bother your friends for a long time, he need time to recover. He will not take your mark away and just leave badly injured.

 

4.) You try to kill Solas - friends. You fail and he just leave you, WITHOUT taking your mark away.

 

5.) NO attack: You are NOT a friend of Solas - he takes the mark away AND your forearm is gone.

 

6.) NO attack: You are a close friend of Solas - he takes the mark away, but your forearm remain. But it's so injured, that you can't use it like before. Your adventure time is over.

 

If you have choosen point 3.) or 4.) you have a problem.   BUT: If you are really good friend with Dorian AND Vivienne they both worked together and found a little help: They can cast a spell and help you for "some" time. But they don't know for how long this will remain. AND: You should NOT use the mark again. Mean: You are alive, the mark is not bothering you anymore, BUT you can't use it and it could kill you every moment. Dorian and Vivienne promise to search for a solution. What will happen in the future with your mark is .... open.

If you are not a really good friend of them both you will die.

 

THIS would be a great ending (a few endings). THIS would encourage the people to play again and give the "Companions & Friendship" REALLY a meaning.

 

PS There is a solution for leldra where she could keep the mark.

[Erstus]

I personally enjoy terrible and dark endings. Where in the end the protagonist managed to create a whole new problem and leave unintended chaos in his wake.

Also, protags dying in the end is fine with me.

[robertthebard]

Do we have a workable general definition of "lose" that we can apply to future games? The specifics of DAI, ME3, etc. aren't very useful since the next game will have a diffferent plot.

I provided one for win. The sad thing is, it's the same things that the OP provided for lose. This is what had me going on trying to present subjective truths as facts in the first place.

But let's look at the condition of the Mark towards the end of the game: It's killing you. If you don't discharge it regularly, it discharges on it's own. What happens when it discharges in your sleep, a Fade equivalent to a wet dream? Or, more likely, what happens when it consumes you, since that's what it was originally doing until you closed the Breach, with the addendum that it's more likely that Solas did something behind the scenes. However, w/out Solas to control it, it's going to kill you, we got that at the beginning of the base game, and throughout the final DLC. Ironically, we have people criticizing BioWare's writing, when they didn't pick up on obvious clues that the Mark is going to kill you that weren't inserted into the DLC as an excuse to remove it, since Cassandra tells you that it's killing you in Haven, right after you come out of the cell.

What's wrong with keeping the Inquisition? Where do we begin? Do we acknowledge that the Qunari and Solas had enough spies in there that they tripped over each other? How many spies does Orlais have in there, or Ferelden, or Tevinter? For all the talk of marching into Orlais or Ferelden and kicking their asses, people that are criticizing the writing of the options obviously missed the fact that, w/out the armies from Orlais, our forces were insufficient to go up against Coryphish. Are these armies going to turn against whomever is on the throne in Orlais simply because the Inquisitor insists? What happens when the Mark consumes the Inquisitor? A point that will happen, since it's already established canon that it is happening.

The fact is, if the Inquisition doesn't do one of those two things, they are going to be at war with both Orlais and Ferelden. Ferelden wants it disbanded, Orlais wants to leash it, leashing to the Chantry saves the Inquisition because neither will go against the Chantry, initially, anyway, and disbanding allows the Inquisitor to move on, unimpeded by politics. So, in context with the thread, the Inquisitor lost because they're not an all powerful queen/king.

[DDJ]

I gave a lot of thought to this after getting into Trespasser.  It appears to me that the best option the inquisitor has is to run like hell away from the Inquisition.  If you consider what happened in the basin and to the first inquisitor it becomes obvious that the inquisitor will be betrayed by the Chantry - can't have a herald of Andraste about mucking up what they want to do after all.  No matter who the Divine turns out to be, it is not preventable.  None of the Divines will risk the entire Chantry for one person no matter how friendly they are.  They will not want the Inquisitor alive and spreading the Chantry's view of heresy.  It really does not matter how much good he / she does.  With Corypheus out of the way, the Inquisition becomes a problem due to the Inquisitor.

 

Perhaps I am simply in a "down mood" today, but betrayal and loss seem to be exactly what each of the heroes in Dragon Age deal with.  They are all great games, but it would be refreshing for the hero not to lose in the end.  The Hero of Ferelden, if they live, is hunting a cure so that he/she can leave the Wardens and live.  Hawke is living on the run and the Inquisitor will be either murdered or hunted.  

 

Just a thought.

[Ieldra]

I provided one for win. The sad thing is, it's the same things that the OP provided for lose. This is what had me going on trying to present subjective truths as facts in the first place.

But let's look at the condition of the Mark towards the end of the game: It's killing you. If you don't discharge it regularly, it discharges on it's own. What happens when it discharges in your sleep, a Fade equivalent to a wet dream? Or, more likely, what happens when it consumes you, since that's what it was originally doing until you closed the Breach, with the addendum that it's more likely that Solas did something behind the scenes. However, w/out Solas to control it, it's going to kill you, we got that at the beginning of the base game, and throughout the final DLC. Ironically, we have people criticizing BioWare's writing, when they didn't pick up on obvious clues that the Mark is going to kill you that weren't inserted into the DLC as an excuse to remove it, since Cassandra tells you that it's killing you in Haven, right after you come out of the cell.

