527 réponses à ce sujet

[Nefla]

I can understand that, but it's easier to infuse emotions into neutral lines than to take them out of emotional lines if you don't want them. Most of my characters tend to be low in expressed emotion except in extreme situations, so the Inquisitor suited me very well. And the hint of snark I often got from the middle options were perfect. Maybe the DA team was a little *too* subtle at times, but hey, they've learned subtlety as last, that's something I've always wanted.

I thought the level of emotion used in Trespasser was pretty much perfect. Most lines were subtle where appropriate (not like Hawke randomly going into a rage because someone asked them for the time of day) but the more dramatic moments where you'd expect emotion had a good variety to choose from and made sense. If they continued this into the next game I'd be satisfied.

[Regan_Cousland]

I thought the level of emotion used in Trespasser was pretty much perfect. Most lines were subtle where appropriate (not like Hawke randomly going into a rage because someone asked them for the time of day) but the more dramatic moments where you'd expect emotion had a good variety to choose from and made sense. If they continued this into the next game I'd be satisfied.

 

Cute Orphan NPC: "'Scuse me, Miss. Could you tell me the time?"

Hawke (stern reply): "Watches haven't even been invented yet you stupid little imbecile. But if I were to take a guess, I'd say it's ten minutes past the time I stopped caring. Now go and die in the corner. Quietly."

Cute orphan:   

Varric: "Cheer up, kid. Hawke tends to -- overreact, from time to time."
 

 

Now the same scene with the inquisitor:

Cute Orphan NPC: "'Scuse me, Miss. Could you tell me the time?"

Inquisitor (stern reply): "Five o'clock."

Cute Orphan: "Thanks!"

Varric: "Why, Inquisitor, you said that in a particularly menacing tone of voice. I almost got flashbacks to my time with Hawke."

Inquisitor: "Really?"

Varric: "No, not really. Maker -- I miss Hawke."

(But, seriously, I agree. The Inquisitor was great in Tresspasser. I just had to poke a little fun at her there. lol)
 

[Former_Fiend]

Or they could do both. DUAL PROTAGONISTS WITH COMPETING STORIES (that slowly intertwine) I BELIEVE IN YOU!

 

Inquisitor's overarching story is pursuing Solas (and dealing with his Demi-Godness once he's found) and thus would probably find themselves in the Tevinter countryside and dungeon diving through Ancient Elvhen ruins for much of their early story.  The new Tevinter Protagonist deals with Slave Rebellion/Social Revolution of Tevinter which would work with a very Ground-Up approach to reform/revolution/ (or anarchism if you want it), situating them primarily in Minrathous; again, at least for much of the early game.  Later on it could (and should) open up and both characters could get exposed to both settings and also open up DA:I style exploration to its fullest capacity, but by doing it in this way (with a slow paced exposure to the Nation) it could allow for a richer overall "Tevinter".  We would get to know the country, the capital, deal with the major plot/political/social elements of Tevinter, issues of both modern AND ancient Tevinter/Ancient Elvhen kingdoms and still get to deal with Solas! Both characters get to work with what they are related to, but eventually (and far more naturally) get dragged into the concerns of the other PC as the game progresses.  

 

"Pro New Tevinter PCers" are absolutely correct.  It doesn't make that much sense for the Inquisitor to intrinsically worry about the social/political issues of Tevinter (even if they were close to Dorian, though they may still help him in some capacity).  Conversely the "Pro-Inquisitor PC" players are correct that any attempt to force a new PC to have a relation/issue with Solas would be really awkward (or require a heavy overhaul of Solas as a character) and could never hope to get even close to the "Potential" relationship he had with the Quizzy.  

 

Is it too much to ask for the best of both worlds?  While apprehensive, I still think Bioware has the narrative chops to pull it off.  It would just take a story structure reflective of Halo 2 (in regards on how to properly pull off "balanced" dual protagonists) and a DA game style somewhere in between the overly story centric DA2 and the overly wide open sandbox centric DA:I to have the best chance of success!

 

Ideally I would want both handled in a satisfactory manner, obviously. I'm just saying that if I had to pick one or the other, I'd pick Minrathous being fully realized.

 

Of course I've given my opinion on the dual protagonist issue before. Don't particularly feel like repeating it at the moment.

[Arvaarad]

I found the inquisitor to be much livelier when I stopped exhausting every darn investigate option in every tree. It's easy for a character to come off as bland when 80% of their dialogue is shared from playthrough to playthrough. Once I started trimming the questions down to questions this character would actually ask, lo and behold their personality came shining through. 

 

I feel like Hawke had a higher proportion of emotion-tagged responses vs. neutral investigates, which made the personalities more intense/divergent from each other.

[straykat]

I found the inquisitor to be much livelier when I stopped exhausting every darn investigate option in every tree. It's easy for a character to come off as bland when 80% of their dialogue is shared from playthrough to playthrough. Once I started trimming the questions down to questions this character would actually ask, lo and behold their personality came shining through. 

 

I feel like Hawke had a higher proportion of emotion-tagged responses vs. neutral investigates, which made the personalities more intense/divergent from each other.

 

Better flow on FemHawke imho.

[Ieldra]

I was about to like your comment until I read that last line, which reminded me that your thread and mine are enemies, like the inquisitor and Solas. lol

(Obviously, my thread is the inquisitor in this scenario, because I support the inquisitor, and yours, by default, is the villain. )

You know how one person's terrorist is the next one's freedom fighter? In this thread, we fight for freedom from the old protagonist, while yours represents the evil forces of the status quo .

[Ieldra]

The purpose of training and meditation is to tighten up the slack, toughen the body, and polish the spirit,but those who live of shorcuts end up like that,so powerful and yet  so full of  defects  and weaknesses

You sound like the high priest of Protestant work ethics. The idea that shortcuts are bad simply because they're shortcuts is absurd. As is the idea that getting something with more work rather than less predisposes you to being more responsible. Absurd, I say.
 

To quote Abelas:
Better that would be lost that fall into the hands of the undeserving

We have a fundamental disagreement here. You don't destroy something permanently for temporary advantages. It all depends on the specifics of the situation, but as a rule I'd always preserve that kind of knowledge. Who gets it is less relevant than that it remains in the world. Also, who decides who's "undeserving"?

Uh....sorry about this OT excursion. Maybe we should make a separate thread for this.

[Bhryaen]

While I agree with the thread title (and am glad to find a thread devoted to the idea for once rather than the barrage of contrary ones), I'm not entirely in agreement with the reasoning of the OP.

