633 réponses à ce sujet

[ottffsse]

The witcher 3 is an excellent reference. You play as Geralt, but also Ciri, which is otp and an overpowered character.

Also, I'm new to this forum and I am wondering: Does Bioware care about what fans say here?

Yes bw listens to fan feedback. They made great improvements in the dlcs following the release. After people said combat needs a tuneup etc.

Btw of topic but ciri is only op in base game of w3 . In ng+ deathmarch she is quite weak compared to geralt who deals way more damage faster after pumping himself up with upgraded elixirs and red mutagens.

[Darkly Tranquil]

Also, I'm new to this forum and I am wondering: Does Bioware care about what fans say here?

Yes. Some might argue they care too much, since it sometimes leads them to do things that might not necessarily be the best thing to do from a narrative or game design standpoint, out of (well intentioned) desire to give the fans what they (think they) want.

[vbibbi]

So you think the way the mage/templar conflict was handled in DA:I was good and should be repeated with Solas for DA4? Because I think it was a huge mistake. Just because they built up something interesting with potential and decided to toss it in favor of another "ancient evil threatens world" story once doesn't mean they should do it again.

True, handling the fallout from DA2 was lackluster, and honestly made it feel like DA2 was irrelevant, since the same conclusions would have occurred with or without Hawke (and their plucky sidekick Anders!). Bioware writes themselves into corners with their stories, and this does seem to be one of the biggest flaws (optimists would say challenges) with the DA series: they need to have as much narrative continuation as possible but also allow for player choices to matter. This isn't as difficult if they're planning a trilogy or if they followed TES' format of spacing games out far enough apart that the previous game's events won't conflict with the current setting.

 

So now they have to decide between stronger narrative cohesion with bringing the Inquisitor back and keeping to the original format of one PC per game with a new focus/theme in each game.

 

Hah, a very good question.

 

Strictly subjectively speaking, I strongly believe that there is such immense potential in the Inquisitor as the main character (player character) now that it would be a great shame and a huge missed opportunity if it was left unrealized, and that this potential is big enough to be noticed and to warrant a pause and consideration, at the very least. If I were to be a bit more objective, on the one hand, considering the precedents, I have certain doubts, on the other, nothing is set in stone.

I really think most of the character potential of the Inquisitor as remaining PC only comes through Trespasser. And I can't justify having a character for an entirely new game based on a very small amount of actual character development from the entire DAI player experience. And the DLC was probably not played by the majority of people who will purchase DA4, as it must be played upon completion of the main game, so that eliminates players who don't complete games, along with those who don't buy DLCs.

 

Exactly my thoughts. Ezio's story was brilliantly executed, and, sadly the problem with dragon age games is that the developers don't let you connect too much with your created character. Sure you spend time with them slaying dragons and getting to know your party, but aside from that? I would have liked to know more of the background of my Lavellan, her experiences, how she became good with her bow and that stuff. 

 

I'm getting tired of the new hero prototype they are giving us with each game. If they want to start a fresh story, they should try a different approach. And the idea of having both a seasoned hero and a new one is really appealing. It would give room to keep with their new hero while incorporating some character development for the ex-inquisitor. I would play the **** out of it. I've said it a couple posts before, but The witcher 3 is an excellent reference. You play as Geralt, but also Ciri, which is otp and an overpowered character. 

 

Also, I'm new to this forum and I am wondering: Does Bioware care about what fans say here? 

I'm hoping that moving to Tevinter will reduce the absurdity of having so many world-changing heroes living in the same area at the same time. Tevinter seems pretty separate from Southern Thedas, so we would be less likely to have mentions of HOF or Hawke.

 

As for wanting a stronger connection to your PC, it seems there are two camps of fans on these forums: those who want more ability to detail the PC's background and relationships in game (similar to Hawke but not as restricted as the one background) and those who are happy to have a "blank slate" and don't want the game to dictate their character's history. I am of the former camp, as the DA games seemed to encourage this type of character and helped me immerse myself in the world. A lot of fans of DAI seem to enjoy the latter option, as they have more space to headcanon their PC. I don't feel the DA series is supporting of that level of distance from a set background, though, and most Bioware games encourage having a strong connection to the character story they wish to tell. IMO.

[vbibbi]

What this actually tells us is what we always should have though: Corypheus was a decoy antagonist. Half the game is just the point where we realize Solas is the bad guy (well, sort off). That's like JE and Master Li.

Yeah and I liked the reveal and going back and seeing how Solas played us all along. But I can easily see how people are upset at the idea of not playing as the Inquisitor again, since narratively, you don't do a true antagonist reveal like this in one game and then have the next game be about someone completely different. If the Exalted March DLC had happened, I theorize that much of DAI would have been contained in it, and then Corypheus would be the mid-game boss of DAI with Solas being the final boss. Now, it's a mess.

 

Having played all four races now, I'm glad they put race selection in. More reactivity is always better, but even with what's there I found playing as a dwarf, qunari and elf MUCH more satisfying than my human run. Playing a human noble is so boring  for me. You're exactly what everyone expects the Herald of Andraste to be, and I really missed all those moments where people were all '... a dwarf? Really?' (No, it's not because I was getting sick of the game four runs in - human was my third play through, and I had a lot more fun as an elf during my fourth. Itching to start my next qunari Inquisitor, but I have to wait until I get back from holiday.)

 

I mean, maybe I'd have been less bored with a human mercenary or criminal, but I'd rather play a qunari or dwarf. If people find the game insufficiently reactive to their race choice, it's not like they don't have the option of sticking with human, which most people will do anyway.

True, the human noble background is a bit tired by this point. But I didn't feel like playing as the other races made that much of a difference in the game. I played a Qunari once, and the thing that stuck out most for me was romancing Sera. She provided more race-specific dialogue in the romance than I saw in the rest of the game!

 

This isn't to say that DAO did it better; apart from the Origins and when we returned to the area of the Origin, there was not a lot of mention of our background. It could have been good to every so often have a race/background specific option or mini quest. That's what I want if they do multiple races in DA4.

 

 

Yes. Some might argue they care too much, since it sometimes leads them to do things that might not necessarily be the best thing to do from a narrative or game design standpoint, out of (well intentioned) desire to give the fans what they (think they) want.

I sometimes feel the devs are too over-reactive with fan feedback. Obviously I appreciate their responsiveness otherwise I wouldn't be posting on their forums, but stuff like this just seems juvenile...aw you didn't like X in the game? You hurt my feelings so I'm going to take my toys and play somewhere else!

 

Mark Darrah ‏@BioMarkDarrah

Dragon Age: Inquisition was intended to stand on its own. The post credit stuff was a stinger like a Marvel movie.

 

Mark Darrah ‏@BioMarkDarrah

Sorry you feel the game was unfinished because it was there. Guess that's a reason not to do that sort of thing in the future

[Regan_Cousland]

I'm new to this forum and I am wondering: Does Bioware care about what fans say here? 

