633 réponses à ce sujet

[ottffsse]

Thank you
I just don't see how that line would work in a different interpretation in context. I mean, what could it mean and why would they say it in that moment? "Adventuring" in the traditional sense would be an odd thing to mention at that time. I can't think of any synonym they could have used to describe the typical role of the inquisitor either. Plus, the traditional definition of the word does fit a lot of the Inquisitor's possible in game activities in Inquisition, which involve running around with a small team in the wilderness. I don't think it makes sense that the Inquisitor would single that out as something they would have to stop doing and then say "but the Inquisition's mission will go on." It being a statement of retirement as a field agent is the only thing I think makes sense in context.

This is where story writing runs into the realities of RPG writing. The Inquisitor is a variable, specifically addressing something they would do personally is difficult. But like I said, Bioware wrote the line and they didn't exclude the Inquisitor. You're disbelief doesn't change that.

^ I always thought "adventuring" had something to do with freedom of choosing which licit or elicit operation a character chooses to do ie being an independent agent of sorts. In that context that line makes perfect sense for an inquisitor choosing to become an official subordinate of the chantry and that is why it is stated in That option specifically. Especially giving the whole context of the council where feraldan and co. where totally bitter that the inquisition was acting as an illegitimate independent agency across borders. Of course I may be giving the writers too much credit for subtlety with this interpretation.

[CardButton]

But why would the Inquisitor be excluded from that?  The spy network would doubtlessly be told to keep tabs on the Inquisitor too (If anything, they would be watched and tracked more closely than anyone), if they can do anything without being discovered there's no reason the others couldn't pull it off, the difference is between running a public highly visible organization and running a secret society.  One is much more secure than the other.  If I'm not mistaken, the phrasing on the dialogue wheel option says "More resources, Greater chance of infiltration" rather than no chance of infiltration the other way.

 

Everyone including the Inquisitor is being watched, that's why the new Protagonist is necessary and the former Inquisition needs to tread lightly.

True, but being able to dissapear is a lot easier if you aren't bringing all that baggage with you.  We've had two famous people manage to pull it off in this Age alone (HoF and Hawke) and they did so in a way that made them almost impossible to find.  They were able to do this because they broke off "Most" of their previous connections in order to focus directly on their objectives (whatever they happened to be).  Going a place that you normally wouldn't be also helps with this point.  

 

I didn't really interpret the Disband option to just making another smaller secret organization as it makes that option pretty pointless if that is the case, because your right you could still end up with spies in that organization and you would have been way better off just keeping the Inquisition (cuz you knew there would be spies there anyway) and you would have way more access to resources.

[Heimdall]

Yeah, it fits what you do in Inquisition, I'm hoping it won't fit what you do in DA4. It doesn't really make sense to be running around collecting Elfroot, and exploring random places for the fun of it with all the other stuff going on in the the game. I do think that one line is the best argument out there for a lack of Inquisitor in DA4, but I still don't think it's very important given that it's an optional line that a great deal of players are never even going to see, and it's surrounded by evidence of the opposite which the player is forced to see no matter what option they pick.
 
Addressing something the Inquisitor personally would do does has issues, but you could be railroaded into it. Not ideal, but you can't have absolutely no evidence of it in the entire game, then have a different character just tell you he does. (Especially when the character that tells you that is kinda crazy...)

Well, there's the rub.  It makes sense for the Inquisitor to be more focused, but I doubt Bioware will want to remove exploration gameplay.  Opposition?  Nothing the Inquisitor says opposes the idea that they won't be taking the field.  The only thing it opposes is that they won't be involved in hunting Solas.  Those aren't the same thing.

 

I don't find it at all hard to credit that a close friend or lover knows someone well enough to predict their behavior.  That's the scenario you need to consider.  Not to mention, you are railroaded into doing exactly everything Solas expects you to do in trespasser, much as you dismiss it as common sense.  Not anyone would charge off into the Eluvians with a small group personally and then successfully slay a small army of Qunari while tracking them through a network of magic mirrors.

[Heimdall]

True, but being able to dissapear is a lot easier if you aren't bringing all that baggage with you.  We've had two famous people manage to pull it off in this Age alone (HoF and Hawke) and they did so in a way that made them almost impossible to find.  They were able to do this because they broke off "Most" of their previous connections in order to focus directly on their objectives (whatever they happened to be).  Going a place that you normally wouldn't be also helps with this point.  

