527 réponses à ce sujet

[Arvaarad]

As much as I'd like to follow your line of arguments, I don't think it's valid. If they *want* to bring the Inquisitor back, they'll find a way to do it and make it appear remotely plausible, or just do it regardless of our very subjective opinion of what would make most sense. Remember they brought Leliana back regardless of even her on-screen death? I never killed Leliana and so this didn't affect me, but if they can do that, there's no limit to the implausibilities they're willing to accept for something they really want.

So, the best we can hope for is that nobody of the writers is heavily invested in bringing the Inquisitor back.

Leliana got awakened by lyrium. Her Trespasser epilogue slide (if killed in Origins) points toward some seriously interesting developments in titan lore. They could have easily, easily avoided a perceived "retcon" by having a different spymaster. There were already plenty of returning Origins characters, and they mentioned that after Oghren, they didn't like bringing characters back just as fanservice.

The more I learn about Leliana, the more convinced I become that her resurrection was planned before her possible death in DA:O.

[tanuki]

Personally, I think that prior to ME3, Bioware would have had Trespasser end with the choice of the Inquisitor dying or relinquishing the power of the Anchor to Solas (making him more powerful, so potentially the morally "wrong" choice). Since ME3's ending, Bioware has had to play it very safe with their characters and storytelling (see non-threatening Corypheus, no mentionable deaths for much of DAI, an "easy" out in the Fade by sacrificing Stroud, etc etc). So they didn't want to even have the possibility of killing the Inquisitor for fear of fan backlash. I still see people posting about how morally wrong it was to perform the dark ritual, and if they didn't, they or Alistair would have to die. Yeah I get it, it's a crappy situation, that's the whole point. But now, Bioware is in a position where they can't kill off the Inquisitor but have to have some reasonable way to prevent them from returning as PC.

 

Hm, why wouldn't then Bioware just create a possibility for the player to choose the ending where Inquisitor dies? Kinda like Ultimate Sacrifice for the Warden? Prior the DLC came out lots of people (including me) expected there to be such an option. That is how they could effectively prevent the debates about whether Inquisitor returns as protagonist and avoid the backlash because the death would be something the player chose, and not Bioware enforced it on them. On the other side there could be an option to leave an Anchor for those, who, like Ieldra, would like it. 

That would be the easiest way to avoid all the debates we have here because the ending states of different Inquisitors would be well, different enough, to realistically do any sequel with them as the PC.

 

But surprise, in the end of the DLC all Inquisitors are alive and are in the relatively same position even. I really would like to know why Bioware decided to use this route?

[ComedicSociopathy]

Hm, why wouldn't then Bioware just create a possibility for the player to choose the ending where Inquisitor dies? Kinda like Ultimate Sacrifice for the Warden? Prior the DLC came out lots of people (including me) expected there to be such an option. That is how they could effectively prevent the debates about whether Inquisitor returns as protagonist and avoid the backlash because the death would be something the player chose, and not Bioware enforced it on them. On the other side there could be an option to leave an Anchor for those, who, like Ieldra, would like it. 

That would be the easiest way to avoid all the debates we have here because the ending states of different Inquisitors would be well, different enough, to realistically do any sequel with them as the PC.

 

But surprise, in the end of the DLC all Inquisitors are alive and are in the relatively same position even. I really would like to know why Bioware decided to use this route?

 

Bioware likes to see us fight each other. 

 

They can feel our hate. It gives them focus, it makes them stronger! 

[NoForgiveness]

Bioware likes to see us fight each other. 

 

They can feel our hate. It gives them focus, it makes them stronger! 

Bioware:

[ComedicSociopathy]

How would new specializations work with a returning Inquisitor? 

 

I was a Templar back in Inquisition but now I've decided to stop drinking lyrium and through withdrawal for big road trip to Tevinter. 

 

How about a mage Inquisitor that's suddenly forget how Necromancy, Rift Magic and Knight-Enchanting work. 

 

It's not like in ME were class was basically weapon kits that could be changed on a drop of a hat. 

[berelinde]

How would new specializations work with a returning Inquisitor? 