 

I doubt that BioWare employees have the time or the inclination to pore over every little thing we say. 

However, the evidence seems to suggest that any issue which we debate passionately, over a prolonged period of time, does, at least, get the consideration it deserves. In that way, making BioWare take notice of our desires and concerns is similar to forming a new subconscious habit. It takes a great deal of effort and repetition, but, in the end, our focused, informational assault makes an indelible impression, modifying the host body's behaviour patterns. lol

Take the Tresspasser DLC, for example. Its improvements are clearly a result of the sustained negative feedback BioWare received regarding Inquisition's lacklustre storytelling and its boring open-world environments.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I sometimes feel the devs are too over-reactive with fan feedback. Obviously I appreciate their responsiveness otherwise I wouldn't be posting on their forums, but stuff like this just seems juvenile...aw you didn't like X in the game? You hurt my feelings so I'm going to take my toys and play somewhere else!

The problem with feedback is that players don't necessarily know what makes for the best game experience, and end up asking for things that sound nice in theory, but eat up huge amounts of dev time and resources, and end up not amounting to much in the final product. While it's great that the devs are interested in our feedback, we also have to be aware of what we are asking for, and understand that what we want is often either unfeasible, or is not a good allocation of resources, and that our asking for our pet wants to be included could come at the expense of some other cool thing we know nothing about. At the same time, the devs ought to take feedback, but should make sure they interpret it correctly and not overreact, while also not being afraid to do what they think is right, even if it irks sections of the fanbase. Basically, the fans need to be careful what they ask for, and the devs need to be careful in putting to much weight on the wants of fans in their design process.

It's a tricky line to walk, and I think you would need to have very thick skin to work in this industry, with everyone criticising everything you do, often without knowing half the reasons why things get done the way they do. It not restricted to Bioware, it happens with Blizzard, and with any developer that actually engages with their audience in any way. They get endlessly bombarded day in and day out by fans praising and criticising every imaginable thing and wanting every possible thing to be in the next game, even when those things are diametrically opposed. If I was a game dev, I think I would avoid forums and Twitter like the plague, because it seems like a recipe for a nervous breakdown.

[vbibbi]

The problem with feedback is that players don't necessarily know what makes for the best game experience, and end up asking for things that sound nice in theory, but eat up huge amounts of dev time and resources, and end up not amounting to much in the final product. While it's great that the devs are interested in our feedback, we also have to be aware of what we are asking for, and understand that what we want is often either unfeasible, or is not a good allocation of resources, and that our asking for our pet wants to be included could come at the expense of some other cool thing we know nothing about. At the same time, the devs ought to take feedback, but should make sure they interpret it correctly and not overreact, while also not being afraid to do what they think is right, even if it irks sections of the fanbase. Basically, the fans need to be careful what they ask for, and the devs need to be careful in putting to much weight on the wants of fans in their design process.

It's a tricky line to walk, and I think you would need to have very thick skin to work in this industry, with everyone criticising everything you do, often without knowing half the reasons why things get done the way they do. It not restricted to Bioware, it happens with Blizzard, and with any developer that actually engages with their audience in any way. They get endlessly bombarded day in and day out by fans praising and criticising every imaginable thing and wanting every possible thing to be in the next game, even when those things are diametrically opposed. If I was a game dev, I think I would avoid forums and Twitter like the plague, because it seems like a recipe for a nervous breakdown.

True, I could never deal with the vitriol from fans so applaud Bioware for staying strong in the face of their audience. And I say this as someone who wasn't thrilled with DAI and will not be preordering future Bioware games.

 

We'll never know how much the changes between games are due to fan feedback versus the team's own scrutiny of what worked versus hindsight versus competing with other games in the RPG market. So I am not claiming to know how much our feedback really makes a difference and how strongly Bioware listens to us. I do think that when a topic is discussed at length, such as the gay KISA thread, that is more likely to capture their attention than short threads providing criticisms but not in a constructive way.

 

I just really really really hope the team can objectively look at DAI, appreciate what its strengths are and what could be improved upon. I think they are probably harsher on their own product than a lot of the diehard defenders on these boards I'm eager to see what MEA is like and hopefully buy it once fan reviews are in. And I will certainly hope I enjoy DA4 more than I did DAI.

[Phoenix_Also_Rises]

 

I really think most of the character potential of the Inquisitor as remaining PC only comes through Trespasser. And I can't justify having a character for an entirely new game based on a very small amount of actual character development from the entire DAI player experience. And the DLC was probably not played by the majority of people who will purchase DA4, as it must be played upon completion of the main game, so that eliminates players who don't complete games, along with those who don't buy DLCs.

 

 

 

You do have some very good and very valid points there. Yes, the Inquisitor has become interesting largely because of Trespasser. Honestly, I highly doubt we would be having this discussion at all had Trespasser never happened. At least, I do not seem to recall any such threads popping up in this section prior to Trespasser releasing.

 

But just for the sake of argument, let me bring up some observations regarding the BioWare approach to previous series and/or DLC, as regards continuing the story, possibly while maintaining player character continuity. I know this is the DA forum and that narrative approaches between ME and DA are fundamentally different, but when it comes to the strictly technical aspects of messaging and marketing of a sequel, BioWare already has trumpeted an addition - heck, a culmination - to the pre-established lore and story as the best jumping-in point of a franchise with Mass Effect 3 (I am going to get eviscerated for bringing that up, arent I). The Dread Ending and the associated liver damage aside, in essence, you have a game whose story and characters have been built up over possibly as much as 200 hours of gameplay, where, at the same time, some of the crucial decisions are absolutely hinging on the decisions made across the prior installments in the franchise, being marketed as the best starting point. And as regards DLC, the main villain of Inquisiton (he so did not get enough development to warrant being called an antagonist, so mustache-twirler it is), the one supposed to be driving the central conflict and thus someone who should technically form an integral aspect of the plot, is a character who made his debut in a DLC to a game with less than enthusiastic general reception whose post-release content was cancelled. 

[vbibbi]

You do have some very good and very valid points there. Yes, the Inquisitor has become interesting largely because of Trespasser. Honestly, I highly doubt we would be having this discussion at all had Trespasser never happened. At least, I do not seem to recall any such threads popping up in this section prior to Trespasser releasing.