 

I didn't really interpret the Disband option to just making another smaller secret organization as it makes that option pretty pointless if that is the case, because your right you could still end up with spies in that organization and you would have been way better off just keeping the Inquisition (cuz you knew there would be spies there anyway) and you would have way more access to resources.

They weren't the target of Fen'Harel and a spy network of vast proportions.  Nobody was interested in what the Warden was doing and nobody seriously looked for Hawke until after they disappeared...  Plus, I'm not convinced the Inquisitor can go anywhere without Solas knowing,  he visits her dreams every night in the Romance.

 

It's a network of friends and allies, it isn't an organization in all but the most rudimentary sense.  Its composed of close allies and people you trust.  They point of disband isn't to make infiltration a 0% risk, its to reduce the risk.  Its a lot harder to infiltrate something you don't know exists, especially with such a small circle.  The dialogue in the final scene supports this:

 

Cassandra: With the Inquisition Disbanded, we have no army, no formal alliances...

 

Note formal, and all the characters say WE when talking about hunting Solas, there's no indication of cutting all ties.

[Reznore57]

The thing about playing a pc to "infiltrate" is ...as long as you have a race selection and I hope we will , the whole "infiltration" is on very very shaky ground.First you don't need a main agent or driving force on the field , you need multiple people.

Second if you're serious about it , a dwarf , elf , human , qunari won't have the same missions.

Third , our usual companions aren't the most discreet people on Thedas , you tend to walk around with a bunch of again ,humans , dwarves , elves etc of different background so you're bound to get noticed.

 

It's again gameplay vs story , but the chances of our future hero being way more discreet or able to inflitrate anything better than the Inqui is close to zero.He'll suffer the main hero problem , you get noticed , you nose around asking questions to anyone you can , and you gather the most noticeable people around like a magnet.

[Nefla]

I'm of the opinion that the Inquisitor knows a lot more about Solas than Solas knows about the inquisitor. Solas is extremely arrogant and makes assumptions about everything. He assumed Corypheus wouldn't be powerful enough to survive the explosion, he assumed Cassandra would kill him if he didn't produce results on the breach. He assumed creating the veil would help his people and then assumed tearing it back down would help his people. He assumed the inquisitor sides with the Templars or wardens because the inquisitor is an evil maniac and refuses to consider the inquisitor's actual reasoning. He assumed Cole couldn't become like a human. Solas never came up with any of the plans used to stop Corypheus, never predicted where he would strike or how, he never even came up with a strategy. The only contributions he made were to keep the inquisitor alive in the beginning and as a combat party member. This isn't the track record of a master strategist/manipulator.

 

Let's also think on what the inquisitor was doing while Solas was observing them. Mostly combat and bludgeoning their way to victory, always doing what the advisors told him to do, making only a small handful of decisions himself. Solas knew the inquisitor only as someone restricted. First as a prisoner who doesn't want to be executed, then as a political figurehead who had to keep up appearances and morale. There was never a situation where the group went undercover, no covert missions, nothing complex to see the inquisitor's reactions or strategies, only combat over and over. They were never even put into a dire situation where someone's true nature would be revealed. Everything was smooth sailing.

 

As far as the "my adventuring days are over" argument:

 

-I see your "my adventuring days are over" and raise you one "looks like I'm off to save the world. Again."

-That was said in front of a bunch of untrustworthy people and probably more hidden eyes and ears and immediately afterwards the inquisitor is in a secret meeting about stopping Solas rather than picking out a retirement home.

-The inquisitor doesn't need two arms to roundhouse kick people in the face, use magic, attach a dagger or a shield onto the stub, etc...you don't go from ultra powered demi-god to invalid by losing one hand.

[MonkeyLungs]

Do any of you actually believe we WILL play as the Inquisitor again. Not just 'do you want to?' but do you really think we will?

[Almostfaceman]

Do any of you actually believe we WILL play as the Inquisitor again. Not just 'do you want to?' but do you really think we will?

 

I'm positive there are those who think they actually will. They may be right, who knows. Sometimes Bioware changes their minds based on fan feedback. 

[Nefla]

Do any of you actually believe we WILL play as the Inquisitor again. Not just 'do you want to?' but do you really think we will?