 

I was a Templar back in Inquisition but now I've decided to stop drinking lyrium and through withdrawal for big road trip to Tevinter. 

 

How about a mage Inquisitor that's suddenly forget how Necromancy, Rift Magic and Knight-Enchanting work. 

 

It's not like in ME were class was basically weapon kits that could be changed on a drop of a hat. 

Seriously, it's bad enough when they bring back companions and they're suddenly first level all over again. 

[Former_Fiend]

Seriously, it's bad enough when they bring back companions and they're suddenly first level all over again. 

 

That annoys me to no end. 

[Gileadan]

How would new specializations work with a returning Inquisitor? 

 

I was a Templar back in Inquisition but now I've decided to stop drinking lyrium and through withdrawal for big road trip to Tevinter. 

 

How about a mage Inquisitor that's suddenly forget how Necromancy, Rift Magic and Knight-Enchanting work. 

 

It's not like in ME were class was basically weapon kits that could be changed on a drop of a hat. 

Due to your arm prosthetic, your class will be automatically set to Lvl 1 Augmented Operative.

You never asked for this.

[Ieldra]

I know but that's my issue. The Inquisition has waaaay more variance than Hawke every could. And they weren't even close with Hawke. Not even close.

Throwing a snarky quip once in a blue moon (and not sounding all that different from aggressive hawke oddly enough) does not a snarky Hawke make.

 

Also Hawke raging about bloodmagic when they friended Merrill is pretty stupid yes.

I think the Inquisitor has more variety, but for the same reason a less distinctive personality overall. It shouldn't be hard to write her without disrespecting major players' choices.

 

The thing is, Hawke's inconsistency with blood magic could've easily been avoided, and it's hard to imagine they weren't aware of possible problems. So this wasn't an accident, they did it intentionally. It's not that they *couldn't* write Hawke in a way that respected players' choices, for some reason they didn't want to, wanted to override players' choices in this matter. That's the thing to be afraid of. Protagonists aren't immune to this, as Shepard demonstrates perfectly.

 

In the end, it would probably be best for the Inquisitor not to appear in person in DA4 at all. The Warden worked rather well in DAI.

[Darkly Tranquil]

There were already plenty of returning Origins characters, and they mentioned that after Oghren, they didn't like bringing characters back just as fanservice.

This is another case of Bioware hearing fan complaints and completely misunderstanding them. People hated Oghren's return in DAA because he suffered horrible character derailment that completely negated his arc from Origins and took the the "drunk comedy dwarf" routine to an absurd extreme. It was not the fact that Oghren returned that (most) people hated, it was the horrid, hamfisted execution.

[Ryzaki]

I think the Inquisitor has more variety, but for the same reason a less distinctive personality overall. It shouldn't be hard to write her without disrespecting major players' choices.

 

The thing is, Hawke's inconsistency with blood magic could've easily been avoided, and it's hard to imagine they weren't aware of possible problems. So this wasn't an accident, they did it intentionally. It's not that they *couldn't* write Hawke in a way that respected players' choices, for some reason they didn't want to, wanted to override players' choices in this matter. That's the thing to be afraid of. Protagonists aren't immune to this, as Shepard demonstrates perfectly.

 

In the end, it would probably be best for the Inquisitor not to appear in person in DA4 at all. The Warden worked rather well in DAI.

 

I really don't trust BioWare on that front. They couldn't keep damn Shepard consistent three games straight.

 

Yeah but at least with Shepard I could drag the reigns to something managable. I couldn't do that with Hawke. 

 

Ideally if Quizzy isn't the protag he/she remains offscreen forever. I simply don't trust BioWare to do them any justice.

[Former_Fiend]

I really don't trust BioWare on that front. They couldn't keep damn Shepard consistent three games straight.

 

Yeah but at least with Shepard I could drag the reigns to something managable. I couldn't do that with Hawke. 

 

Ideally if Quizzy isn't the protag he/she remains offscreen forever. I simply don't trust BioWare to do them any justice.