 

But just for the sake of argument, let me bring up some observations regarding the BioWare approach to previous series and/or DLC, as regards continuing the story, possibly while maintaining player character continuity. I know this is the DA forum and that narrative approaches between ME and DA are fundamentally different, but when it comes to the strictly technical aspects of messaging and marketing of a sequel, BioWare already has trumpeted an addition - heck, a culmination - to the pre-established lore and story as the best jumping-in point of a franchise with Mass Effect 3 (I am going to get eviscerated for bringing that up, arent I). The Dread Ending and the associated liver damage aside, in essence, you have a game whose story and characters have been built up over possibly as much as 200 hours of gameplay, where, at the same time, some of the crucial decisions are absolutely hinging on the decisions made across the prior installments in the franchise, being marketed as the best starting point. And as regards DLC, the main villain of Inquisiton (he so did not get enough development to warrant being called an antagonist, so mustache-twirler it is), the one supposed to be driving the central conflict and thus someone who should technically form an integral aspect of the plot, is a character who made his debut in a DLC to a game with less than enthusiastic general reception whose post-release content was cancelled. 

Yes, there has been precedence for a lot of what people are asking for. But as you say, DA and ME are different series with different structures and (more importantly) different expectations from the fans.

 

Quite honestly, I think the marketing for ME3 as being "the perfect entry point into the series" was such bull, and just a method to increase its consumer market. There is no way that any fan of the series as a whole would say that the last game in a trilogy is a good point to dive in. I am playing TW3 right now (I am NOT comparing the games here) and I can tell that this is the third in a series, as a lot of characters and events from the previous two games are referenced that I know I'm missing. I don't think ME3 would have made much sense to me if I hadn't played the first two games, or at least not sufficiently for my narrative-focused taste in games.

 

I was actually surprised that Cory became the main villain of the game, that was fairly unorthodox for Bioware. When we got spoilers that he would be in DAI, I thought he would be the mini boss of the Warden quest line, not the main game boss. And who knows what plans Bio had before the Exalted March was canceled. I think that put a lot of the plot for the overarching series into disarray. I've posted previously that I wouldn't be surprised if Cory was meant to be a mid-game boss and Solas the end game boss if Exalted March had seen the light of day.

 

But as I mentioned above, I think from a consumer service perspective, which I am fervently hoping Bioware still has, the general audience of the DA games now come to expect a new PC for each game, as they expected to play Shep for each of the ME trilogy games. I think it's a small but vocal minority who want/expect the Inquisitor back, and fulfilling their wishes risks upsetting the rest of the fans who want a new PC, or new consumers who would better connect with a new PC with no baggage than to the previous game's PC. If the Inquisitor returns as a PC, we will have people shouting "why wasn't my HOF or my Hawke a returning PC?! Why the Inquisitor?!" I don't know that Bioware is willing to risk that backlash, especially when (to me) Trespasser seems to be an easy send off to the Inquisitor.

 

I understand where people are coming from saying it would be better story-wise to have the Inquisitor keep the antagonism with Solas, but looking from a game development and marketing perspective, I think it would be more harmful than beneficial. And hopefully Bio can still find a plausible method of introducing a new PC with a strong relationship to Solas and as strong a motivation for wanting to stop him as the Inquisitor does.

[CardButton]

But as I mentioned above, I think from a consumer service perspective, which I am fervently hoping Bioware still has, the general audience of the DA games now come to expect a new PC for each game, as they expected to play Shep for each of the ME trilogy games. I think it's a small but vocal minority who want/expect the Inquisitor back, and fulfilling their wishes risks upsetting the rest of the fans who want a new PC, or new consumers who would better connect with a new PC with no baggage than to the previous game's PC. If the Inquisitor returns as a PC, we will have people shouting "why wasn't my HOF or my Hawke a returning PC?! Why the Inquisitor?!" I don't know that Bioware is willing to risk that backlash, especially when (to me) Trespasser seems to be an easy send off to the Inquisitor.

I'm firmly in the Dual-PC camp, but man I must be getting old because I really don't see the intrinsic appeal of this on it's own anymore ... at least not simply for the sake of having it.  

 

Perhaps I would be more accepting of it if DA actually hopped around through time (and not just location) a bit more (like Elder Scrolls does), but the setup "Clean Slate with a new PC and no Baggage" seems far too much like the experience I'd get when I start a new character in an MMO (like SWTOR or GW2) for me to get excited for it in a Single Player RPG (especially when it would require sacrificing a story element and a character dynamic I personally find really damned interesting to get it).  It honestly sounds like a Narrative Sandbox, is that all people really want or expect from DA?  Playing new PCs in various locations across a primarily unchanging Thedas, but preferring those characters and adventures remain as isolated as possible from the rest of the setting so that they the player have the chance of doing it all over again in another game.  

 

Somewhere along the way it seems that people forgot that what made DA:O so good was that it had a strong, engaging story that was supported by an interesting setting and functional game-play, and now it seems that somehow the expectation of DA has reversed.  The Setting of Thedas and the gameplay experience provided by starting a New PC come first, with the story now expected to be built to support them.  In the end I will stand behind anything that Bioware feels they need to do to make a stronger story for DA4.  If they feel that the best narrative can be accomplished by using a sole New PC, that's fine.  If they feel that a returning Inquisitor PC would work better, great!  If Dual-PC's are the road they choose, stupendous!  I play single player RPGs for one reason, to experience the story, Setting and Game-play should be there merely to ground and enhance that experience. 

[In Exile]

Yeah and I liked the reveal and going back and seeing how Solas played us all along. But I can easily see how people are upset at the idea of not playing as the Inquisitor again, since narratively, you don't do a true antagonist reveal like this in one game and then have the next game be about someone completely different. If the Exalted March DLC had happened, I theorize that much of DAI would have been contained in it, and then Corypheus would be the mid-game boss of DAI with Solas being the final boss. Now, it's a mess

 

No, it's not. Because Solas isn't the Inquisitor's antagonist. The Inquisitor's biggest achievement is... achieving every single one of Solas's goals with blinding efficiency. You're always on the same side. Hell, you're on the same side in Trespasser: you both want to stop the Qunari, and Solas (if you're friends) wants to save your life. I like the Inquisitor, but I just don't see anything to make Solas an antagonist. 

 

Part of the point of the deconstruction Bioware is using is that Solas isn't a villain. He's not even an antagonist, because he and the Inquisitor are on the same side - even his true motives, which he hides, are the same: stopping Corypheus and sealing the breach, by building the Inquisition. 

[BansheeOwnage]

True. Only three things have compelled me to spend lengthy amounts of time on BSN:

1. The lacklustre ending of ME3.

 

2. The intolerably dull fetch-questing of DA:I.

 

3. Wanting to continue to play as the inquisitor following the excellent Tresspasser DLC.

And I discovered that these subjects were already being passionately debated across the internet before I turned up. So I don't think it's a case of a minority of people being interested, and the rest not; I think lots of people are interested, but only a minority bother to write about it.