I think playing as the inquisitor again in a personal battle against Solas, going undercover (using a decoy to pretend to be the inquisitor maybe) and especially having to deal with the loss of an arm could make for a fantastic story. Unfortunately I don't have enough faith in BioWare anymore to think they'll actually do it. I think BioWare carelessly made the inquisitor's arm disappear without fanfare or comment because they believe "now the inquisitor is an invalid and no one will ask to play them again like they do for the HoF or Hawke!"  I think they intend to shoehorn the inquisitor in as an NPC cameo, probably sitting in a wheelchair with a blanket over their lap, staring helplessly out the window all day to give the new hero (probably human-only) a pep talk about how evil Solas is or to give the new hero a quest. Then we will get another "epic" adventure about some random (level one, unskilled) person from Tevinter defeating the generic evil wizard bent on saving the world (Solas). Or maybe Solas will be defeated by inquisition agents offscreen before the game starts, the same way the mage/templar "war" was handled and then the rest of the game will be about the random Tevinter peasant killing some other random ancient evil that Solas unleashed or another generic evil wizard that stepped in to start killing the world when Solas died on twitter. Whatever.

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

Do any of you actually believe we WILL play as the Inquisitor again. Not just 'do you want to?' but do you really think we will?

I think its a strong possibility, yes. Weekes is lead writer and if Solas/Bull/Cole and Masked Empire are any indication, he and I tend to agree on what makes for a good plot and character development. And if I was writing the next game after how Trespasser ended, I'd find bringing the Inquisitor back to be too good to pass up.

 

I'm personally expecting the dual protagonist route, if they can swing it resources-wise. Not only would it be a good middle ground as far as new protag vs returning protag, but it suits Weekes' background. Many great books have different protagonists at the fore in different chapters, telling parallel or co-dependent plots that are ultimately entwined together. Books are a good chunk of Weekes' body of work. I think he is likely to go with what he knows. And Laidlaw and Darrah will support him on it cus they like good stories and would have no reason not to.

 

Also, I admit I feel rather emboldened by the revelation that Inquisition was supposed to be a longer story arc that instead got cut off at the halfway(ish) point. If that was the original plan, I see no reason not to continue the arc in question as originally planned. And Trespasser certainly left the door open for that.

[d1ta]

... (snip)
They did it to say the Inquisitor will be involved, that we agree on, but that isn't the same as them being the protagonist. That said, I too favor the dual protagonist approach for the next game, but Trespasser left a lot of hints at the Inquisitor taking a back seat despite their continued involvement. That's why I think we'll probably see something like a 70/30 or 80/20 split in terms of gameplay in favor of the new protagonist, with the Inquisitor sections playing more like a Telltale game (Being puzzle and dialogue heavy, taking more of a general's position) triggered at specific plot points, with the combat and traditional gameplay being reserved to the new protagonist.

I'd be okay with this..

@Aeve
But a quest with husband would be appreciated."
I.. totally agree with this . Even if the game ends with us giving Solas the flower power of peace to end the conflict and his mad plans, .. I dont think I'll mind (so long as the protag has an option to still get a walk off the sunset happy) I think I'd still be cool with it

[sonoko]

I wonder am I the only one here how doesn't like the idea of dual protagonists? As much as I want to continue the story of my Inquisitor, I'd rather play as a new protagonist than split my gaming time between two main heroes - because of roleplaying issues. Dual protagonists would work well in a game with predefined heroes, like Dishonored or Witcher (or even Mass Effect since all Shepards share some background and personality traits), but in not DA, where we usually play as blank-slate protaginist.

[BansheeOwnage]

"People still want the inquisitor ..."
 

 

True. The connection between a Lavellan (especially a Lavellan lover) and Solas is arguably the strongest, but I felt compelled to create this thread and my inquisitor is a dwarf who conscripted the mages! Despite Solas and Sorelle Cadash not always seeing eye-to-eye, they came to like and respect one another enough that the ending of Tresspasser still had a profound effect on me.

Throughout that final conversation, I treated Solas with the respect and sympathy I felt he'd earned -- and then right at the end I chose my first "aggressive" response: declaring that I'd stop him, no matter the cost.

I expected his personality to shift -- expected to see traces of the villainous tyrant he would become -- but instead he said "I know" in a polite and regretful tone, and that's what really got me... That's when I knew I had to face Solas as the inquisitor, not another random PC, and the ending of the DLC only solidified that desire.