 

By that same logic though, how can you expect them to do the Inquisitor any justice as a PC if you don't think they kept Shepard consistent? Shepard is a much more defined character than the Inquisitor is. If, in your mind, they couldn't keep Shepard straight, do you really think they can do that with the Inquisitor?

[Ieldra]

Leliana got awakened by lyrium. Her Trespasser epilogue slide (if killed in Origins) points toward some seriously interesting developments in titan lore. They could have easily, easily avoided a perceived "retcon" by having a different spymaster. There were already plenty of returning Origins characters, and they mentioned that after Oghren, they didn't like bringing characters back just as fanservice.

The more I learn about Leliana, the more convinced I become that her resurrection was planned before her possible death in DA:O.

If it had been planned from the start, we would've seen some indication of it in DAO. Also, Leliana's appearance in DAI isn't the primary retcon, it's her reappearance in DA2.

 

The "lyrium ghost" idea is rather elegant. There isn't precedence in the lore but it feels right and fits the setting. Personally I'm fine with what they did here. That's not the point though: IMO this was *not* planned from the beginning, and if they are prepared to retcon an on-screen death anything less is fair game as well. Nothing is safe.

[straykat]

I thought that particular fate was clever for her.

 

Except...

 

One of my first attempts to play had a Reaver Warden who did that.. but it failed for me, simply because Cass later talked about how she was searching for both the Warden and Hawke. I thought that was sloppily done, so it's not in my worldstates anymore. I just don't believe she would bother looking for that bastard character. lol. Especially knowing Leliana so well.

 

Actually it's a problem with the "evil" Warden in general. They're just treated like Heroes, no matter how many screwed up things they did. There's no consequence or believable reactions. They just go about their merry way.

[tanuki]

By that same logic though, how can you expect them to do the Inquisitor any justice as a PC if you don't think they kept Shepard consistent? Shepard is a much more defined character than the Inquisitor is. If, in your mind, they couldn't keep Shepard straight, do you really think they can do that with the Inquisitor?

 

Shepard had much more defined personality from the start than the Inquisitor. It would be harder to mess with the Inquisitor if Bioware continues the route they set in DAI and allows players to define what person their Inquisitor is. And did you miss the part where Ryzaki says:

 

Yeah but at least with Shepard I could drag the reigns to something managable. I couldn't do that with Hawke. 

?

Basically it's about being able to have at least some control over their character against not being able to, in case of them returning as NPC.

[Ieldra]

By that same logic though, how can you expect them to do the Inquisitor any justice as a PC if you don't think they kept Shepard consistent? Shepard is a much more defined character than the Inquisitor is. If, in your mind, they couldn't keep Shepard straight, do you really think they can do that with the Inquisitor?

It is very noticeable that the writers paid attention to the roleplaying aspect of the game when they made DAI, as opposed to the ME team when they made ME3. From that point of view, it's not altogether unreasonable to expect returning protagonists - as opposed to returning (as) NPCs - to work well. Better than in ME3, at least, not that that would be much of an achievement.

 

So I don't think that returning protagonists couldn't work. I simply do not want the Inquisitor to return, and anyway, if the DA team is dead set on a returning protagonist, a little (or far more than a little) inconsistency has never stopped them before. I don't think it's likely though. Their attempt to establish a fantasy version of Shepard has failed once, and not just because DA2 was rushed. I think there's a significant chance they'll continue with the design choice of the story of Thedas' Dragon Age told through different viewpoints. That, too, is an established storytelling convention - see Game of Thrones, for instance - and there is no reason to assume it shouldn't (continue to) work, no matter that when the writers told us about it after DA2, it appeared more like after-the-fact-rationalization. 

 

If they just remember that they're GMs as well as screenwriters, they could make any scenario work reasonably well - Inquisitor as a PC or Inquisitor as an NPC. They can do it I think. They *can* make the Inquisitor return as an NPC without disrespecting player choices. The question is, do they want to do it, or will it be, again, ok for them to derail ex-PCs for a few seconds of cheap drama and an anvilicious message, and a fallacious one at that.