Mine were the same, except #2 was the hair/Skyhold outfit issue, which like the others, was already being passionately discussed. As others have said, I find it interesting if nothing else that so many of the people who want the Inquisitor to come back:

 

1. Didn't want that before Trespasser

and/or

2. Don't particularly like them

 

I think that's rather telling personally. It means one of two things. Either they intended us to have this reaction, since they're planning on having the Inquisitor return, or they did not intend it, in which case they failed spectacularly at getting their intention across in the material. Otherwise you wouldn't have so many people shift their views like this.

[d1ta]

Hmmnn, I kinda wonder what are the odds on DA4 that the Inquisitor and Solas became the 2 people that tries to pull events to their favour from behind the screens, using 'peons' to do their bidding.

Both chess player sits on their respective throne, with the North as their chessboard (I can almost hear Dorian shouting to be careful and don't make a mess to his homeland XD..)
If Solas wins, then it's game over for the Thedas we knew
If Inquisitor wins, well, who knows what direction the world might take?
The battle between Inquisitor and the Wolf is a war of wits, gaining information, where to strike next and winning influence/followers/supporters, while pawns on both ends fight the bloody battle with each other, in accordance to their 'Master's order'.

It is through the direction of the Inquisitor that the new protag shall move. And it's with Solas' top man that the new protag is being pitted against with.
It's hard to sense the motivation/driving force and reasons why the 'new guy' should care at all (since we don't have a peek in BW's scripts. That's why we're all here speculating ^^v) Could range from anything from being a fan of the inquisitor (this would be funny if happens XD) to wanting to preserve their world and loved ones, or it could be anything.

It's a game of who's smarter and who could figure out their nemesis' next move (like in Sun Tzu: your enemy's mind is your greatest weapon) as well as a game of "my pawn is stronger than yours".

And at the end game, it's a personal showdown between Solas and Inquisitor. How should they resolve this? Through the might of steel, spells and arrows? Or about the Inquisitor trying to reach out to Solas, convince him that yes this world is worth saving, making him abort his plans that ends with his sacrifice? Or Solas' reasoning suddenly makes sense and the Inquisitor agrees to help him instead at the cost of an entire civilization in favour for a new (and hopefully a better) one? (Or many other BW scenario that's definitely a lot better by the miles then my idea could have ever conceive )

..
Just my ramblings XD. Ignore if it's too confusing

Btw, does anybody here has any info of what the Executioners really are?
Are they another part of the Qun that we don't know of? Solas' people? Or another group that has yet to show their noses on the light of day?
(Replaying again and got their war table mission) those people are bloody dangerous and scary. Charismatic enough to entice a whole outpost to join them willingly, fanatical and loyal enough to kill themselves if they ever got caught.
Imagine if they play a part in DA4, hmnnn...

[BansheeOwnage]

No, it's not. Because Solas isn't the Inquisitor's antagonist. The Inquisitor's biggest achievement is... achieving every single one of Solas's goals with blinding efficiency. You're always on the same side. Hell, you're on the same side in Trespasser: you both want to stop the Qunari, and Solas (if you're friends) wants to save your life. I like the Inquisitor, but I just don't see anything to make Solas an antagonist. 

 

Part of the point of the deconstruction Bioware is using is that Solas isn't a villain. He's not even an antagonist, because he and the Inquisitor are on the same side - even his true motives, which he hides, are the same: stopping Corypheus and sealing the breach, by building the Inquisition. 

What? Solas is not a villain, no, but he's definitely an antagonist now. It's impossible to argue otherwise, since the rivalry Trespasser sets up no matter what is basically the definition of an protagonist-antagonist relationship. He starts a campaign that will have the side-effect of ending your world as-you-know-it, and you vow to stop him. Simple. He's an antagonist.

 

Unless I'm missing something here. Are you saying he wasn't an antagonist? Because I still don't think that's true. Sure, you didn't know he was, but he always planned on getting the Orb of Destruction back and he would have probably brought down the veil right after defeating Corypheus if he could have. Just because he doesn't hate you doesn't mean he didn't use you and it doesn't mean he isn't an antagonist.

[In Exile]

What? Solas is not a villain, no, but he's definitely an antagonist now. It's impossible to argue otherwise, since the rivalry Trespasser sets up no matter what is basically the definition of an protagonist-antagonist relationship. He starts a campaign that will have the side-effect of ending your world as-you-know-it, and you vow to stop him. Simple. He's an antagonist.

 

Unless I'm missing something here. Are you saying he wasn't an antagonist? Because I still don't think that's true. Sure, you didn't know he was, but he always planned on getting the Orb of Destruction back and he would have probably brought down the veil right after defeating Corypheus if he could. Just because he doesn't hate you doesn't mean he didn't use you and it doesn't mean he isn't an antagonist.

 

I'm saying that Solas wasn't an antagonist, yes. He wasn't an antagonist because, at no point during the game, did he actually oppose you. In fact, he actively and constantly aided you, both directly by being in the party and more generally by (in part) orchestrating your ascension as Inquisitor. DA:I doesn't play this well, but in the scene where we find Skyhold, it's supposed to play as 1) Solas tells you exactly where Skyhold is but 2) you "lead" people there as if by divine providence, so it looks like you found it yourself (adding even more to your legend). 

 

It doesn't matter that Solas plotted to end the world. He's not an antagonist in any story DA:I actually tells, which is 1) stopping Corypheus (the MQ) 2) stopping Hakkon (JOH); (iii) discovering the Titan; (Descent); or (iv) stopping the Qunari (Trespasser). 

 

You can't declare someone an "antagonist" for some hypothetical story that hasn't yet happened, for a plan you won't have any role in, and solely on the basis of a loud and public declaration you're against them. The Inquisitor declares himself or herself as Solas' antagonist, not the other way around. The Inquisitor's the NPC in this story. 

 

An antagonist, by definition: 

An antagonist is a character, group of characters, institution, or concept that stands in or represents opposition against which the protagonist(s) must contend. In other words, an antagonist is a person or a group of people who opposes a protagonist.

 

Edit: Let me put it this way: if Solas is an antagonist because of his world-ending plot, then he's everyone's antagonist. That fat innkeeper from DA:O? Solas is his antagonist, because that dude's probably gonna die. 

[Phoenix_Also_Rises]

Yes, there has been precedence for a lot of what people are asking for. But as you say, DA and ME are different series with different structures and (more importantly) different expectations from the fans.

 

Quite honestly, I think the marketing for ME3 as being "the perfect entry point into the series" was such bull, and just a method to increase its consumer market. There is no way that any fan of the series as a whole would say that the last game in a trilogy is a good point to dive in. I am playing TW3 right now (I am NOT comparing the games here) and I can tell that this is the third in a series, as a lot of characters and events from the previous two games are referenced that I know I'm missing. I don't think ME3 would have made much sense to me if I hadn't played the first two games, or at least not sufficiently for my narrative-focused taste in games.

