527 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

I said nothing about a lyrium-based prosthetic, though I did imply it wasn't out of the realms of possibility.  I simply mentioned the absurdity that a character would be considered incapable in a setting where Magic and Mechanical Prosthetics exist.

It's not about being incapable in terms of storytelling, but about incapable in terms of combat animations. They'd need to make a whole new set of combat animations for a one-handed character, or one with a prosthetic, as long as the replacement doesn't work exactly as a natural hand - and then, again, what would be the point of losing it in the first place? Then consider that there are five combat classes (warriors and rogues have two variants), which multiplies the set of animations further.

 

I'm not saying it can't be done, but the probabilities are stacked against it. Unless they decide to give the Inquisitor a cool new superhand with built in extra badassery. As much as liked having the Anchor, I wouldn't like that one bit, because it would most likely be all about combat, i.e. completely boring.

[Bfler]

Would be a bit strange, if you are the leader of the Inquisition but have to start as level 1 noob-char, without any abilities, in a new game.

[CardButton]

It's not about being incapable in terms of storytelling, but about incapable in terms of combat animations. They'd need to make a whole new set of combat animations for a one-handed character, or one with a prosthetic, as long as the replacement doesn't work exactly as a natural hand - and then, again, what would be the point of losing it in the first place? Then consider that there are five combat classes (warriors and rogues have two variants), which multiplies the set of animations further.

 

I'm not saying it can't be done, but the probabilities are stacked against it. Unless they decide to give the Inquisitor a cool new superhand with built in extra badassery. As much as liked having the Anchor, I wouldn't like that one bit, because it would most likely be all about combat, i.e. completely boring.

My original point was not about the prosthetic, but if you insist on debating about the practicality of its use at a gameplay level, lets talk.

 

Let us assume we actually do get something as advanced as some sort of Lyrium Based Prosthetic (which should be considered a best-case scenario at a game play only perspective). DA4 is still 3 or 4 years down the road, I would be absolutely shocked if Bioware didn't already intend to alter the combat and its animations again (they have done so every game) in order to improve the game-play.  In fact for them not to update their combat mechanics would be a remarkably bad decision at business level since they do need to stay relevant in an ever growing Western RPG market.  For them to base combat around a new prosthetic or a missing limb would be no different than creating a different new set of combat animations for a new PC.

 

Also, the responses I'm getting on here regarding a prosthetic (that was not the focus of my original argument) are strangely lacking middle ground, especially from the Anti-Inquisitor PC crowd.  Why in your mind must the arm be either as functional as the missing limb (which your right would defeat the purpose of the handicap) or be so dysfunctional that it removes the PC from a potential return?  It could be a powerful tool and still dysfunctional.  While I'm sure there are better ideas, the mechanic Bioware used for the Anchor in "Trespasser" could suffice as a base around this principle.  The arm could malfunction in combat.  The arm could straight up break and need repairs.  The Inquisitor could occasionally flinch while using it, slowing them down.  These are just a few basic ideas that could make the player feel the pain of the Inquisitor fighting with something new and potentially painful to use; and at the same time make the Companions more relevant to combat. Upgrades to the prosthetic (based around a weapon crafting system similar to Bianca) could help alleviate some of these negative side effects later in the game. 

 

As for the regression of level ... At a setting standpoint a LEVEL is only representative of a characters proficiency using a preferred combat style, character level (and talent trees) don't actually exist in the world.  If they need to learn a new combat style or re-adjust everything they knew in order to facilitate a new tool/limb than of course they would drop in level, because they are less proficient in how they fight.  As for skills (even if you're a mage) you still would have to re-teach yourself how to use those skills in regards to that new required tool/limb, because you are now simply incapable of using them the way you used to.  Stats are a better point, but the Inquisitor did lose an important physical part of their body and even stats like Magic, Willpower and Cunning again only really refer to how efficient a character is at utilizing those stats in regards to their preferred combat proficiency.  Since the arm would be new and the Quizzy is still trying to learn how to use it properly, then mental stats would take a hit just like physical stats would. 