 

People have listed a lot of reasons why they want the Inquisitor to be the protagonist in the next DA game. Here, I'm going to list the reasons why I do NOT want that. Basically, it comes down to this: the Inquisitor carries too much ballast around to work for me as a new protagonist. Here is why:
 
(1) A clean cut with Southern Thedas
I'm sick of southern Thedas and its problems. I'm sick of the Circles, the Orlesian Chantry, mages vs. templars and Orlesian Andrastianism. I was looking forward to playing in Tevinter, playing a native Tevinter citizen, encountering new people from there and immersing myself into a new culture. I want to leave southern Thedas behind as far as possible, and playing as the Ex-Inquisitor would be like a heavy chain binding me to everything I want to leave behind,
 
(2) Trespasser's ending makes for a lot of ballast I don't want.
I was happy after the ending of the game, before Trespasser. I like my Inquisitors, but I was quite happy to leave them behind as leaders of the Inquisition. It was the first ending of a Bioware game that I found unreservedly satisfying since DAO. Then came Trespasser and ruined everything, and now I'm considerably less happy. I'm quite prepared to start as a character with a low power level in DA4, but for an old protagonist to be hammered down, taking away everything they have gained and more, in order to make them feasible, that would be like a slap in the face by the writers. I do not like to be slapped in the face, and I'd rather not start the next DA game being angry. I'd rather start with the kind of pleasant anticipation I had with DAI. Playing the Ex-Inquisitor would make that impossible.
 
(3) Trespasser has weakened my connection to the Inquisitor
People have said Trespasser made the Inquisitor more relatable. This term may be important to a story you watch and read, but less to a roleplaying game. I guess some people experience Bioware's games as more of stories they watch than shape, and perhaps with some justification. I'm a roleplayer, however. I do not "relate" to my character, I automatically have a much closer connection to them than that, and I'm automatically invested in them as long as the writers don't put words into their mouths I would never have them say, or make them do things I'd never make them do. That almost never happened in DAI, and so my Inquisitor has been, right from the start, one of three Bioware protagonists I could connect to with no problem at all (the others are the Bhaalspawn and the Warden). Bioware's writers are the GM to me.
Now imagine if in a tabletop RPG campaign, your GM did to your character what was done to the Inquisitor with no input at all from you. I don't know about others, but in that situation, I consider it very likely I'd say "Not with me, I'll make a new character". In that way, Trespasser made the Inquisitor less my character - and thus less "relatable" as the protagonist of a game - than she had been before, and it would be an uphill battle to remake the connection. Again, I'd rather start the game without that kind of ballast.
 
So...I do NOT want the Ex-Inquisitor to be DA4's protagonist. I'm not saything such a setup couldn't be a success, but I rather suspect that Bioware's writers won't do any of the things that would make it palatable to me.

1. I like Southern Thedas. I do want to experience the rest of Thedas- even "those across the sea" that were hinted at, since the landmass we've seen so far may just be one/two continents on the planet. But I'm in no way averse to revisiting old areas and would rather they continue to incorporate everything. That seemed one of the strengths of DAI- not abandoning Ferelden just to bring us to Orlay. That's one of the excellent experiences that DA tends to offer- the "return" visits. I'd love to be back in Orzammar again especially... which is in southern (known) Thedas. Gotta wonder if the vast dwarven underground of ancient times extended under the sea to other continents as well...

 

And the various themes of Chantry/Orlesian politics/mage-templars... are sorta canon DA by now. I just want a better experience with them than a little Hinterlands scuffle. Even DAO did more with the Redcliffe narrative than DAI did with the entire Hinterlands.

 

2. I also enjoyed the ending of Trespasser... though it was a tad aggravating having ploughed through all those qunari only to find Solly having been able to one-shot every single one of the nasties I'd spent so much time and effort killing as if to save him. The main thing is that narratively it was pretty cool and leaves me interested in how Solas will be approached in DA4 and what will be available to be done about him and whatever plans he may have. This in no way requires the Inq returning, however. The Trespasser end just opens up DA lore and historical development interestingly.

 

3. The point is not really made by saying only that the Inq is "unrelatable." Without a strong DAO-like origin pre-story, the Inq is already seriously lacking in "relatability," but that's not the point made. I like better what you said in this same regard later in the thread:

 

Unfortunately, my disaffection exists on the meta-level and it has no in-world outlet. My Inquisitor would be not so much mad at Solas as mad at the vagaries of a cruel fate that brought her to this point - or maybe at the Maker, but she doesn't believe in him. Solas threatens the world as we know it, but he isn't responsible for her losing her arm, the Anchor and most of her political power. So in terms of making things personal with regard to Solas' plans, Trespasser was a complete failure, because the motivation I can relate to most closely at the moment, on an emotional level, is rather more of a villain's: "**** the world, I'm going to take back what was mine". Well, if I could play *that* out, it might actually work, but Bioware's games don't facilitate it as a rule.

The only Inquisitor who would work, apart from that, is one who romanced Solas.

It is entirely possible to play DAI without even traveling with Solas, not doing his artifact quest or anything else- or even playing an Inq completely at odds with Solas. This hardly leaves one with a personal score to settle with Solas. It's more just a matter of another mess that needs to be cleaned up, Solas just the messer-upper (no less than Cory with whom no personal investment occurs either) rather than some close friend/ex-lover/acquaintance to be dealt with. This makes an emotional Inq-Solas relationship non-canon. That some may have some emotional investment in the undoing of Solas' plans does not negate the fact that a different DAI playthrough will involve zero such investment. Not that emotional investment by a protagonist's journey automatically requires that the protagonist return either. There is a strong case (that I've made in the pro-Inq-return threads) for a potentially greater emotional narrative with a new protagonist that experiences more canon encounters with Solas.

 

Not to mention the fact that the successful invasion of Tevinter by the Qunari- as mentioned in Trespasser's end as well- is hardly a secondary concern. Solas is just one patch of DA4's mosaic of potential challenges to face...

 

What gets left out or poorly rebutted in the case for a new protagonist (or perhaps rather in the case against a returning Inq protagonist) are these technical considerations:

 

1. How to CC the DAI Inq in DA4.

 

The new DA will likely have yet another game engine advancement. There's plenty more to add to DA, including shifting hair, among plenty more upgrades. Unless we keep the same game engine (already not as advanced as a number of others contemporary with DAI), we'll have to recreate our Inq again. Many probably couldn't care less, but I'm one of those that gets wed to a particular appearance (sculpted from hours of CC work) for my protag. There's no way to reproduce them exactly the same, so they won't be the exactly the same Inq in a DA4. I can live with it if the Inq is an NPC like Hawke was in DAI (though I admit I didn't like that either), but not if I'm running with them again as the protag I'd forged in DAI. I'm betting that they'd have no way to be able to lift the exact appearance graphs from DAI to reintegrate them perfectly in a new engine for DA4. Hell, they'd have to have the same (limited) hairstyles, skin textures, hair and eye colors, etc.- and all in the same format as DAI. Is it not easier to just, ya know, make it a new protag with the new CC?