 

 

 

You would think that, right I mean, there is all that pre-established lore, hours upon hours of character and plot development - honestly, who is going to jump in at Game Three? Still, most of the people I knew in person at that time who also played Mass Effect were more casual gamers than myself and they told me they either only ever played ME3, or, if they did play the other games, became interested enough in the world that they sought out the previous installments only after they played it. Although I have no idea how telling that is because one of those people only ever played MP seeing as, and I quote, "there was too much talking in the SP campaign".

 

Oh and do not get me started on The Witcher  I am currently in the process of playing TW3 (which will be put on hold starting today until further notice because nnngh Fallout), and not only is there stuff from previous games, there is stuff from the books. I just got to Novigrad, and Geralt made this off-handed remark, that made me do my best impression of a confused dog and go "huh?" It must have taken me a full minute to register that wow, I actually remember that from the books. 

 

I was actually surprised that Cory became the main villain of the game, that was fairly unorthodox for Bioware. When we got spoilers that he would be in DAI, I thought he would be the mini boss of the Warden quest line, not the main game boss. And who knows what plans Bio had before the Exalted March was canceled. I think that put a lot of the plot for the overarching series into disarray. I've posted previously that I wouldn't be surprised if Cory was meant to be a mid-game boss and Solas the end game boss if Exalted March had seen the light of day.

 

But as I mentioned above, I think from a consumer service perspective, which I am fervently hoping Bioware still has, the general audience of the DA games now come to expect a new PC for each game, as they expected to play Shep for each of the ME trilogy games. I think it's a small but vocal minority who want/expect the Inquisitor back, and fulfilling their wishes risks upsetting the rest of the fans who want a new PC, or new consumers who would better connect with a new PC with no baggage than to the previous game's PC. If the Inquisitor returns as a PC, we will have people shouting "why wasn't my HOF or my Hawke a returning PC?! Why the Inquisitor?!" I don't know that Bioware is willing to risk that backlash, especially when (to me) Trespasser seems to be an easy send off to the Inquisitor.

 

I understand where people are coming from saying it would be better story-wise to have the Inquisitor keep the antagonism with Solas, but looking from a game development and marketing perspective, I think it would be more harmful than beneficial. And hopefully Bio can still find a plausible method of introducing a new PC with a strong relationship to Solas and as strong a motivation for wanting to stop him as the Inquisitor does.

 

As regards Cory being a mid-game villain - I think there is a recent interview with David Gaider where he says something to the effect that Inquisition was initially supposed to be about twice as long as the final product was, and that it was split due to production constraints. I have yet to hear the whole thing, because it is very long, but it is my understanding that the portion that never made it into Inquisition is around there somewhere as something of a groundwork for a possible next installment. I have yet to hear the whole thing (the interview is quite long) so I may come back and correct that assumption. 

 

But I see what you are trying to say about consumer perspective. Personally, part of the reason why I am still debating this issue is protagonist whiplash; each new installment brings yet another nobody who works their way up and saves the day, only to bow out just as things are starting to heat up - there is a disconnect there, this jarring jolt, like you are sitting in a car, enjoying the ride, and the driver suddenly jumps on the breaks. And this keeps repeating every hour or so. But I did say "personally" - this is an opinion that is mine and mine alone. But, at the same time, I can see how a new player contemplating the purchase of a DA game might be put off by a returning protagonist.

 

However, it occurs to me - if we go by the logic that in DA, it is the setting that is the main character, and not the protagonist, would that not be the similar situation as with ME3, where a new player would be jumping into the shoes of a pre-existing main character? In both, there is accumulated lore, you would still need to explain the whole Elven gods thing, why this Solas guy is suddenly important and why his actions are a big deal, and then you have the Chantry and the conflicts therein, the dwarves, lyrium, red lyrium, mages, templars, Tevinter, Qunari - regardless of whether there is a returning protagonist or not, you still need to re-establish the entire setting, the tons of existing lore and previous developments that returning players know already, but the new ones do not. So, looking at it from the consumer perspective, if they are picking up Game Four, they do so at least suspecting that there is going to be some accumulated baggage and that they would have to play catch-up with all the things that have happened anyways. 

 

Not to mention the fact that the most likely main antagonist is going to be a returning character. And, if the Inquisitor is only made interesting because of Trespasser, the same could be said of Solas. Until the endgame of Inquisition, he was just another companion, with the reveal of his identity afterwards elevating him to the status of a "thing that may pop up some time down the line", much like, say, Flemeth. But it was Trespasser where he came out and cemented himself as the focal point of the greater upcoming conflict, and revealed his motivations for bringing this conflict about - the very motivations that make people view him as sympathetic and more than just a run-of-the mill Big Bad. If Solas is seen as an interesting and multi-dimensional antagonist, it is only because of the developments of Trespasser, which makes him no different from the Inquisitor who was made interesting and multi-dimensional on account of the same.

 

But, as I said, I see and acknowledge your points. In the end, though, it does not matter what they do - somebody will always end up getting upset. 

[BansheeOwnage]

 

I'm saying that Solas wasn't an antagonist, yes. He wasn't an antagonist because, at no point during the game, did he actually oppose you. In fact, he actively and constantly aided you, both directly by being in the party and more generally by (in part) orchestrating your ascension as Inquisitor. DA:I doesn't play this well, but in the scene where we find Skyhold, it's supposed to play as 1) Solas tells you exactly where Skyhold is but 2) you "lead" people there as if by divine providence, so it looks like you found it yourself (adding even more to your legend). 

 

It doesn't matter that Solas plotted to end the world. He's not an antagonist in any story DA:I actually tells, which is 1) stopping Corypheus (the MQ) 2) stopping Hakkon (JOH); (iii) discovering the Titan; (Descent); or (iv) stopping the Qunari (Trespasser). 

 

You can't declare someone an "antagonist" for some hypothetical story that hasn't yet happened, for a plan you won't have any role in, and solely on the basis of a loud and public declaration you're against them. The Inquisitor declares himself or herself as Solas' antagonist, not the other way around. The Inquisitor's the NPC in this story. 

 

An antagonist, by definition: 

An antagonist is a character, group of characters, institution, or concept that stands in or represents opposition against which the protagonist(s) must contend. In other words, an antagonist is a person or a group of people who opposes a protagonist.

 

Edit: Let me put it this way: if Solas is an antagonist because of his world-ending plot, then he's everyone's antagonist. That fat innkeeper from DA:O? Solas is his antagonist, because that dude's probably gonna die. 

 

Well, yes, he is sort of everyone's antagonist. It's debatable whether he's an antagonist during Inquisition, but I don't understand how you could think he isn't one after Trespasser. If the Inquisitor is Solas' antagonist, Solas is the Inquisitor's antagonist. All that changes is perspective; they're still opposing each other.

 

As for whether he's an antagonist in the base game, it depends on if you consider someone temporarily assisting you all the while planning to turn on you as soon as your current collaborative task is complete an antagonist, and it depends if you consider them an antagonist based on if the protagonist knows about their true intentions or not.