 

The solution then is simple.  The Inquisitors starting stats would be reduced, but not as low as they would be at lvl 1.  Stats would grow slower (as they realistically would using a prosthetic) and if combined with a "dysfunctional arm mechanic" (that allows for improvements over the course of the game), the Inquisitor would simply hit harder (but more unpredictably) early game than your traditional new PC.  Late game (with the lower stat growth on a higher base) and the ability to improve the prosthetic, the Quizzy would naturally balance out.  Ending up with perhaps slightly higher stats than they had in Inquisition, but an arm that still has a small chance of malfunctioning or causing pain (if greatly reduced from how it started).

 

Again though I'm not using this argument in support of a Inquisitor PC (while that is my preference), but instead am using it only to show just how bad the argument of the missing arm actually is in regards to whether or not they should return. 

[Nefla]

One of the biggest arguments I see against having the inquisitor back is that BioWare would have to make special combat animations/combat style for the inquisitor. I say: why not? They're not switching engines or rehauling the entire game this time, they could definitely make some special combat animations (they already make unique animations for various monsters). They made special animations and combat abilities for the mark in Trespasser and that was only a DLC. A missing hand is the perfect excuse to kick more people

[vbibbi]

I hate to bring this up, because I know I'll get slammed for it ... but the assumption of discrimination isn't entirely invalid if Bioware actually did remove the limb to get the Inquisitor out of the way.

 

This would be a very different thing if the player had been actually allowed to experience some of the frustration and pain resulting from the injury (and a subsequent realization of the Inquisitor that they may no longer be cut out for pursuing Solas themselves), but we weren't.  Rendering any implied "meaning" behind the sacrifice primarily mute because it then only exists in the realm of head-cannon.  We experienced one thing, the removal of the arm and if that remains enough justification to remove the Inquisitor, then I hate to say it but it does imply that it was made on assumptions that a crippled Inquisitor (even in a world of magic and technology like "Lyrium-Infused Power Armor") was incapable of continuing the fight.

 

Also, I should remind you that this idea that the Inquisitor in not functionally capable is further frustrated by the Epilogue slide you get if you become a Red-Jenny, where in which the Inquisitor is running across rooftops with Sera sporting what appears to be a prosthetic grappling gun arm.

 

Well I think we're in agreement that Trespasser's handling of losing the arm wasn't well executed. For me, it was confusing until I came to the boards to read other people's interpretations of it. I think Bio wanted the shock value of seeing us walk into the Council without the arm, and that trumped dealing with emotional impact and a cleaner transition for them. Thing is, the shock value only works the first time, while the fallout from this is skipped over and leads to the forum erupting in debates

 

As for the Red Jenny epilogue, true that the Inquisitor can still be active and is not prevented from all fighting. But I would still argue that they are not able to perform the high intensity physical activity required for an RPG fantasy game. The Red Jenny slide, for example, has no context. So the Inquisitor could have been waiting on a rooftop for a long time before hitting their mark; we can't assume they can quickly climb after a foe or away from a foe, as they would need to in game. They are working with a spy network, so the Red Jenny modus operandi is focused on teamwork, subterfuge, and ambush rather than direct combat as most of DA is. Working in the capacity as a Red Jenny is not the same as being on the front lines fighting hordes of Qunari, magisters, elven agents, whatever.

 

There's also a world of difference between "just as capable in a fight as they were with a fully functional arm" and "capable enough to beat most enemies." The inquisitor with two arms and the special mark was ridiculously overpowered and we were cutting down scores of mutated enemies, demons, etc...that most people would have zero chance against easily. You take someone who smacks dragons aside like it's nothing and then weaken them and they're still much stronger and more capable than most people. Stick a freaking dagger or buckler or even a hook on that stump and let us go at it. It would be an excuse to give the battles more weight and impact and scale us down from demi-god to a person who's good at fighting. It would also be nice if they implemented non combat ways to solve problems like stealth (which they experimented with in MotA), persuasion (which let you avoid combat sometimes in DA:O or DA2) and even puzzle solving (like in the temple of Mythal how you could either fight or puzzle your way through the ruins).

I agree on the point that I would rather include more non-combat methods to achieve our objectives. The dialogue perks were nice in DAI but did not reach the level of the persuade skill, IMO. Granted, at least the perks were an improvement on the complete absence of dialogue skills in DA2.