 

2. The drop to Lvl 1.

 

They could make DA4 like BG2 where you start with the level you left off from (or simply a set higher level)... It's just highly improbable. They would have to scale every encounter from the get-go to that higher level. This is not a consideration in an FPS game in which you never "level up" and only just acquire better weapons throughout the course of the game- your skills increasing simply because you, as the player, get better at it. DA isn't an FPS. And, as we've seen, they keep changing the ability/spell tree system around for every new game, so coming back with the same character requires a break with that same game concept. On the one hand, DAI's combat had severe limitations (the 8-quickslot one being just one), so we'd have to see a return of that same combat experience in order to have the Inq continue as they were. If they come up with yet another new set of advancement abilities, the cognitive dissonance of advancing with a different system using the same character is just glaring. The tendency to balk would be universal. They can't win either way if they use the Inq again. They can win either way with a new protag.

 

But then there's the simple fact of explaining how a (potentially) Lvl27 character is now Lvl1. One attempt at a contrivance I read was that the missing arm forces the Inq to start over. Yeah... but starting over doesn't mean starting from absolute scratch. We still retain the same abilities, even if we're now unable to execute them. Or would we really lose all that magic-casting knowledge just because we're short an arm? Would you forget how to write just because you broke your writing hand? No, the missing arm doesn't serve to explain the contrivance. It's a comprehensive loss of everything you'd gained skill-wise. Could the writers come up with a DA4 story that involves the Inq being mind-wiped so that they can't recall their former abilities? Yes, they could. But then we wouldn't exactly have the same Inq's, now would we? Part of the Inq's identity was the skill development they'd acquired after that many hours playing DAI. And normally when memory is wiped you get a "Jason Bourne" type of amnesia where they don't know who they are but they retain their skills. That would eliminate the whole "but I gotta play my Inq because they have a relationship with Solas (that now they can't remember)," and the reverse scenario where a person remembers their identity but not their skills doesn't tend to be the rule. As they say, "Your skills are something no one can take from you." Unless the writers pull a narrative from their arses. But all this trouble to contrive a Lvl1 nerfing when the writers could instead just create new protags?

 

Then there's the protest of "Yeah, but they did the same with Varric!" To which I say: "Exactly." I seriously dislike what they did there, making him return as a Lvl1 companion after all the hours I'd spent with him, never leaving my Champion's side, bringing him and Bianca to Lvl 25 or so in DA2. And I like Varric as a character and companion. I just don't like seeing him gutted in order to bring him back. I'd rather have had a new dwarven companion (or two or three or four) that made sense to start at Lvl1 with. I'm getting around the dissonance of Blanca being now less powerful than anything I can craft (despite the Skyhold note forbidding Varric from participating in archery contests due to how uber-skilled he's supposed to be) by making him a dual wield rogue instead. Alas this still doesn't explain why he isn't starting at Lvl 25 or unable to be respecced to that level. So the absurdity remains.

 

The other possibility is that they could have DA4 be a "high-level adventure." This would mean creating a new world where the level-cap of DAI at Lvl27 doesn't/didn't exist and is  instead, say, Lvl50. Now bears and Sha-Brytol warriors and demons and Vint mages, etc., could suddenly be Lvl 48- something they've never been before. The devs could do it, but that would take a completely new rethinking of the gameplay of DA which has more or less been Lvl1-25 for three games now. And what about players who finish the main game in DAI less than Lvl 20? I always work to get the max lvl by the end of the game, but others don't. So where do they start in DA4? Lvl20 for my Lvl27 Inq? Lvl27 for their Lvl20 Inq? All these questions aren't just for the "bring back the Inq as protag" crowd. It's what that same crowd is asking the devs to wrangle with. And all along a new protag just makes this an elegantly simple matter: start at Lvl1 with a new protag.

 

3. The Inq's relationships/experiences.

 

Another thing that only makes the writers' job more difficult would be attempting to factor in all the various ways that DAI had been played into the narrative of DA4. Every bit that they're forced to write in in order to reintroduce the Inq entails a disinvestment in providing new content. And there's a boatload they'd have to factor in. They'd have to bring back Leliana as the potential spymaster that we know, LI's as somehow involved in the Inq's life, encounters with the myriad NPCs and narratives in DAI, etc., etc., all things they'd have to create workarounds for or incorporate into DA4's plot development that they could pretty much sail through using a new protag. Did I enjoy immensely the fan service they added from DAO and DA2 to DAI with returning characters and references to events past? Yes! Entirely! But none of those needed to be part of the basis of the game. That my Warden had romanced Leliana in DAO (according to my Keep story anyway) showed up in DAI as a nice side-story, but that my Inq romanced Blackwall would now not be a side-story at all- and if it were treated as such with my DA4 Inq protag it'd be disappointing for those wanting a return of the Inq as protag (which I'm not). As DAI experiences they were referential, incidental, colorful- but not essential. Whether your Warden had a relationship with Leliana or Morrigan was just something fun to discover the results of, not something the writers had to devote substantive portions of DAI explaining and working in. If the Inq is back as protag they'd have to revisit all of that, reincorporate them all, account for them all as they applied- or even as they didn't apply (and why)- to the rollout of DA4's plotline. With a new protag such harkenings are just fun and the DA4 plot meanwhile can rollout unhindered (other than by consistency with DA's lore generally).

 

4. High-level equipment loss.

 

So much for all that schematics grinding, the Golden Nug, and favorite crafting that your Inq struggled through. BG2 had a narrative that explained how you ended up losing nearly all your good gear from BG1- i.e., having been abducted and experimented upon by Irenicus. (In the upcoming "Dragonspear" game that will bridge BG1 and BG2 apparently you'll be keeping your equipment, but, you see, that's BG. It involves a single protagonist navigating multiple game installments keeping the same abilities and more or less the same cast of characters (BGEE adds a few more), so keeping your equipment works.) DA continues to make it obvious why your new protag needs new equipment: they're starting new in the changing DA narrative landscape and are taking what they can get. With the Inq what possible reason is there that the gutted Inquisition- or its allies- like whoever you made Divine- can't continue to supply you with all you had in DAI? What could possibly pry that Hakkon's Wrath bow from your Inq's cold, dead archer hands? Could some reason be contrived? Yes- absolutely. But it would have to be contrived. There's no contrivance necessary with a new protag: new stuff comes with the territory.

 

And just like the skill tree system, they'd have to bring back all those items that the Inq might've encountered. Who knows which remains in regular use by the Inq or was stored in the Storage Chest? Again, if they invest in that sort of continuity they automatically disinvest in new content.

 

5. The missing arm.

 

I've seen plenty of interest in playing as a handicapped person... who nevertheless has perfect use of a new arm. The thing is, either they can restore the arm entirely- in which case no loss of abilities occurs and the loss of the arm was meaningless and inconsequential (since it's not really lost after all, now is it?)- or they can make you remain one-armed or deficient in some way- in which case they'd have to rework a huge number of two-handed skills in DA4 to accommodate that. The former loses all the sentimental aspect of playing "handicapped" since effectively you wouldn't be handicapped, and the latter requires yet another round of cognitive dissonance when you're equally effective with only one arm. What skills aren't two-handed in DA? Sword-shield, DW rogue, archery, 2H weapons, staves... Why would they bother tweaking all the abilities and animations just to reintroduce the Inq? I'd rather the gameplay development folks concentrate on making a more fun combat and tactics system for new protags rather than trying to figure out how to portray the same mechanics now able to work (somehow) for a one-handed Inq. And again: a new protag with all limbs intact is simply simpler.