 

 

BioWare had the opportunity to give the inquisitor and Solas real and lasting closure at the end of Tresspasser. Instead they set-up a dramatic rivalry and made the inquisitor more interesting and dynamic than ever -- right before taking her away?

 

Andraste's-bouncy-bosom, BioWare! That's cruel. lol

*Banshee pops in*

Spoiler

 

Keep up the great posts everyone!

 

*Banshee falls asleep at desk*

Spoiler

[Abyss108]

Do any of you actually believe we WILL play as the Inquisitor again. Not just 'do you want to?' but do you really think we will?

 

Yes. For the reasons others have posted.

 

I'm a big fan of Weekes' work, and his general attitude towards things. I find it very hard to believe the first thing he would write after taking over Dragon Age is "your character loses a limb, is now a helpless invalid who needs to be replaced".  

[straykat]

Yes. For the reasons others have posted.

 

I'm a big fan of Weekes' work, and his general attitude towards things. I find it very hard to believe the first thing he would write after taking over Dragon Age is "your character loses a limb, is now a helpless invalid who needs to be replaced".  

 

I don't know. He wrote Bull.

 

I'm pretty sure there's a part of him that doesn't give a **** and does things for shits and giggles.

[Abyss108]

I don't know. He wrote Bull.

 

I'm pretty sure there's a part of him that doesn't give a **** and does things for shits and giggles.

 

...What's wrong with Bull? 

[In Exile]

Yes. For the reasons others have posted.

 

I'm a big fan of Weekes' work, and his general attitude towards things. I find it very hard to believe the first thing he would write after taking over Dragon Age is "your character loses a limb, is now a helpless invalid who needs to be replaced".  

 

I don't think the loss of the hand is what makes the Inquisitor unfit to be a protagonist in DA4. People are projecting their own prejudice here. The Inquisitor won't be the protagonist in DA4 because the plot will revolve around something and someone else, just like with Hawke in DAI, but you'll probably have an NPC-like sequence. Bioware may well try a playable protagonist for a short stretch - like Ciri in TW3 - but in any event the Inquisitor won't be the main. 

[Abyss108]

I don't think the loss of the hand is what makes the Inquisitor unfit to be a protagonist in DA4. People are projecting their own prejudice here. The Inquisitor won't be the protagonist in DA4 because the plot will revolve around something and someone else, just like with Hawke in DAI, but you'll probably have an NPC-like sequence. Bioware may well try a playable protagonist for a short stretch - like Ciri in TW3 - but in any event the Inquisitor won't be the main. 

 

It might not have been what Bioware intended by writing that, but intentions don't matter in writing. And I honestly think Weekes' is smarter then to have accidentally wrote that.

 

The plot for DA4 won't revolve around something else, it will be the second half of the story that they wanted to to in DA:I. Bioware already said that DA:I is only the first half of the story they wanted to tell.

[Satele-Shan87]

I  hope the Inquisitor won't be the protagonist of the DA4. her story is over.Maybe aappear as NPc like Leliana in DA2 and DAI.

 

It will certainly be a tevinter character

[In Exile]

It might not have been what Bioware intended by writing that, but intentions don't matter in writing. And I honestly think Weekes' is smarter then to have accidentally wrote that.

 

The plot for DA4 won't revolve around something else, it will be the second half of the story that they wanted to to in DA:I. Bioware already said that DA:I is only the first half of the story they wanted to tell.

 

Like many progressive things Weekes writes, I very much doubt he directed his mind to the issue. To see it, you have to actually see disabled people as something less. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

 

The plot for DA:I will revolve around someone else. Exactly like how Hawke was obviously written to be the Inquisitor, until they slotted in another character. And Hawke had a lot more and greater connection to the plot than of DA:I than the Inquisitor's "I hung out with Solas for a while". There was a plot justification for being at the Conclave and in the chamber, a core connection with Corypheus, an overlapping bond with Mythal, a justification for leading the Inquisition itself (or being a member therein), and so on. And still Bioware replaced Hawke. 

[straykat]

...What's wrong with Bull? 

 

He's a joke character, where Weekes tries too hard to go against the grain and be irreverent. And for new players especially, it's a bad intro to the Qunari. His main purpose is just there to lighten the mood and for laughs. Like I said, "shits and giggles".