What's wrong with keeping the Inquisition? Where do we begin? Do we acknowledge that the Qunari and Solas had enough spies in there that they tripped over each other? How many spies does Orlais have in there, or Ferelden, or Tevinter? For all the talk of marching into Orlais or Ferelden and kicking their asses, people that are criticizing the writing of the options obviously missed the fact that, w/out the armies from Orlais, our forces were insufficient to go up against Coryphish. Are these armies going to turn against whomever is on the throne in Orlais simply because the Inquisitor insists? What happens when the Mark consumes the Inquisitor? A point that will happen, since it's already established canon that it is happening.

The fact is, if the Inquisition doesn't do one of those two things, they are going to be at war with both Orlais and Ferelden. Ferelden wants it disbanded, Orlais wants to leash it, leashing to the Chantry saves the Inquisition because neither will go against the Chantry, initially, anyway, and disbanding allows the Inquisitor to move on, unimpeded by politics. So, in context with the thread, the Inquisitor lost because they're not an all powerful queen/king.

 

Let me be clear about this: I am not talking about being given the option to react differently to the situation we face at the end of Trespasser.

 

What I object to is that the writers contrived circumstances where the only option for the Inquisitor is to lose, regardless of how plausible that becomes once the contrived circumstances have come to pass. *They* made it so that the Mark goes out of control. Of course I wouldn't want to keep an out-of-control Mark, that would be suicidal. *They* made it so that the Inquisition is riddled by spies and that the only plausible alternatives are to serve the Chantry or disband. Of course, disliking the Chantry, I would rather disband.

 

Once you accept the situation, the choices we get are plausible. That's why I said it's a good ending. The choices I made as my Inquisitor are in-character, given how things are. But that's not the point. I don't just want different choices. I want a different setup for the ending, one where the only plausible options aren't ones that make me feel I lost.

[robertthebard]

Let me be clear about this: I am not talking about being given the option to react differently to the situation we face at the end of Trespasser.
 
What I object to is that the writers contrived circumstances where the only option for the Inquisitor is to lose, regardless of how plausible that becomes once the contrived circumstances have come to pass. *They* made it so that the Mark goes out of control. Of course I wouldn't want to keep an out-of-control Mark, that would be suicidal. *They* made it so that the Inquisition is riddled by spies and that the only plausible alternatives are to serve the Chantry or disband. Of course, disliking the Chantry, I would rather disband.
 
Once you accept the situation, the choices we get are plausible. That's why I said it's a good ending. The choices I made as my Inquisitor are in-character, given how things are. But that's not the point. I don't just want different choices. I want a different setup for the ending, one where the only plausible options aren't ones that make me feel I lost.

However, this isn't really what happened. The Mark reverted to it's uncontrolled state, because the person that had been controlling it is no longer there to do so; Solas. If the Mark killing you isn't plausible, then it's not plausible through the entire story, because we're told that it is killing us in it's current state in the Prologue. All it did was revert back to what it might have become if it hadn't been controlled by Solas.

That they stuck to how actual organizations work is a problem? How many spies does the Inquisition have scattered around throughout the major powers? I know we have them active in Orlais and Ferelden, we have a whole fort dedicated to them in Ferelden; Crestwood. I'll admit to being more than a bit puzzled as to how you come to this conclusion. Leliana is our spy master, and she obviously isn't just using binoculars from her tower. Why would you believe that nobody else that has reason to be concerned about a new major player would insert spies into the organization? You see, I don't see this as not being plausible, I see this as being a likely outcome.

The problem with changing how it plays out at the end is that they'd have to completely rewrite the game. However, in doing so, it may be that you'd be less happy with what we got, because it would have to be a neutered down version, where we maybe end up being a ragtag adventure troop that roams the countryside killing bandits instead of being a major player in Southern Thedas politics. Action/reaction: We're a major player, and the other major players want to know what we're up to. It is simple to see how the Qunari, Solas and even Orlais could get spies into our operation, since we're recruiting people from all over the place. So I'm baffled to how you could be the least bit surprised that we have spies in our ranks.

[Ieldra]

However, this isn't really what happened. The Mark reverted to it's uncontrolled state, because the person that had been controlling it is no longer there to do so; Solas. If the Mark killing you isn't plausible, then it's not plausible through the entire story, because we're told that it is killing us in it's current state in the Prologue. All it did was revert back to what it might have become if it hadn't been controlled by Solas.

That is already part of the retconned premise. When we hear that the Mark is killing us at the start of the story, we are led to believe it's the Breach that causes this, and it's never even hinted that Solas controls it on a continuing basis. Given the situation at the end, it's plausible that he could control it, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he did. Thus, the setup at the ending is not an unavoidable implication of anything that occurred earlier. You wouldn't need any extra contrivance to set things up differently for the end.
 

That they stuck to how actual organizations work is a problem? How many spies does the Inquisition have scattered around throughout the major powers? I know we have them active in Orlais and Ferelden, we have a whole fort dedicated to them in Ferelden; Crestwood. I'll admit to being more than a bit puzzled as to how you come to this conclusion. Leliana is our spy master, and she obviously isn't just using binoculars from her tower. Why would you believe that nobody else that has reason to be concerned about a new major player would insert spies into the organization? You see, I don't see this as not being plausible, I see this as being a likely outcome.

I did not contest that. It is plausible. However, I contest that anything that happens necessarily causes our alternatives to be restricted to "serve the Chantry or disband". For instance, if not complete independence, we could've chosen to ally with one of the other present powers.
 

The problem with changing how it plays out at the end is that they'd have to completely rewrite the game.

No, they wouldn't have to. See above.