 

6. DA tradition of new protags.

 

This may seem more a narrative concern than technical, but it is incontrovertible that DA has always involved a new protag facing a new situation that called for a new type of hero. This is a gameplay question as well. They'd have to restructure their entire approach to DA in order to make a recurring protagonist- both narratively and mechanically. And it wouldn't exactly be revolutionary: most games have a set protagonist that carries through to each new installment (Elder Scrolls being the other notable exception). DA is one of the precious few major franchises that explores the multi-race, new-protag formula. They implemented it profoundly in DAO, winning a huge following to the franchise, and they scored big with the same formula in DAI with all the GOTY accolades. New protags has been a fundamental DA game mechanic. Thus the argument to bring back the Inq is an argument to destroy that mechanic and make DA just like other rpgs in that respect. If some have lost faith in the "new protag" formula (even if only "because of Trespasser" as the rationale), there are plenty of others like myself that haven't. I love starting from scratch with someone(s) new every time. I'm very happy they didn't try to bring (meh) Hawke back as the Inq or bring back my beloved DAO Wardens for DA2 (though, yeah, humans-only in DA2 was disheartening). They didn't make the Inq's origins in the least endearing, but I'd rather have had that than a contrived return of former protagonists. And nothing in the "Me want Inqui back" arguments makes me feel like seeing DA abandon its foundation. I can see all the same drama and narrative development with a new protag for DA4- Solas' unfinished business, the Inq's declared (not realized) intent to do something about it, and all.

 

Mike Laidlaw made a more elegant argument for the "new protag" formula in some interview I read a while back, but still...

 

So, yeah, the devs could come up with a new DA- one with a returning protag- but they'd have to break the nature of DA and expend resources to retroactively explain a Lvl1, equipment-starved, one-armed, DAI-uninvolved, different-looking Inq. Why... why would they bother? It's not as if the "new protag" formula has failed or would fail in DA4. There would be no more loss than in jettisoning Hawke or the Warden as protag in a wide open new DA to introduce us to... Just let it go and enjoy the new protagonist options of DA4 as to how you resolve the next round of DA lore and antagonists. (Watch them make the new protags be all human variants just to try my patience anyway...)

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You know how one person's terrorist is the next one's freedom fighter? In this thread, we fight for freedom from the old protagonist, while yours represents the evil forces of the status quo .

Wouldn't the status quo be not having the Inquisitor come back as the protagonist, since every DA game has a new protagonist thus that is the status quo. So if you are fighting against the status quo that means you want the Inquisitor to be the protagonist again. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

5. The missing arm.

 

I've seen plenty of interest in playing as a handicapped person... who nevertheless has perfect use of a new arm. The thing is, either they can restore the arm entirely- in which case no loss of abilities occurs and the loss of the arm was meaningless and inconsequential (since it's not really lost after all, now is it?)- or they can make you remain one-armed or deficient in some way- in which case they'd have to rework a huge number of two-handed skills in DA4 to accommodate that. The former loses all the sentimental aspect of playing "handicapped" since effectively you wouldn't be handicapped, and the latter requires yet another round of cognitive dissonance when you're equally effective with only one arm.

Yeah, it's not like people with prosthetic limbs have to work really hard to regain the efficiency their old limb had, taking months or years to get even basic movements down, let alone complex ones. They just immediately get that efficiency and don't struggle at all. Oh, wait a minute...

[Wren]

Am I the only one who wishes that the Bioware Devs would just throw us a little bone on this matter so that fans don't spend the next 2 or more years arguing about it?  

I mean, I know that they are probably not even close to starting on the next game yet, but surely they have a basic story outline already and probably have had each game plot loosely mapped out since the beginning.

[Ieldra]

Wouldn't the status quo be not having the Inquisitor come back as the protagonist, since every DA game has a new protagonist thus that is the status quo. So if you are fighting against the status quo that means you want the Inquisitor to be the protagonist again. 

Nitpicker. Nah. The Inquisitor is the current protagonist, and that's the status quo.

[Ieldra]

Am I the only one who wishes that the Bioware Devs would just throw us a little bone on this matter so that fans don't spend the next 2 or more years arguing about it?  

I mean, I know that they are probably not even close to starting on the next game yet, but surely they have a basic story outline already and probably have had each game plot loosely mapped out since the beginning.

Quoted for emphasis. It would be nice to not have to worry about this for the next 2-3 years. Or to have time to adapt to the situation should I not like it. I suspect, though, that the DA team wants to hedge their bets. They've been doing that left and right with almost everything, never really committing to anything. I can understand why - things aren't set in stone and should they do one thing after having said another they'll never hear the end of it - but I'd like to know as soon as things are decided. And I wish that would not extend to story elements.

[Ieldra]

@Bhryaen:

Thanks for your extensive commentary. I had failed to mention those other problems but I agree that they're significant.

 

As for where the plot goes, or rather where I think it should go: The Tevinter/Qunari conflict and a possible revolution in Tevinter is where I'd like the next game to focus, with Solas' plot being in the background and driving these "smaller" plot elements.

[straykat]

 

As for where the plot goes, or rather where I think it should go: The Tevinter/Qunari conflict and a possible revolution in Tevinter is where I'd like the next game to focus, with Solas' plot being in the background and driving these "smaller" plot elements.

 

The only thing that makes me curious about that is if they make the Qunari even more "palatable", just to make this an actual choice.

 

Because as it is, they're almost completely unlikable. Some people think they're cool when they post their "No" Sten memes, but in practical terms, it's no fun and doesn't work as an actual choice to side with. The end goal of the Qunari basically wants to turn the whole setting into a giant "uniform grey color" to use Alistair's line about his soup. They don't like anything in Dragon Age but themselves. Why would players even buy Dragon Age in the first place if they were this negative about it all? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

The only way out of it is retconning them to be likable and more tolerant. But then that would suck too.

[Ieldra]

The only thing that makes me curious about that is if they make the Qunari even more "palatable", just to make this an actual choice.

 

Because as it is, they're almost completely unlikable. Some people think they're cool when they post their "No" Sten memes, but in practical terms, it's no fun and doesn't work as an actual choice to side with. The end goal of the Qunari basically wants to turn the whole setting into a giant "uniform grey color" to use Alistair's line about his soup. They don't like anything in Dragon Age but themselves. Why would players even buy Dragon Age in the first place if they were this negative about it all? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

The only way out of it is retconning them to be likable. But then that would suck too.

I don't think a plot where the Tevinter/Qunari conflict plays a role must necessarily have a decision for the Qunari as an option. As you say, I don't think they could make it plausible with the Qun as it is, and retconning it even more would result in a narrative dissonance of the kind that made ME3 so unpalatable. It certainly wouldn't work for me. At this point, supporting the Qun feels like an atrocity to me, and attempting to retcon that would come across as just another Catalyst.