[vbibbi]

I'm firmly in the Dual-PC camp, but man I must be getting old because I really don't see the intrinsic appeal of this on it's own anymore ... at least not simply for the sake of having it.  

 

Perhaps I would be more accepting of it if DA actually hopped around through time (and not just location) a bit more (like Elder Scrolls does), but the setup "Clean Slate with a new PC and no Baggage" seems far too much like the experience I'd get when I start a new character in an MMO (like SWTOR or GW2) for me to get excited for it in a Single Player RPG (especially when it would require sacrificing a story element and a character dynamic I personally find really damned interesting to get it).  It honestly sounds like a Narrative Sandbox, is that all people really want or expect from DA?  Playing new PCs in various locations across a primarily unchanging Thedas, but preferring those characters and adventures remain as isolated as possible from the rest of the setting so that they the player have the chance of doing it all over again in another game.  

 

Somewhere along the way it seems that people forgot that what made DA:O so good was that it had a strong, engaging story that was supported by an interesting setting and functional game-play, and now it seems that somehow the expectation of DA has reversed.  The Setting of Thedas and the gameplay experience provided by starting a New PC come first, with the story now expected to be built to support them.  In the end I will stand behind anything that Bioware feels they need to do to make a stronger story for DA4.  If they feel that the best narrative can be accomplished by using a sole New PC, that's fine.  If they feel that a returning Inquisitor PC would work better, great!  If Dual-PC's are the road they choose, stupendous!  I play single player RPGs for one reason, to experience the story, Setting and Game-play should be there merely to ground and enhance that experience. 

Well I personally just don't want open world for Dragon Age at all, as I feel it weakened story telling. But I feel confident that open world is here to stay as long as it's the RPG industry's buzz word.

 

I would argue, though, that the narrative sandbox you're referencing is a good thing, if I'm understanding you correctly. I would find less suspension of disbelief in having multiple PCs across a large continent affecting their environs than having one person who travels from country to country making huge impactful changes to society and politics. It's not that the events from one game to the next would be completely separate, it's that events occur simultaneously all over the world all the time. What would have been interesting is if some of the DA games occurred in different parts of the world around the same time rather than in a linear timeline. So, we could have HOF and Hawke doing their thing at the same time some PC in Tevinter is inciting a slave rebellion, making progress on the Tevinter-Qunari war, etc. So then when DAI is finished and we move north, we coincide with the events of the Tevinter PC.

 

Just some random thoughts, too difficult to implement and probably too difficult for players to follow, myself included.

 

No, it's not. Because Solas isn't the Inquisitor's antagonist. The Inquisitor's biggest achievement is... achieving every single one of Solas's goals with blinding efficiency. You're always on the same side. Hell, you're on the same side in Trespasser: you both want to stop the Qunari, and Solas (if you're friends) wants to save your life. I like the Inquisitor, but I just don't see anything to make Solas an antagonist. 

 

Part of the point of the deconstruction Bioware is using is that Solas isn't a villain. He's not even an antagonist, because he and the Inquisitor are on the same side - even his true motives, which he hides, are the same: stopping Corypheus and sealing the breach, by building the Inquisition. 

Yeah you address this below so will respond there

 

 

I'm saying that Solas wasn't an antagonist, yes. He wasn't an antagonist because, at no point during the game, did he actually oppose you. In fact, he actively and constantly aided you, both directly by being in the party and more generally by (in part) orchestrating your ascension as Inquisitor. DA:I doesn't play this well, but in the scene where we find Skyhold, it's supposed to play as 1) Solas tells you exactly where Skyhold is but 2) you "lead" people there as if by divine providence, so it looks like you found it yourself (adding even more to your legend). 

 

It doesn't matter that Solas plotted to end the world. He's not an antagonist in any story DA:I actually tells, which is 1) stopping Corypheus (the MQ) 2) stopping Hakkon (JOH); (iii) discovering the Titan; (Descent); or (iv) stopping the Qunari (Trespasser). 

 

You can't declare someone an "antagonist" for some hypothetical story that hasn't yet happened, for a plan you won't have any role in, and solely on the basis of a loud and public declaration you're against them. The Inquisitor declares himself or herself as Solas' antagonist, not the other way around. The Inquisitor's the NPC in this story. 

 

An antagonist, by definition: 

An antagonist is a character, group of characters, institution, or concept that stands in or represents opposition against which the protagonist(s) must contend. In other words, an antagonist is a person or a group of people who opposes a protagonist.

 

Edit: Let me put it this way: if Solas is an antagonist because of his world-ending plot, then he's everyone's antagonist. That fat innkeeper from DA:O? Solas is his antagonist, because that dude's probably gonna die. 

 

Right, he wasn't an antagonist in DAI but the game set him up to be an antagonist in DA4. People were saying it was cool how the game set up Cory as the false antagonist with Solas being the shadow villain the whole game, and this is why we need to continue to play as the Inquisitor now that the "true" villain of DAI was revealed. I agree with you, though, that a world ending scheme means that anyone would have good justification to want to stop Solas. We don't need to import someone with a specific history with him to make sense to want to prevent the Veil from collapsing. That being said, it does make sense that the Inquisitor has a personal relationship with him that fans understandably want to see continue into the next game. We don't know enough about DA4 to see what relationship Bio will give our new PC with Solas.

 

 

You would think that, right I mean, there is all that pre-established lore, hours upon hours of character and plot development - honestly, who is going to jump in at Game Three? Still, most of the people I knew in person at that time who also played Mass Effect were more casual gamers than myself and they told me they either only ever played ME3, or, if they did play the other games, became interested enough in the world that they sought out the previous installments only after they played it. Although I have no idea how telling that is because one of those people only ever played MP seeing as, and I quote, "there was too much talking in the SP campaign".

 

Oh and do not get me started on The Witcher  I am currently in the process of playing TW3 (which will be put on hold starting today until further notice because nnngh Fallout), and not only is there stuff from previous games, there is stuff from the books. I just got to Novigrad, and Geralt made this off-handed remark, that made me do my best impression of a confused dog and go "huh?" It must have taken me a full minute to register that wow, I actually remember that from the books. 

 

 

As regards Cory being a mid-game villain - I think there is a recent interview with David Gaider where he says something to the effect that Inquisition was initially supposed to be about twice as long as the final product was, and that it was split due to production constraints. I have yet to hear the whole thing, because it is very long, but it is my understanding that the portion that never made it into Inquisition is around there somewhere as something of a groundwork for a possible next installment. I have yet to hear the whole thing (the interview is quite long) so I may come back and correct that assumption. 