 

One minute, the game is a serious tragedy of the conclave and an attempt to examine the concept of Faith. Next, it's a circus, where a Qunari comes in, breaks out the casks, and starts banging Chantry sisters. He acts like this ESTP jock I knew once, named "Mitch". Which might be funny if Mitch was actually in the game. But not as Bull. As the real Mitch. Instead I get a fake Mitch.. who's more of a poser, and only doing this stuff because he's confused. Alrighty..

 

Oh and Bull's like this "bro" who's got mad leadership skills and knows the depths of human nature or something, despite the Qunari once being interesting for how Alien and different they were. Not for how knowledgeable and social.

 

Among other things.

[Abyss108]

Like many progressive things Weekes writes, I very much doubt he directed his mind to the issue. To see it, you have to actually see disabled people as something less. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

 

The plot for DA:I will revolve around someone else. Exactly like how Hawke was obviously written to be the Inquisitor, until they slotted in another character. And Hawke had a lot more and greater connection to the plot than of DA:I than the Inquisitor's "I hung out with Solas for a while". There was a plot justification for being at the Conclave and in the chamber, a core connection with Corypheus, an overlapping bond with Mythal, a justification for leading the Inquisition itself (or being a member therein), and so on. And still Bioware replaced Hawke. 

 

No I have to see Bioware using "loss of arm" as a reason for the protagonist not to return. Which is what many many people here have been arguing. I disagree with them.

 

Bioware made a lot of mistakes with Hawke, but because a different writer made a mistake and replaced an important character in the plot by a different one, the new writer has to make the same mistake? (And I wouldn't class being manipulated for a year by, and then getting an arm disintegrated by as being as simple as "hung out for a while"). And Hawke had much less connection to the plot than the Inquisitor. They had no reason to be at the conclave (you can come up with reasons why your own Hawke might want to be there, but there's nothing in the game to say all Hawkes cared about the mage/templar conflict). I agree they had a connection to Corypheus, but definitely not Mythal who they said a few words to and carried an amulet around for. No justification for leading the Inquisition.

[Abyss108]

He's a joke character, where Weekes tries too hard to go against the grain and be irreverent. And for new players especially, it's a bad intro to the Qunari. His main purpose is just there to lighten the mood and for laughs. Like I said, "shits and giggles".

 

One minute, the game is a serious tragedy of the conclave and an attempt to examine the concept of Faith. Next, it's a circus, where a Qunari comes in, breaks out the casks, and starts banging Chantry sisters. He acts like this ESTP jock I knew once, named "Mitch". Which might be funny if Mitch was actually in the game. But not as Bull. As the real Mitch. Instead I get a fake Mitch.. who's more of a poser, and only doing this stuff because he's confused. Alrighty..

 

Oh and Bull's like this "bro" who's got mad leadership skills and knows the depths of human nature or something, despite the Qunari once being interesting for how Alien and different they were. Not for how knowledgeable and social.

 

Among other things.

 

... I'm not sure we met the same character... 

[In Exile]

No I have to see Bioware using "loss of arm" as a reason for the protagonist not to return. Which is what many many people here have been arguing. I disagree with them.

 

Bioware made a lot of mistakes with Hawke, but because a different writer made a mistake and replaced an important character in the plot by a different one, the new writer has to make the same mistake? (And I wouldn't class being manipulated for a year by, and then getting an arm disintegrated by as being as simple as "hung out for a while"). And Hawke had much less connection to the plot than the Inquisitor. They had no reason to be at the conclave (you can come up with reasons why your own Hawke might want to be there, but there's nothing in the game to say all Hawkes cared about the mage/templar conflict). I agree they had a connection to Corypheus, but definitely not Mythal who they said a few words to and carried an amulet around for. No justification for leading the Inquisition.

 

Hawke would have been there because 1) you caused the mage-templar war and 2) Cassandra dragged your ass there, and you had exactly 0 choice in it. 

 

And then Hawke gets the Anchor, and becomes Inquisitor,. That's the plot. 

[straykat]

... I'm not sure we met the same character... 

 

What's so different? He's basically an attempt to contradict previous Qunari.. to do something different than Sten and the Arishok. I can understand this, but if anything, I think Tallis was a better attempt. She came off as someone really struggling with her beliefs and not just there for jokes.