 

So what would work? Perhaps a decision about whether or not to keep or overturn the established order in Tevinter, with the downside of the latter being giving some ground to the Qunari? Also, who's going to be the antagonist? I'd prefer Solas to be a background threat at this point, one that motivates actions by others that drive the plot rather than driving the plot on its own. That way we could have a plot that involves more local concerns without being disconnected from the big picture. Maybe....some magister plans a giant blood magic ritual to cast some big-ass spell against the qunari. Of course this will weaken the Veil, which doesn't come across as prudent at a time when someone wants to sunder it completely, so apart from the moral considerations, this person has to be stopped. We can ally with the Tevinter reformist faction in order to achieve that, maybe some other pragmatists of the magisterium will join as well. Bad timing though: a civil war at a time where there's an external threat. Our decisions will focus around navigating this mess in order to get a desirable outcome.

 

Uh....as an aside: it is rather noticeable how contrived the Inquisitor would be as a protagonist in this plot.

[Aren]

I thought the level of emotion used in Trespasser was pretty much perfect. Most lines were subtle where appropriate (not like Hawke randomly going into a rage because someone asked them for the time of day) but the more dramatic moments where you'd expect emotion had a good variety to choose from and made sense. If they continued this into the next game I'd be satisfied.

 just saw the version of an angry Inquisitor,the way in which Solas and the Inq express the hate for each other is amazing.

Spoiler

come to think of it this topic and this other one are specular

http://forum.bioware...lity-lol/page-1

[straykat]

 just saw the version of an angry Inquisitor,the way in which Solas and the Inq express the hate for each other is amazing.

Spoiler

 

Clash of the busybodies. Qunari Inquisitor vs the slumbering elf god. Both need to mind their own business and stop speaking for people who don't give a **** about either one of them.

[Bhryaen]

Yeah, it's not like people with prosthetic limbs have to work really hard to regain the efficiency their old limb had, taking months or years to get even basic movements down, let alone complex ones. They just immediately get that efficiency and don't struggle at all. Oh, wait a minute...

Not sure what point you're making there- at least that I hadn't already made myself... but I detect sarcasm though! Damn, I'm good! Of course, in a gameworld based on magic, "regaining efficiency" in a limb is a matter of how much you simply want to extend the narrative. No reason a special healer couldn't ZAP the arm into full regrowth and health- or DA4 even begin after that "regaining" period was over. The point I made is that either you get instant access to a new arm fully functional at game start- in which case why would they bother having written a lost arm into DAI's end at all?- or you get no arm or a subpar-functional arm- in which case you're asking the devs to go out of their way to awkwardly contrive that dynamic into the existing animations and combat options (among a number of other things they'd have to do just bringing back the Inq as protag at all, as mentioned above...)

 

@Bhryaen:

Thanks for your extensive commentary. I had failed to mention those other problems but I agree that they're significant.

 

As for where the plot goes, or rather where I think it should go: The Tevinter/Qunari conflict and a possible revolution in Tevinter is where I'd like the next game to focus, with Solas' plot being in the background and driving these "smaller" plot elements.

I only seem to recognize how extensive it is after I'm done WallOTexting... *sigh* Ode to being thorough...

 

That does sound about right. Solas wouldn't exactly be advertising his presence with an army or anything, so the main events would likely involve the main conflicts we were left with in the Trespasser epilogue, maybe a couple that weren't mentioned as well. I'm still curious about those people putting X's on Inquisition tents. Wat up wit dat? It'll be interesting to see how they weave the Solas back-to-the-drawing-board plans (whatever they are) into the rest of the story. If it's a matter of infiltrating his organization there may be missions that Solas sends us on rather than the Inq, many of which might be forays into places like war-torn areas of Tevinter.

[leaguer of one]

I didn't see it that way, I saw Hawke ranting about how people always try to find stupid justifications to use blood magic in a harmful way

Any Hawke, pro-blood mage or not, would think that way after the end of da2. It's ether they are going to be against blood magic in general or against it's misuse.

[Absafraginlootly]

Am I the only one who wishes that the Bioware Devs would just throw us a little bone on this matter so that fans don't spend the next 2 or more years arguing about it?  

I mean, I know that they are probably not even close to starting on the next game yet, but surely they have a basic story outline already and probably have had each game plot loosely mapped out since the beginning.

 

Well they won't know for certain until after they've had some sort of game pitch approved, and I don't even know if they've started preparing their pitch.

 

But it would be nice if, when they do know for sure, they could tell us whether its a new protagonist or not. Instead of waiting years before revealing, pull the band aid off, that way those who get disappointed will have plenty of time to either get used to the idea or move on.

[vbibbi]

Is it too much to ask for the best of both worlds?  While apprehensive, I still think Bioware has the narrative chops to pull it off.  It would just take a story structure reflective of Halo 2 (in regards on how to properly pull off "balanced" dual protagonists) and a DA game style somewhere in between the overly story centric DA2 and the overly wide open sandbox centric DA:I to have the best chance of success!

No offense to Bioware, but I don't have confidence in their ability to pull this off. One of the biggest issues IMO for DAI was that they bit off more than they could chew and tried to do too much at once and ended up doing mediocre on most areas. I would rather them not overextend themselves again, but this time in a new direction. I would prefer that they use the foundation and the feedback from DAI to build on, and get back to their strengths before trying something else new.

[vbibbi]

I found the inquisitor to be much livelier when I stopped exhausting every darn investigate option in every tree. It's easy for a character to come off as bland when 80% of their dialogue is shared from playthrough to playthrough. Once I started trimming the questions down to questions this character would actually ask, lo and behold their personality came shining through. 

 

I feel like Hawke had a higher proportion of emotion-tagged responses vs. neutral investigates, which made the personalities more intense/divergent from each other.

I wish the emotional responses had been more prevalent in dialogue choices. They felt like flavor dialogue that all came to the same point, so there was no actual impact from choosing different tones. Had they been used in place of the basic three investigative options, that could have helped.

 

While I agree with the thread title (and am glad to find a thread devoted to the idea for once rather than the barrage of contrary ones), I'm not entirely in agreement with the reasoning of the OP.

 

1. I like Southern Thedas. I do want to experience the rest of Thedas- even "those across the sea" that were hinted at, since the landmass we've seen so far may just be one/two continents on the planet. But I'm in no way averse to revisiting old areas and would rather they continue to incorporate everything. That seemed one of the strengths of DAI- not abandoning Ferelden just to bring us to Orlay. That's one of the excellent experiences that DA tends to offer- the "return" visits. I'd love to be back in Orzammar again especially... which is in southern (known) Thedas. Gotta wonder if the vast dwarven underground of ancient times extended under the sea to other continents as well...