[straykat]

If they weren't going to continue Hawke, I doubt there's a chance of a character like that again. That's the most fleshed out thing they ever did (I mean, DA2 was practically a whole origin story). And yet they potentially let you destroy them in DAI. It shows how little commitment they have to the longevity of their characters. The one that had the most developed story even has a chance to get trashed. So fat chance for the Inquisitior, who's only slightly better than a TES character. And completely shitty relative to all Bioware PCs.

[Ieldra]

If they weren't going to continue Hawke, I doubt there's a chance of a character like that again. That's the most fleshed out thing they ever did (I mean, DA2 was practically a whole origin story). And yet they potentially let you destroy them in DAI. It shows how little commitment they have to the longevity of their characters. The one that had the most developed story even has a chance to get trashed. So fat chance for the Inquisitior, who's only slightly better than a TES character. And completely shitty relative to all Bioware PCs.

The thing is, "fleshed out" is a bad thing for a roleplaying game. In a roleplaying game, it's the writer's task to offer options that let the *player* flesh out their character, and leaving blank spaces for the player's imagination to fill is an extremely important aspect of that, because there is an infinity of possible characters they simply can't all flesh out explicitly with a limited word budget. So the right thing to do, from a roleplayer's perspective, is to offer explicit characterization options in some important areas of characterization, and in important character interaction scenes or plot-relevant scenes, but leave most lines somewhat generic, generating a blank space for the player's imagination to fill. In a roleplaying game, that is *good* writing.

 

The Inquisitor was rather well done from a roleplayer's perspective. Way better than Hawke, and worlds better than Shepard. Which is one reason, I guess, why many people want them to return. I understand that, it's just that the Inquisitor has lost too much autonomy for my taste, so that my desire to continue to play her is greatly diminished. Also, I've wanted to play a Tevinter native for quite some time.

[straykat]

The thing is, "fleshed out" is a bad thing for a roleplaying game. In a roleplaying game, it's the writer's task to offer options that let the *player* flesh out their character, and leaving blank spaces for the player's imagination to fill is an extremely important aspect of that, because there is an infinity of possible characters they simply can't all flesh out explicitly with a limited word budget. So the right thing to do, from a roleplayer's perspective, is to offer explicit characterization options in some important areas of characterization, but leave most lines somewhat generic, generating a blank space for the player's imagination to fill. In a roleplaying game, that is *good* writing.

 

The Inquisitor was rather well done from a roleplayer's perspective. Way better than Hawke, and worlds better than Shepard. Which is one aspect, I guess, why many people want them to return. I understand that, it's just that the Inquisitor has lost too much autonomy for my taste, so that my desire to continue to play her is greatly diminished. Also, I've wanted to play a Tevinter native for quite some time.

 

I think the blank slate sucks here because it affects so many things that required nuanced and specific relationships to the wars and politics. These were personal stories and heartfelt beliefs being affected by a stranger and a bum. Orlais/Ferelden/and the Chantry deserved a more fleshed out hero, even more than Kirkwall deserved Hawke.

 

Hell, I even think that DAKeep backstory game The Last Court had more intrigue and personality than this. Pretty sad, since it's no better than a Facebook game.

 

Other than that, I think Bioware does fleshed out heroes better.. even if it's not desired in RPGs in general (especially action RPGs). It was slowly becoming one of their strengths. I'd rather leave it to TES or shitty click fests like Diablo when I don't want to care about the character or the reason why they even do anything. I just mindlessly plunge through and save the world. In TES, I'm more thoughtless and psychotic there, as if it's a GTA game. But when I actually care about the world, I want to care about who's saving it too.

[Ieldra]

I think the blank slate sucks here because it affects so many things that required nuanced and specific relationships to the wars and politics. These were personal stories and heartfelt beliefs being affected by a stranger and a bum. Orlais/Ferelden/and the Chantry deserved a more fleshed out hero, even more than Kirkwall deserved Hawke.

Then it's your fault that you were unable or unwilling to engage your imagination to infuse more meaning into the Inquisitor's more generic lines. I can tell you, my Inquisitors are anything but bland. If I make them say certain things, I know what's behind them, often I know very specifically why they say them. Before I started my first DAI game, I made a 100-questions game to flesh out the Inquisitor I wanted to play in my first game, and guess what.....I *could* play her. That's what sold me on DAI in the end. Only 10% of anything I did in the 100-question-game ever had any chance to be relevant on-screen, but my character was complete. That's what mattered most.