 

And as has been pointed out before by people, if we just put the Inquisitor back in the action with a hook, dagger, whatever, to do it right, Bioware would need to implement a new combat skill tree for each of the weapon styles. This would be on top of the existing weapon tree styles the companions would still use. So I'm going to argue that it's not cost effective to add in five new weapon trees to implement this.

[Nefla]

I agree on the point that I would rather include more non-combat methods to achieve our objectives. The dialogue perks were nice in DAI but did not reach the level of the persuade skill, IMO. Granted, at least the perks were an improvement on the complete absence of dialogue skills in DA2.

 

And as has been pointed out before by people, if we just put the Inquisitor back in the action with a hook, dagger, whatever, to do it right, Bioware would need to implement a new combat skill tree for each of the weapon styles. This would be on top of the existing weapon tree styles the companions would still use. So I'm going to argue that it's not cost effective to add in five new weapon trees to implement this.

It wasn't cost effective to have 4 voice actors, or to change engines between every game, or completely redesign and overhaul everything between each game. IMO doing this would be worth it, especially if they don't rehaul everything and switch engines again. Playing it safe isn't always the best option.

[Ieldra]

Again though I'm not using this argument in support of a Inquisitor PC (while that is my preference), but instead am using it only to show just how bad the argument of the missing arm actually is in regards to whether or not they should return. 

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Bioware works with standardized animations, made for very specific combat styles, quite possibly they didn't even make them themselves but used those already implemented in the engine, or had them made by animation specialists. Either way, the problem is that minor changes in the way a limb works can result in having to create a complete new set of animations. The point isn't that this can't be done, but that this is expensive, especially since it affects every class, and thus every class would need a set of separate animations. The level of disability caused by the lack of an arm, or by an imperfect replacement, does not matter. As long as the replacement works differently from a standard limb, you can't use the already existing standardized animations, and thus you'll have to spend a lot of resources making new animations - and that for just one character. I am rather certain that won't happen. 

 

Were this a futuristic game, that wouldn't matter so much since I'm quite sure there are standardized sets of animations for the cyberpunk genre and/or various SF settings where people can have all sorts if implants or replacements. They won't work in a DA game though, since futuristic games have different weapon types.

[renfrees]

It wasn't cost effective to have 4 voice actors, or to change engines between every game, or completely redesign and overhaul everything between each game. IMO doing this would be worth it, especially if they don't rehaul everything and switch engines again. Playing it safe isn't always the best option.

They couldn't be bothered with cinematic cutscenes and creating more than 3 sets of armor for the Inquisitor, and you want them to make unique animations for just one character?

[CardButton]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Bioware works with standardized animations, made for very specific combat styles, quite possibly they didn't even make them themselves but used those already implemented in the engine, or had them made by animation specialists. Either way, the problem is that minor changes in the way a limb works can result in having to create a complete new set of animations. The point isn't that this can't be done, but that this is expensive, especially since it affects every class, and thus every class would need a set of separate animations. 

No I understood perfectly and I addressed it.  

 

Any AAA RPG coming out in three to four years will ultimately require upgraded graphics or animations to keep themselves competitive in a growing industry.  This (at bare minimum) would require new character models to allow for the facilitation of these new expectations and thus they will require new animations to allow for the true exploitation of these models.  This holds true regardless if you re-use the old combat animations or make new animations because they would both have be altered or crafted extensively to fit the new character bodies.  One additional set of combat animations for the PC is honestly a drop in the bucket all things considered and due to the setting in Tevinter there is any number of mechanics that won't be returning from DA:I (Skyhold, large amounts of returning continuity and War Table Ops for starters) that the money could be transferred from to facilitate this.