 

And the various themes of Chantry/Orlesian politics/mage-templars... are sorta canon DA by now. I just want a better experience with them than a little Hinterlands scuffle. Even DAO did more with the Redcliffe narrative than DAI did with the entire Hinterlands.

 

2. I also enjoyed the ending of Trespasser... though it was a tad aggravating having ploughed through all those qunari only to find Solly having been able to one-shot every single one of the nasties I'd spent so much time and effort killing as if to save him. The main thing is that narratively it was pretty cool and leaves me interested in how Solas will be approached in DA4 and what will be available to be done about him and whatever plans he may have. This in no way requires the Inq returning, however. The Trespasser end just opens up DA lore and historical development interestingly.

 

3. The point is not really made by saying only that the Inq is "unrelatable." Without a strong DAO-like origin pre-story, the Inq is already seriously lacking in "relatability," but that's not the point made. I like better what you said in this same regard later in the thread:

 

It is entirely possible to play DAI without even traveling with Solas, not doing his artifact quest or anything else- or even playing an Inq completely at odds with Solas. This hardly leaves one with a personal score to settle with Solas. It's more just a matter of another mess that needs to be cleaned up, Solas just the messer-upper (no less than Cory with whom no personal investment occurs either) rather than some close friend/ex-lover/acquaintance to be dealt with. This makes an emotional Inq-Solas relationship non-canon. That some may have some emotional investment in the undoing of Solas' plans does not negate the fact that a different DAI playthrough will involve zero such investment. Not that emotional investment by a protagonist's journey automatically requires that the protagonist return either. There is a strong case (that I've made in the pro-Inq-return threads) for a potentially greater emotional narrative with a new protagonist that experiences more canon encounters with Solas.

 

Not to mention the fact that the successful invasion of Tevinter by the Qunari- as mentioned in Trespasser's end as well- is hardly a secondary concern. Solas is just one patch of DA4's mosaic of potential challenges to face...

 

What gets left out or poorly rebutted in the case for a new protagonist (or perhaps rather in the case against a returning Inq protagonist) are these technical considerations:

 

1. How to CC the DAI Inq in DA4.

 

The new DA will likely have yet another game engine advancement. There's plenty more to add to DA, including shifting hair, among plenty more upgrades. Unless we keep the same game engine (already not as advanced as a number of others contemporary with DAI), we'll have to recreate our Inq again. Many probably couldn't care less, but I'm one of those that gets wed to a particular appearance (sculpted from hours of CC work) for my protag. There's no way to reproduce them exactly the same, so they won't be the exactly the same Inq in a DA4. I can live with it if the Inq is an NPC like Hawke was in DAI (though I admit I didn't like that either), but not if I'm running with them again as the protag I'd forged in DAI. I'm betting that they'd have no way to be able to lift the exact appearance graphs from DAI to reintegrate them perfectly in a new engine for DA4. Hell, they'd have to have the same (limited) hairstyles, skin textures, hair and eye colors, etc.- and all in the same format as DAI. Is it not easier to just, ya know, make it a new protag with the new CC?

 

2. The drop to Lvl 1.

 

They could make DA4 like BG2 where you start with the level you left off from (or simply a set higher level)... It's just highly improbable. They would have to scale every encounter from the get-go to that higher level. This is not a consideration in an FPS game in which you never "level up" and only just acquire better weapons throughout the course of the game- your skills increasing simply because you, as the player, get better at it. DA isn't an FPS. And, as we've seen, they keep changing the ability/spell tree system around for every new game, so coming back with the same character requires a break with that same game concept. On the one hand, DAI's combat had severe limitations (the 8-quickslot one being just one), so we'd have to see a return of that same combat experience in order to have the Inq continue as they were. If they come up with yet another new set of advancement abilities, the cognitive dissonance of advancing with a different system using the same character is just glaring. The tendency to balk would be universal. They can't win either way if they use the Inq again. They can win either way with a new protag.

 

But then there's the simple fact of explaining how a (potentially) Lvl27 character is now Lvl1. One attempt at a contrivance I read was that the missing arm forces the Inq to start over. Yeah... but starting over doesn't mean starting from absolute scratch. We still retain the same abilities, even if we're now unable to execute them. Or would we really lose all that magic-casting knowledge just because we're short an arm? Would you forget how to write just because you broke your writing hand? No, the missing arm doesn't serve to explain the contrivance. It's a comprehensive loss of everything you'd gained skill-wise. Could the writers come up with a DA4 story that involves the Inq being mind-wiped so that they can't recall their former abilities? Yes, they could. But then we wouldn't exactly have the same Inq's, now would we? Part of the Inq's identity was the skill development they'd acquired after that many hours playing DAI. And normally when memory is wiped you get a "Jason Bourne" type of amnesia where they don't know who they are but they retain their skills. That would eliminate the whole "but I gotta play my Inq because they have a relationship with Solas (that now they can't remember)," and the reverse scenario where a person remembers their identity but not their skills doesn't tend to be the rule. As they say, "Your skills are something no one can take from you." Unless the writers pull a narrative from their arses. But all this trouble to contrive a Lvl1 nerfing when the writers could instead just create new protags?

 

Then there's the protest of "Yeah, but they did the same with Varric!" To which I say: "Exactly." I seriously dislike what they did there, making him return as a Lvl1 companion after all the hours I'd spent with him, never leaving my Champion's side, bringing him and Bianca to Lvl 25 or so in DA2. And I like Varric as a character and companion. I just don't like seeing him gutted in order to bring him back. I'd rather have had a new dwarven companion (or two or three or four) that made sense to start at Lvl1 with. I'm getting around the dissonance of Blanca being now less powerful than anything I can craft (despite the Skyhold note forbidding Varric from participating in archery contests due to how uber-skilled he's supposed to be) by making him a dual wield rogue instead. Alas this still doesn't explain why he isn't starting at Lvl 25 or unable to be respecced to that level. So the absurdity remains.

 

The other possibility is that they could have DA4 be a "high-level adventure." This would mean creating a new world where the level-cap of DAI at Lvl27 doesn't/didn't exist and is  instead, say, Lvl50. Now bears and Sha-Brytol warriors and demons and Vint mages, etc., could suddenly be Lvl 48- something they've never been before. The devs could do it, but that would take a completely new rethinking of the gameplay of DA which has more or less been Lvl1-25 for three games now. And what about players who finish the main game in DAI less than Lvl 20? I always work to get the max lvl by the end of the game, but others don't. So where do they start in DA4? Lvl20 for my Lvl27 Inq? Lvl27 for their Lvl20 Inq? All these questions aren't just for the "bring back the Inq as protag" crowd. It's what that same crowd is asking the devs to wrangle with. And all along a new protag just makes this an elegantly simple matter: start at Lvl1 with a new protag.