Not that things were perfect. There were times when I missed specific options I thought should be there, given the plot and the characters involved, but I'd rather have that than a kind of definition I dislike.

You know, if I could trust Bioware to make a defined protagonist I actually liked, I might be ok with it, but it's rather more likely that they make defined protagonists I hate, especially now with Weekes at the helm (I respect Weekes greatly as a writer, but he has a few preferences that are diametrically opposed to mine, as far as I can tell). Hawke was borderline OK but I liked both the Warden and the Inquisitor better, and Shepard....was an utter failure.

So, as it as, I'm against anything that is likely to result in more definition of a DA game's protagonist which is out of my control - and that includes returning ones. On the other hand, more definition I do have control of, of that there can never be enough.

[vbibbi]

I think the Inquisitor has more variety, but for the same reason a less distinctive personality overall. It shouldn't be hard to write her without disrespecting major players' choices.

 

The thing is, Hawke's inconsistency with blood magic could've easily been avoided, and it's hard to imagine they weren't aware of possible problems. So this wasn't an accident, they did it intentionally. It's not that they *couldn't* write Hawke in a way that respected players' choices, for some reason they didn't want to, wanted to override players' choices in this matter. That's the thing to be afraid of. Protagonists aren't immune to this, as Shepard demonstrates perfectly.

 

In the end, it would probably be best for the Inquisitor not to appear in person in DA4 at all. The Warden worked rather well in DAI.

Agreed, but if the Inquisitor doesn't even show up in game as an NPC, we will be hearing the howls of outrage for days. People were upset that their Warden wasn't in DAI, that their Warden is out of character in looking for a cure, that their Warden wasn't the Inquisitor. People are going to cry for Bioware's blood regardless of what they do, so Bio is going to balance out appealing to the largest audience, and (hopefully) good storytelling when they deal with the Inquisitor.

 

If it had been planned from the start, we would've seen some indication of it in DAO. Also, Leliana's appearance in DAI isn't the primary retcon, it's her reappearance in DA2.

 

The "lyrium ghost" idea is rather elegant. There isn't precedence in the lore but it feels right and fits the setting. Personally I'm fine with what they did here. That's not the point though: IMO this was *not* planned from the beginning, and if they are prepared to retcon an on-screen death anything less is fair game as well. Nothing is safe.

 

Yes. Which is why they are now covering their a$$e$ and preventing any major NPCs from dying to avoid retcons if they decide to bring them back. The person left in the Fade will "likely" die. Companions do not fight you, they just leave (save Bull in Trespasser, which honestly I'm impressed with). This counters the argument people have made that if the Inquisitor isn't going to be the PC in DA4, why not kill them off in Trespasser or give the option to kill them off? Because Bio doesn't want to deal with that fallout, and wants to leave the door open to involve them again in the story. Threads about Leliana's resurrection and other retcons have hounded Bio since DA2 came out.

 

The thing is, "fleshed out" is a bad thing for a roleplaying game. In a roleplaying game, it's the writer's task to offer options that let the *player* flesh out their character, and leaving blank spaces for the player's imagination to fill is an extremely important aspect of that, because there is an infinity of possible characters they simply can't all flesh out explicitly with a limited word budget. So the right thing to do, from a roleplayer's perspective, is to offer explicit characterization options in some important areas of characterization, and in important character interaction scenes or plot-relevant scenes, but leave most lines somewhat generic, generating a blank space for the player's imagination to fill. In a roleplaying game, that is *good* writing.

 

The Inquisitor was rather well done from a roleplayer's perspective. Way better than Hawke, and worlds better than Shepard. Which is one reason, I guess, why many people want them to return. I understand that, it's just that the Inquisitor has lost too much autonomy for my taste, so that my desire to continue to play her is greatly diminished. Also, I've wanted to play a Tevinter native for quite some time.

And many people requesting Inquisitor back as PC have said that they only really connected to them as a character by Trespasser, when they were characterized by their conflict with Solas.