 

Also, side note. It is far more physically responsible for any prosthetic used to be facilitated as an up-gradable weapon that simply supports the basic combat of each weapon type, rather than a set of Talent Tree's (heck you could use the same basic prosthetic model for every class, with a few minor aesthetic alterations) if finances are your chief concern. This would drastically decrease the expenses required for animations, custom armor models for the PC and completely alleviate the expenses of arm centric Talent trees.  Having it function much like Bianca did in DA:I, but having the player choose between the parts (the choice between either improved proficiency or bonuses to power) would reduce the expense of such a creation to a few additional minor animations (mostly surrounding it's inefficiency or the pain of its use) for each Class/Combat style and programmable Attributes for the parts of the arm.  Essentially, it would make the arm not all that much more expensive to produce than custom animations that were required for the Anchor in DA:I + Trespasser and the minor part models created for Bianca's upgrades.

 

Again please, my original point was not supposed to focus on the prosthetic (there are very reasonable ways of making it work functionally and financially if Bioware so chooses), it was the fact that the missing arm is a very weak argument to stand on when discussing if we should have a new or returning PC for DA4.

[vbibbi]

Also, the responses I'm getting on here regarding a prosthetic (that was not the focus of my original argument) are strangely lacking middle ground, especially from the Anti-Inquisitor PC crowd.  Why in your mind must the arm be either as functional as the missing limb (which your right would defeat the purpose of the handicap) or be so dysfunctional that it removes the PC from a potential return?  It could be a powerful tool and still dysfunctional.  While I'm sure there are better ideas, the mechanic Bioware used for the Anchor in "Trespasser" could suffice as a base around this principle.  The arm could malfunction in combat.  The arm could straight up break and need repairs.  The Inquisitor could occasionally flinch while using it, slowing them down.  These are just a few basic ideas that could make the player feel the pain of the Inquisitor fighting with something new and potentially painful to use; and at the same time make the Companions more relevant to combat. Upgrades to the prosthetic (based around a weapon crafting system similar to Bianca) could help alleviate some of these negative side effects later in the game. 

 

As for the regression of level ... At a setting standpoint a LEVEL is only representative of a characters proficiency using a preferred combat style, character level (and talent trees) don't actually exist in the world.  If they need to learn a new combat style or re-adjust everything they knew in order to facilitate a new tool/limb than of course they would drop in level, because they are less proficient in how they fight.  As for skills (even if you're a mage) you still would have to re-teach yourself how to use those skills in regards to that new required tool/limb, because you are now simply incapable of using them the way you used to.  Stats are a better point, but the Inquisitor did lose an important physical part of their body and even stats like Magic, Willpower and Cunning again only really refer to how efficient a character is at utilizing those stats in regards to their preferred combat proficiency.  Since the arm would be new and the Quizzy is still trying to learn how to use it properly, then mental stats would take a hit just like physical stats would. 

 

The solution then is simple.  The Inquisitors starting stats would be reduced, but not as low as they would be at lvl 1.  Stats would grow slower (as they realistically would using a prosthetic) and if combined with a "dysfunctional arm mechanic" (that allows for improvements over the course of the game), the Inquisitor would simply hit harder (but more unpredictably) early game than your traditional new PC.  Late game (with the lower stat growth on a higher base) and the ability to improve the prosthetic, the Quizzy would naturally balance out.  Ending up with perhaps slightly higher stats than they had in Inquisition, but an arm that still has a small chance of malfunctioning or causing pain (if greatly reduced from how it started).

 

Again though I'm not using this argument in support of a Inquisitor PC (while that is my preference), but instead am using it only to show just how bad the argument of the missing arm actually is in regards to whether or not they should return. 

True, Bioware could implement some mechanic or combat penalty as the PC gets used to the prosthetic or has to upgrade it as the game progresses. If done well, it could be cool. I don't know how popular it would be, though, if the character we're playing has a disadvantage in combat. These types of games are power fantasies where we as the PC can accomplish things most mortals don't dare dream. To then be set back and face penalties while our companions don't have to worry about it, I think most players would be resentful of being stuck with this, and probably just play as the NPC rather than the PC. I personally would be annoyed if I have to repair or replace the prosthetic throughout the game. It feels like crafting, which I'm neutral on but would be less friendly toward if it were required in the game rather than an optional element.