 

3. The Inq's relationships/experiences.

 

Another thing that only makes the writers' job more difficult would be attempting to factor in all the various ways that DAI had been played into the narrative of DA4. Every bit that they're forced to write in in order to reintroduce the Inq entails a disinvestment in providing new content. And there's a boatload they'd have to factor in. They'd have to bring back Leliana as the potential spymaster that we know, LI's as somehow involved in the Inq's life, encounters with the myriad NPCs and narratives in DAI, etc., etc., all things they'd have to create workarounds for or incorporate into DA4's plot development that they could pretty much sail through using a new protag. Did I enjoy immensely the fan service they added from DAO and DA2 to DAI with returning characters and references to events past? Yes! Entirely! But none of those needed to be part of the basis of the game. That my Warden had romanced Leliana in DAO (according to my Keep story anyway) showed up in DAI as a nice side-story, but that my Inq romanced Blackwall would now not be a side-story at all- and if it were treated as such with my DA4 Inq protag it'd be disappointing for those wanting a return of the Inq as protag (which I'm not). As DAI experiences they were referential, incidental, colorful- but not essential. Whether your Warden had a relationship with Leliana or Morrigan was just something fun to discover the results of, not something the writers had to devote substantive portions of DAI explaining and working in. If the Inq is back as protag they'd have to revisit all of that, reincorporate them all, account for them all as they applied- or even as they didn't apply (and why)- to the rollout of DA4's plotline. With a new protag such harkenings are just fun and the DA4 plot meanwhile can rollout unhindered (other than by consistency with DA's lore generally).

 

4. High-level equipment loss.

 

So much for all that schematics grinding, the Golden Nug, and favorite crafting that your Inq struggled through. BG2 had a narrative that explained how you ended up losing nearly all your good gear from BG1- i.e., having been abducted and experimented upon by Irenicus. (In the upcoming "Dragonspear" game that will bridge BG1 and BG2 apparently you'll be keeping your equipment, but, you see, that's BG. It involves a single protagonist navigating multiple game installments keeping the same abilities and more or less the same cast of characters (BGEE adds a few more), so keeping your equipment works.) DA continues to make it obvious why your new protag needs new equipment: they're starting new in the changing DA narrative landscape and are taking what they can get. With the Inq what possible reason is there that the gutted Inquisition- or its allies- like whoever you made Divine- can't continue to supply you with all you had in DAI? What could possibly pry that Hakkon's Wrath bow from your Inq's cold, dead archer hands? Could some reason be contrived? Yes- absolutely. But it would have to be contrived. There's no contrivance necessary with a new protag: new stuff comes with the territory.

 

And just like the skill tree system, they'd have to bring back all those items that the Inq might've encountered. Who knows which remains in regular use by the Inq or was stored in the Storage Chest? Again, if they invest in that sort of continuity they automatically disinvest in new content.

 

5. The missing arm.

 

I've seen plenty of interest in playing as a handicapped person... who nevertheless has perfect use of a new arm. The thing is, either they can restore the arm entirely- in which case no loss of abilities occurs and the loss of the arm was meaningless and inconsequential (since it's not really lost after all, now is it?)- or they can make you remain one-armed or deficient in some way- in which case they'd have to rework a huge number of two-handed skills in DA4 to accommodate that. The former loses all the sentimental aspect of playing "handicapped" since effectively you wouldn't be handicapped, and the latter requires yet another round of cognitive dissonance when you're equally effective with only one arm. What skills aren't two-handed in DA? Sword-shield, DW rogue, archery, 2H weapons, staves... Why would they bother tweaking all the abilities and animations just to reintroduce the Inq? I'd rather the gameplay development folks concentrate on making a more fun combat and tactics system for new protags rather than trying to figure out how to portray the same mechanics now able to work (somehow) for a one-handed Inq. And again: a new protag with all limbs intact is simply simpler.

 

6. DA tradition of new protags.

 

This may seem more a narrative concern than technical, but it is incontrovertible that DA has always involved a new protag facing a new situation that called for a new type of hero. This is a gameplay question as well. They'd have to restructure their entire approach to DA in order to make a recurring protagonist- both narratively and mechanically. And it wouldn't exactly be revolutionary: most games have a set protagonist that carries through to each new installment (Elder Scrolls being the other notable exception). DA is one of the precious few major franchises that explores the multi-race, new-protag formula. They implemented it profoundly in DAO, winning a huge following to the franchise, and they scored big with the same formula in DAI with all the GOTY accolades. New protags has been a fundamental DA game mechanic. Thus the argument to bring back the Inq is an argument to destroy that mechanic and make DA just like other rpgs in that respect. If some have lost faith in the "new protag" formula (even if only "because of Trespasser" as the rationale), there are plenty of others like myself that haven't. I love starting from scratch with someone(s) new every time. I'm very happy they didn't try to bring (meh) Hawke back as the Inq or bring back my beloved DAO Wardens for DA2 (though, yeah, humans-only in DA2 was disheartening). They didn't make the Inq's origins in the least endearing, but I'd rather have had that than a contrived return of former protagonists. And nothing in the "Me want Inqui back" arguments makes me feel like seeing DA abandon its foundation. I can see all the same drama and narrative development with a new protag for DA4- Solas' unfinished business, the Inq's declared (not realized) intent to do something about it, and all.

 

Mike Laidlaw made a more elegant argument for the "new protag" formula in some interview I read a while back, but still...

 

So, yeah, the devs could come up with a new DA- one with a returning protag- but they'd have to break the nature of DA and expend resources to retroactively explain a Lvl1, equipment-starved, one-armed, DAI-uninvolved, different-looking Inq. Why... why would they bother? It's not as if the "new protag" formula has failed or would fail in DA4. There would be no more loss than in jettisoning Hawke or the Warden as protag in a wide open new DA to introduce us to... Just let it go and enjoy the new protagonist options of DA4 as to how you resolve the next round of DA lore and antagonists. (Watch them make the new protags be all human variants just to try my patience anyway...)

Wow such a great post! I agree with all of your points, they are well thought out. I think I am dropping out of this debate because most pro-Inky PC posts seem to be saying they are emotionally invested in the Inq-Solas conflict and don't want to see someone else deal with it. That is the extent of their argument, the rest is just impressive logic-gymnastics in order to fit their ideas into the next game.

 

I like your point that having a new PC would also allow for a more canonical, controlled relationship between Solas and the PC. As you say, there are many variables in how the Inquisitor and Solas can relate, even with the default redeem or destroy options at the end of Trespasser. But a strong relationship can be created with new PC and Solas. One idea: Solas' operatives help the PC defuse the Tevinter-Qunari conflict, maybe acting under the guise of the Inquisition. Scout Harding, if a companion, may even think that the help we're receiving comes through legitimate channels rather than Solas' infiltrated spies who are manipulating the PC. Then, once the Tevinter-Qunari conflict is settled, Solas appears and reveals that he was controlling everything in the name of the Inquisition. Now that our purpose is done, he discards us and moves on to his next plan.

 

This also provides a personal investment to stopping him and a sense of betrayal. And it will also prevent players saying "My Inquisitor would never go to Tevinter to track Solas down! They would have stayed in Skyhold with their LI and sent agents to find him!"