 

[straykat]

Then it's your fault that you were unable or unwilling to engage your imagination to infuse more meaning into the Inquisitor's more generic lines. I can tell you, my Inquisitors are anything but bland. If I make them say certain things, I know what's behind them, often I know very specifically why they say them. Before I started my first DAI game, I made a 100-questions game to flesh out the Inquisitor I wanted to play in my first game, and guess what.....I *could* play her. That's what sold me on DAI in the end. Only 10% of anything I did in the 100-question-game ever had any chance to be relevant on-screen, but my character was complete. That's what mattered most.

Not that things were perfect. There were times when I missed specific options I thought should be there, given the plot and the characters involved, but I'd rather have that than a kind of definition I dislike.

You know, if I could trust Bioware to make a defined protagonist I actually liked, I might be ok with it, but it's rather more likely that they make defined protagonists I hate, especially now with Weekes at the helm (I respect Weekes greatly as a writer, but he has a few preferences that are diametrically opposed to mine, as far as I can tell). Hawke was borderline OK but I liked both the Warden and the Inquisitor better, and Shepard....was an utter failure.

So, as it as, I'm against anything that is likely to result in more definition of a DA game's protagonist which is out of my control - and that includes returning ones. On the other hand, more definition I do have control of, of that there can never be enough.

 

Great. So you wrote your own story. I can do it too. But it flows best for me with a circle mage. I can still make it work with some others, but I don't like stretching things too much. The main writers themselves should help with this, but they refused. The previous games shared a better relationship with the main writers. That's what I want. A relationship. Not one or the other overriding each other too much. Yet David Gaider himself said people should just make things up here, and assumed we're all going to "headcanon" anyways. But that's just refusing his own responsibility. I don't appreciate it.

 

I'll leave the freeform for my psychopathic vampire werewolf mage warrior Argonian with daedric artifacts who saves Nords and steals all their spoons. Because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is bullshit. A platform for late night bufoonery. Not a real story. It can be fun, but it's not my idea of an "RPG", no matter how open the world is.

 

Now if DAI was that crazy, it still might make me a fan... but it sucks at even being an open world. It seems designed by AC or MMO inspired devs. They seemingly don't anything about emergent worlds, which is Bethsofts and Rockstars bread and butter. The best it has going for it is pretty. I have nothing negative to say there.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I found the Inquisitor to be a completely bland character that, even though I played him for 140 hours, never manged to really give a damn about. In fact, the entire game left me feeling oddly detached, despite my passion for the series. I never had that problem with the Warden, so I figure its either the lack of an Origin story, or the voice acting that leaves me cold. Either way, I definitely want a much more fleshed out protagonist than the Inquisitor, because DAI left me feeling profoundly "meh".

[Ieldra]

I found the Inquisitor to be a completely bland character that, even though I played him for 140 hours, never manged to really give a damn about. In fact, the entire game left me feeling oddly detached, despite my passion for the series. I never had that problem with the Warden, so I figure its either the lack of an Origin story, or the voice acting that leaves me cold. Either way, I definitely want a much more fleshed out protagonist than the Inquisitor, because DAI left me feeling profoundly "meh".

Ironically, the Warden is the same as the Inquisitor in that regard, only with a few more options here and there. I certainly wouldn't mind if they took inspiration from that and added more character-defining options, but the voice-acting presents a limitation: with an unvoiced protagonist, you can always set the tone of a line in your mind, and so generic lines adapt themselves to your character as you read them and become specific.

As I see it "more characterization options in more conversations" is the only way to address this problem in a game with a voiced protagonist. Do anything else, and too many people won't find characterization options that suit them in too many situations, or even worse, unwanted characterization will result in many people just hating the protagonist - you recall that Hawke was hated by a significant subset of the playerbase, and still is.

[renfrees]

Idk about connection to the Inquisitor after finishing Trespasser. What it left me with is the strong vibe of Tallis from Solas. He leads them on, does whatever he wants, is literally untouchable and all the Inquisitor can do is flap their eyelashes, spout platitudes and look stupid.