 

But I see what you are trying to say about consumer perspective. Personally, part of the reason why I am still debating this issue is protagonist whiplash; each new installment brings yet another nobody who works their way up and saves the day, only to bow out just as things are starting to heat up - there is a disconnect there, this jarring jolt, like you are sitting in a car, enjoying the ride, and the driver suddenly jumps on the breaks. And this keeps repeating every hour or so. But I did say "personally" - this is an opinion that is mine and mine alone. But, at the same time, I can see how a new player contemplating the purchase of a DA game might be put off by a returning protagonist.

 

However, it occurs to me - if we go by the logic that in DA, it is the setting that is the main character, and not the protagonist, would that not be the similar situation as with ME3, where a new player would be jumping into the shoes of a pre-existing main character? In both, there is accumulated lore, you would still need to explain the whole Elven gods thing, why this Solas guy is suddenly important and why his actions are a big deal, and then you have the Chantry and the conflicts therein, the dwarves, lyrium, red lyrium, mages, templars, Tevinter, Qunari - regardless of whether there is a returning protagonist or not, you still need to re-establish the entire setting, the tons of existing lore and previous developments that returning players know already, but the new ones do not. So, looking at it from the consumer perspective, if they are picking up Game Four, they do so at least suspecting that there is going to be some accumulated baggage and that they would have to play catch-up with all the things that have happened anyways. 

 

Not to mention the fact that the most likely main antagonist is going to be a returning character. And, if the Inquisitor is only made interesting because of Trespasser, the same could be said of Solas. Until the endgame of Inquisition, he was just another companion, with the reveal of his identity afterwards elevating him to the status of a "thing that may pop up some time down the line", much like, say, Flemeth. But it was Trespasser where he came out and cemented himself as the focal point of the greater upcoming conflict, and revealed his motivations for bringing this conflict about - the very motivations that make people view him as sympathetic and more than just a run-of-the mill Big Bad. If Solas is seen as an interesting and multi-dimensional antagonist, it is only because of the developments of Trespasser, which makes him no different from the Inquisitor who was made interesting and multi-dimensional on account of the same.

 

But, as I said, I see and acknowledge your points. In the end, though, it does not matter what they do - somebody will always end up getting upset. 

 

I think this gets to the increasing issue with the DA series. To my limited gaming knowledge, this is the only game series which has no set number of games (publicly) stated and is dedicated to a new PC each game but have the story, characters, and world build upon previous installments. This seems fairly revolutionary to me in gaming. The problem with that is this introduces problems like you mention: the further into the series we go, the more lore we have and the greater narrative disadvantage new players will have. Old fans will expect continuity and references to their actions in past games. New players will not want to feel like they have to play previous games in order to understand what's going on (though I'm sure Bio would be happy if they bought past games for reference).

 

That's why it makes sense that we have to go to Tevinter for the next game and make as clean a break with the baggage and history from the first three games as possible. It's similar to how MEA had to flee our galaxy in order to feasibly implement the setting we know from the original trilogy without dealing with the Reapers.

 

You're right, it's the nature of the gaming industry (human nature, really) that someone will be upset no matter what Bio does. That's a given. I don't envy them their task of walking such a fine line. I acknowledge that they probably have to deal with these issues more than most game companies, so kudos to them for doing so.

 

 

 

 

For TW3, I should be fair and realize that I won't understand all of the references since it is the third game in a series, based off of a book series. It's ironic, though, as I watched youtube playthroughs of the first two games and never had any inclination to play them, but all of the hype and praise of TW3 convinced me to buy a used copy and try it out. And I am enjoying it.

[In Exile]

Well, yes, he is sort of everyone's antagonist. It's debatable whether he's an antagonist during Inquisition, but I don't understand how you could think he isn't one after Trespasser. If the Inquisitor is Solas' antagonist, Solas is the Inquisitor's antagonist. All that changes is perspective; they're still opposing each other.

 

As for whether he's an antagonist in the base game, it depends on if you consider someone temporarily assisting you all the while planning to turn on you as soon as your current collaborative task is complete an antagonist, and it depends if you consider them an antagonist based on if the protagonist knows about their true intentions or not.

 

No, you're not. You can't say someone is opposing you while being an irrelevant gnat in their world. It's not bilateral, because they're not actually opposing you. At the end of Trespasser, the Inquisition is either non-existent or an infiltrated joke, the Inquisitor is a non-figure in Solas's plot ... the only thing that makes you an "antagonist" is, as I say, that you declare yourself one. 

 

Let's try to put it this way: how is Solas "opposing" the Inquisitor? Again, even as he actively plots the destruction of the world, he helps you stop the Qunari. He is, again, on your side. Friend or foe, you're so irrelevant in his scheme that, despite being literally the only person alive who knows about it, he saves your life. It's honestly hard to think of a scenario where the Inquisitor could be less relevant in Solas's eyes, insofar as his plot is concerned. 

 

Look, I understand why, from the Inquisitor's perspective, Solas is very much a daunting figure that has to be hunted down, etc. But from the other side - or a neutral side - the Inquisitor is just someone who got totally hosed. 

 

There's no "after" Trespasser. There's no game at that point. All we have is speculation about what Solas will do, how he'll do it, and some vague idea that a declaration and a lot of dedication justify the Inquisitor being involved in it. There's nothing to make the Inquisitor an antagonist, apart, as I say, from a declaration. 

 

Solas's true intentions in DA:I are (1) seal the breach; (2) stop Corypheus; (3) restore order to Thedas; and his subgoals involve things like (a) assist with the creation of the Inquisition; and ( help with its growth. Yes, he also eventually wants to recreate his world and has a complete disregard for whatever happens to this one, but it's a silly standard to say that makes him an antagonist.

 

If Solas is an antagonist in DA:I, then Sten is an antagonist in DA:O. Because Sten absolutely is on the side of the Qunari will, and should, conquer and wash over Thedas like a deluge. He outright says that in the endgame. But it would be absurd to say he's the Warden's antagonist because of that. 

[loyallyroyal]

I guess even Varric is confused, because by his definition, Solas would be the villain.

 

​

[CardButton]

Well I personally just don't want open world for Dragon Age at all, as I feel it weakened story telling. But I feel confident that open world is here to stay as long as it's the RPG industry's buzz word.

 

I would argue, though, that the narrative sandbox you're referencing is a good thing, if I'm understanding you correctly. I would find less suspension of disbelief in having multiple PCs across a large continent affecting their environs than having one person who travels from country to country making huge impactful changes to society and politics. It's not that the events from one game to the next would be completely separate, it's that events occur simultaneously all over the world all the time. What would have been interesting is if some of the DA games occurred in different parts of the world around the same time rather than in a linear timeline. So, we could have HOF and Hawke doing their thing at the same time some PC in Tevinter is inciting a slave rebellion, making progress on the Tevinter-Qunari war, etc. So then when DAI is finished and we move north, we coincide with the events of the Tevinter PC.