 

I do like your idea of starting above level one but not at our previous level, and then gaining levels at a reduced rate. To me, this would be the most enjoyable method of reflecting the disability, because it wouldn't interfere with combat directly but would still be different from the NPCs. And having a mechanic where sometimes the PC hits harder but more unpredictably could be cool. It sounds like the wild mage from SoA:ToB. The thing with that, though, is that it's fun if it's optional but it's less fun if every PC has to have this.

 

Basically, I think this could be done well, and I like most of your ideas on it. The trouble is, this style is not for every player, and being forced to play this way when we can see the NPCs fighting in the "standard" method, players could feel resentful of being told how they can fight. But if Bio did implement a system in a way using your ideas, I would probably try it out.

[Ieldra]

Hmm....I'm replaying Trespasser. A lot of stuff I missed the first time. Dorian's sending crystal. I take that as evidence the Inquisitor won't be in Tevinter.

[CardButton]

True, Bioware could implement some mechanic or combat penalty as the PC gets used to the prosthetic or has to upgrade it as the game progresses. If done well, it could be cool. I don't know how popular it would be, though, if the character we're playing has a disadvantage in combat. These types of games are power fantasies where we as the PC can accomplish things most mortals don't dare dream. To then be set back and face penalties while our companions don't have to worry about it, I think most players would be resentful of being stuck with this, and probably just play as the NPC rather than the PC. I personally would be annoyed if I have to repair or replace the prosthetic throughout the game. It feels like crafting, which I'm neutral on but would be less friendly toward if it were required in the game rather than an optional element.

 

I do like your idea of starting above level one but not at our previous level, and then gaining levels at a reduced rate. To me, this would be the most enjoyable method of reflecting the disability, because it wouldn't interfere with combat directly but would still be different from the NPCs. And having a mechanic where sometimes the PC hits harder but more unpredictably could be cool. It sounds like the wild mage from SoA:ToB. The thing with that, though, is that it's fun if it's optional but it's less fun if every PC has to have this.

 

Basically, I think this could be done well, and I like most of your ideas on it. The trouble is, this style is not for every player, and being forced to play this way when we can see the NPCs fighting in the "standard" method, players could feel resentful of being told how they can fight. But if Bio did implement a system in a way using your ideas, I would probably try it out.

True! :3  It's not a really refined idea and should be no means be considered as a reason for the Inquisitor to return as a PC, just how they conceivably could if they did.  The thing always kind of bothered me in DA (and similar games) was never the difference in power level between the enemies and the PC, but the rather apparent difference in power levels between the PC and their Companions. You can potentially run though the entire game with your starting set of companions if you want to, but they always end up feeling so much weaker than you regardless.

 

If nothing else, if a system like this is implemented it would make it certainly feel like more of a Team effort.  The PC would still be powerful, but because of their handicap their allies would have to work just that much harder to pick up the slack.

[wildannie]

I'm 100% behind a dual protagonist, with the inquisitor being playable for those parts that would require interaction with Solas (which may only be once in the game).  I would also be happy if the dual protag roles were more evenly split.  The inquisitor could be in the South doing things as a distraction from the real mission.  I think the main protagonist should be new because they need to be unknown to have the best chance of staying under Solas' radar,  If the inquisitor was running around Tevinter, I think he'd know.  

It is a must for me that the inquisitor is the one who redeems or defeats Solas, if its left to a new protag... I'll be ragin'

[vbibbi]

True! :3  It's not a really refined idea and should be no means be considered as a reason for the Inquisitor to return as a PC, just how they conceivably could if they did.  The thing always kind of bothered me in DA (and similar games) was never the difference in power level between the enemies and the PC, but the rather apparent difference in power levels between the PC and their Companions. You can potentially run though the entire game with your starting set of companions if you want to, but they always end up feeling so much weaker than you regardless.

 

If nothing else, if a system like this is implemented it would make it certainly feel like more of a Team effort.  The PC would still be powerful, but because of their handicap their allies would have to work just that much harder to pick up the slack.

Yeah I don't need my PC to be much more powerful than NPCs. I like being able to make a difference in the game world, but more through ingenuity and teamwork than me being super special and have more powers than others. That's why I like your idea of "depowering" the PC. I haven't played NWN2 but know that there is some similar mechanic in one of the DLCs...mask of the betrayer?