 

Yeah, it's not like people with prosthetic limbs have to work really hard to regain the efficiency their old limb had, taking months or years to get even basic movements down, let alone complex ones. They just immediately get that efficiency and don't struggle at all. Oh, wait a minute...

Well, every thread where this has been suggested that I've read has not proposed a realistic prosthetic limb, they have suggested some magical enchantment or dwarven steampunk contraption which would allow the PC to immediately have full usage of both limbs. Their argument is that starting at level one again makes sense because Inky needs to learn how to use this new limb. Which, as Bhryaen mentions, doesn't account for the other skills and passive abilities that don't rely on using two hands.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Not sure what point you're making there- at least that I hadn't already made myself... but I detect sarcasm though! Damn, I'm good! Of course, in a gameworld based on magic, "regaining efficiency" in a limb is a matter of how much you simply want to extend the narrative. No reason a special healer couldn't ZAP the arm into full regrowth and health- or DA4 even begin after that "regaining" period was over. The point I made is that either you get instant access to a new arm fully functional at game start- in which case why would they bother having written a lost arm into DAI's end at all?- or you get no arm or a subpar-functional arm- in which case you're asking the devs to go out of their way to awkwardly contrive that dynamic into the existing animations and combat options (among a number of other things they'd have to do just bringing back the Inq as protag at all, as mentioned above...)

Why bother having Luke's hand cut off when he gets a fully functional prosthetic within ten minutes? Because it adds to the story. It marks the protagonist and the antagonist in a way that wouldn't exist if the antagonist never removed the arm. 

 

 

Well, every thread where this has been suggested that I've read has not proposed a realistic prosthetic limb, they have suggested some magical enchantment or dwarven steampunk contraption which would allow the PC to immediately have full usage of both limbs. Their argument is that starting at level one again makes sense because Inky needs to learn how to use this new limb. Which, as Bhryaen mentions, doesn't account for the other skills and passive abilities that don't rely on using two hands.

Then you haven't been reading hard enough. In all of these threads people have brought up realistic prosthetics as in ones from our own history. Yes people have suggested more than that but people have suggested having a prosthetic limb equivalent to the ones we had in medieval times. 

[Bhryaen]

Wow such a great post! I agree with all of your points, they are well thought out. I think I am dropping out of this debate because most pro-Inky PC posts seem to be saying they are emotionally invested in the Inq-Solas conflict and don't want to see someone else deal with it. That is the extent of their argument, the rest is just impressive logic-gymnastics in order to fit their ideas into the next game.

 

I like your point that having a new PC would also allow for a more canonical, controlled relationship between Solas and the PC. As you say, there are many variables in how the Inquisitor and Solas can relate, even with the default redeem or destroy options at the end of Trespasser. But a strong relationship can be created with new PC and Solas. One idea: Solas' operatives help the PC defuse the Tevinter-Qunari conflict, maybe acting under the guise of the Inquisition. Scout Harding, if a companion, may even think that the help we're receiving comes through legitimate channels rather than Solas' infiltrated spies who are manipulating the PC. Then, once the Tevinter-Qunari conflict is settled, Solas appears and reveals that he was controlling everything in the name of the Inquisition. Now that our purpose is done, he discards us and moves on to his next plan.

 

This also provides a personal investment to stopping him and a sense of betrayal. And it will also prevent players saying "My Inquisitor would never go to Tevinter to track Solas down! They would have stayed in Skyhold with their LI and sent agents to find him!"

 

Well, every thread where this has been suggested that I've read has not proposed a realistic prosthetic limb, they have suggested some magical enchantment or dwarven steampunk contraption which would allow the PC to immediately have full usage of both limbs. Their argument is that starting at level one again makes sense because Inky needs to learn how to use this new limb. Which, as Bhryaen mentions, doesn't account for the other skills and passive abilities that don't rely on using two hands.

That's true- it's not just the ability tree but also the stat adjustments that are now incorporated automatically with the abilities. How would a missing/renewed limb destroy all one's DEX, STR, MAG, WILL, etc. back to Lvl1 either? There isn't going to be a sufficient explanation.

 

I was pretty tired of the "debate" myself- was just going to let it go, but I saw this thread and was kinda happy someone had started it given how many of the contrary threads were there, so I thought I'd just let out my parting thoughts on the matter. And it really isn't much of a "debate" since "I just feel like the Inq should return as protag" isn't an argument: it's just an expression of emotional disposition- a wish. And like you say, that's pretty much all there is to that position other than quips and head-canon. The position itself doesn't withstand much scrutiny. And the technical issues involved (for the devs, mind you) can't get worked through- even if they were willing to discuss it- when there's not even any debating of sacred "emotional commitment." I get it: they played an elf girl who says of Solas, "But I can change him!" So it could feel personal. It's just that I played one too and didn't have the same reaction despite being pretty enthralled with Solas as a character the whole way. The end choice is inevitable because of Solas, not because of our relationship with him: either we think we can persuade him not to torch the world or we're bound to thwart him regardless- a choice which even a snarky character who's just in it for themselves would face.

 

Yes, there's great deal of potential in a more canonical relationship with Solas. I was thinking more along the lines that the cameo Inq is urging the new protag at various game intervals either to "redeem" or "stop" Solas (according to the Keep setting), but experiences with Solas as a new protag give the character (and player) a different reference to make decisions in that regard. Despite the Inq urging the protag to "redeem" Solas, we may encounter something like the scene where he brutally obliterated the mages for daring to try to get a Wisdom Spirit to defend them. Would our character still want to redeem him? Or despite the Inq urging the protag to "stop" Solas, we get some scene where he saves the protag's life- or the life of someone dear to the protag- or the protag's Dalish clan- or the protag's dwarven House, and Solas confides in the protag in an endearing way in the midst of some struggle. So does our new protag really now feel Solas is a bad guy to be stopped at all costs? Does our new protag even believe the Inq's warnings? These are all- to me anyway- much more interesting experiences and questions for the player to roleplay than mere drama between Queen Inq and King Solly, adding a new dimension to the entire rollout of the story.

 

I had another idea that at the end Solas may confess that he knew all along that our protag had been sent by the Inq, and he was now of a mind- all on his own- that he can't be the one to bring back the unVeiled Fade (he's obviously heavy-hearted about the decision in Trespasser, even with a hostile Inq), and that he now leaves it up to your character to decide the fate of the world because he doesn't feel it should be up to him who is kinda not of this world to begin with... and if you decide to break the Veil, it's actually Solas who stops you from tearing it down. Anyway- lots more to explore narratively that way than the "But I wanna have Inky back!" proponents seem to appreciate.

 

I just don't want an Inq cameo like Hawke's where they behave in a way my Hawke wouldn't have. There's no way my Hawke would ever get so violent against all Wardens the way DAI has him/her do in the Fade. So long as the devs just stick to the role of Inq and the various Keep settings, it'll be a great interplay for players, particularly given the expectations of DAI players going into it and the metagame knowledge players have.