 

Just some random thoughts, too difficult to implement and probably too difficult for players to follow, myself included.

THIS SOUNDS AWESOME!  

 

Having the games happen simultaneously (at least to a certain degree) in various locations would have served just as well as if they had significant time skips in between in each game ... but that's not what were getting.  We're receiving primarily sequential games in Thedas (just in different locations), with plot points and characters bleeding over from previous installments into new ones ... and we're still arbitrarily sticking to this "One PC per Game Rule".  I love the "Narrative Sandbox" style of gameplay, that's why I play Bethesda games and MMO's, but when it seems like it could potentially be detrimental to an intriguing story-line just for the sake of the having the "game-play" experience provided by a new PC ... I just don't see the intrinsic value. 

 

I do see the unbelievable potential of having a New PC in Tevinter, but only if they are an agent of their own making (we don't need them to be a side-kick for Dorian, or a Proxy replacement for the Quizzy).  I also see the immense benefit of having a returning Inquisitor PC to finish the Solas plot-line, because they DO have an interesting inter-character dynamic.  I wan't the Inquisitor back (and in Tevinter) so that they can deal with Solas AND to give the game an outlet for Exposition that shouldn't be thrown at a Tevinter Native PC (in essence as an outsider the Inquisitor's presence would prevent any more Dalish, Temple of Mythal fiasco's).  I wan't a new PC to give an amazing Insider's perspective of Tevinter (preferably from a lower class) to contrast against Dorian's High Society point of view.  But, ultimately, I wan't DA4 to be the exception to the rule of returning PCs (though still having a new one), because I wan't DA4 to end this problem of bleeding over story-lines. 

[fangs4fun]

I've been the Inquisitor. The usefulness of the inquisitor ended when Corypheus was defeated, the breach closed, and the support of the major powers were removed.  I don't like that my only option was to be a Chantry tool or dissolve.  The Chantry has proven themselves to be ineffective to me. I wanted the inquisition to become another power that could actually make a change in Thedas.  If this actually happens, I don't mind playing the Inquisitor again.

[0zryel]

I have to agree with you on this... this game is so well made and the hero is so complete he needs to continue as a playable... I am really sad the Trespasser is the end of this game...(WE NEVER got good looking hairs styles! Don't even get me started on the Qunari... I still look and my beautiful game portrait and bed/throne metal statues with envy of their Looooong wavy hair! Grrrrrr) I wish they continue THIS game...maybe add an open world option to it like skyrim... I just don't want it to end. Specially now that the Dwarves have unlock some type of chakra lyrium magic type of thing... Also we never got to taste Blood magic powers...or much of anything...always wondered if their are Werewolf in DA:O what would a Vampire be like in this universe lore...hmmm, sorry side track there a bit...but you see what I mean so much more stuff to add before we call it done or over in this game...I much as I love Players Mods I really would like more official stuff...

 

As for the Inquisitor lost arm, i don't think that has to be permanent...if Bioware wills it... there are so many lore or ways for the Inquisitor to get it back... Heck, the name Inquisitor could be the beginning of a new class that mixes KE Spirit Blade, Rift Magic from the Mark and a bit of necromancy (exploding wisps LOL) through a ritual that re-creates a minor mark from the memory of the Fade that eventually restores your hand...etc etc...well you get the idea...

 

I think what Bioware should do in the next games is,  add the option to continue one of the protagonist to choose from... also this will add interesting starting options in races, background and even the classes and specializations... We could go back through time and participate in some of those events or even make a game that plays through DA:1 to 3, with these gorgeous graphics and solid voice acting... omg it be a dream come true!! Possibilities are endless! 

 

Anyway I really hope more DLC come out I'm really enjoy this work of art of a game call Dragon Age Inquisition...

 

PS: Does anyone agree that the Rift Mage "Fire Storm"  should be the color of Veil Fire and not normal looking fire? Or is there is it just me...being to demanding? 

[AEve]

I've been the Inquisitor. The usefulness of the inquisitor ended when Corypheus was defeated, the breach closed, and the support of the major powers were removed.  I don't like that my only option was to be a Chantry tool or dissolve.  The Chantry has proven themselves to be ineffective to me. I wanted the inquisition to become another power that could actually make a change in Thedas.  If this actually happens, I don't mind playing the Inquisitor again.

 

I fear that will never happen. It's the exalted council matter : the Inquisition cannot stand as the power it were without creating tensions with Orlais & Ferelden, which could lead, in time, to greater conflicts.

Just my opinion here, but I'd prefer more limited choices whose impacts will really affects the coming games than illusions of multiples, diverses choices you'll never see the results because it was too difficult for the Bioware team to realise it.

In DA4, they still got the opportunity of making the disband/victoria personal army choice worth in a few way.

 

 

I have to agree with you on this... this game is so well made and the hero is so complete he needs to continue as a playable... I am really sad the Trespasser is the end of this game...(WE NEVER got good looking hairs styles! Don't even get me started on the Qunari... I still look and my beautiful game portrait and bed/throne metal statues with envy of their Looooong wavy hair! Grrrrrr) I wish they continue THIS game...maybe add an open world option to it like skyrim... I just don't want it to end. Specially now that the Dwarves have unlock some type of chakra lyrium magic type of thing... Also we never got to taste Blood magic powers...or much of anything...always wondered if their are Werewolf in DA:O what would a Vampire be like in this universe lore...hmmm, sorry side track there a bit...but you see what I mean so much more stuff to add before we call it done or over in this game...I much as I love Players Mods I really would like more official stuff...

 

You know, I'm quite happy they end it here, (as much as I loved the game) it was on a high note. It's bittersweet indeed, but there's no reason for the game to go on, because you know, story wise in the south of Thedas... there's just no reason for the game to go on.

(And no more skyrimish feature please. )

 

Tevinter, hopefully, will be a whole new woooooorld with lot and lot of story content and adventures, I just wish they'll deal with the Inquisitor properly.

[Corades]

Thanks for the replies regarding Bioware caring for feedback. 

 

 

I've been the Inquisitor. The usefulness of the inquisitor ended when Corypheus was defeated, the breach closed, and the support of the major powers were removed.  I don't like that my only option was to be a Chantry tool or dissolve.  The Chantry has proven themselves to be ineffective to me. I wanted the inquisition to become another power that could actually make a change in Thedas.  If this actually happens, I don't mind playing the Inquisitor again.

 

Well, you are right, the Inquisitor has dealt with a lot of s*** already. But, idk, I feel that there is still a role for him/her. I wouldn't mind playing a new Tevinter Pc and the Inquisitor, which is the character that fits with the Solas storyline so well. Besides, I've never played a wandering hero who has lost almost all power. It would be a very emotional/dramatic journey, that's for sure. 

 

And hey, they rebuilt Shepard in me2. Why can't they do that with ONE ARM this time??