[Nefla]

They couldn't be bothered with cinematic cutscenes and creating more than 3 sets of armor for the Inquisitor, and you want them to make unique animations for just one character?

Yes. I want them to make an awesome game and not just settle for "good enough" and I don't just mean with the combat animations.

[CardButton]

True, Bioware could implement some mechanic or combat penalty as the PC gets used to the prosthetic or has to upgrade it as the game progresses. If done well, it could be cool. I don't know how popular it would be, though, if the character we're playing has a disadvantage in combat. These types of games are power fantasies where we as the PC can accomplish things most mortals don't dare dream. To then be set back and face penalties while our companions don't have to worry about it, I think most players would be resentful of being stuck with this, and probably just play as the NPC rather than the PC. I personally would be annoyed if I have to repair or replace the prosthetic throughout the game. It feels like crafting, which I'm neutral on but would be less friendly toward if it were required in the game rather than an optional element.

 

I do like your idea of starting above level one but not at our previous level, and then gaining levels at a reduced rate. To me, this would be the most enjoyable method of reflecting the disability, because it wouldn't interfere with combat directly but would still be different from the NPCs. And having a mechanic where sometimes the PC hits harder but more unpredictably could be cool. It sounds like the wild mage from SoA:ToB. The thing with that, though, is that it's fun if it's optional but it's less fun if every PC has to have this.

 

Basically, I think this could be done well, and I like most of your ideas on it. The trouble is, this style is not for every player, and being forced to play this way when we can see the NPCs fighting in the "standard" method, players could feel resentful of being told how they can fight. But if Bio did implement a system in a way using your ideas, I would probably try it out.

Hmm... here's a spitball idea for yah and I'd love your opinion on this vbibbi.  Whats your thoughts on the concept that they compensate the for the required appropriate play style to pull of a PC Inquisitor (discussed above), with a dual protagonist story?  I know I'm incredibly biased when it comes to discussing the prospect of a dual protagonist narrative, but your right ... while the game mechanics I discussed above would certainly be endearing and functional for an Inquisitor PC, forcing players (especially new players) to constantly use them could pose a problem.  But what if there was a way to turn this accessibility weakness into a sort of strength?

 

What if the new PC would have a more traditional faster paced combat style (perhaps they fight like the NPC's do) and leveled more traditionally (after all they are just starting their adventure)?  To further differentiate them from the Quizzy the new Protagonist would be the one that actually gets an exclusive Talent Tree (I'm sort of partial to the idea that it would be centered around something tactical and universally good for any class rather than class specific, like traps/bombs/crowd control abilities), while the Inquisitor remains based around the weapon crafting mechanic for their prosthetic.  As players switched between them this could potentially give two distinct combat styles to toy around with and prevent either from becoming too stale or grindy.  Mechanically speaking (and heck financially speaking) this wouldn't be too hard to implement since really the Inquisitor would require the custom combat animations, but its the new PC that gets the new Talent Tree (and everything that comes with that). While two PCs would raise the cost this could be somewhat diluted by the splitting any new combat mechanics between the two.

 

The narrative setup could actually be remarkably simple.  The prologue deals with the Inquisitor's arrival into Tevinter (I assume secret, perhaps as a slave?) This would serve as a basic gameplay tutorial and give brief but appropriate information regarding DA:i and Solas (and the Inquisitor's relationship with them).  They could then start at a higher level (not super high), which would allow new players to get a taste of what "higher" level play is somewhat like and the Prologue ends with the Inquisitor viewing Minrathous for the first time (get a nice exterior panning shot of one of the greatest cities in all of DA).  Then chapter 1 starts, and we switch perspectives to the new PC and get to deal with their story, their involvement, their interests.  We get to play them for a long while until we conclude a critical point of their own story and then switch back over to the Quizzy to see what they were dealing with during the same time period (but by this point the new PC should be much closer in level to Inquisitor PC, but remember the Quizzy started higher but grows slower so eventually it will balance out).  This would functionally allow the Inquisitor to start at a higher level (as they should), but still allow players (especially new players) to level a character from lvl 1.

 

Just a couple of thoughts.

[ottffsse]

+1 for dual protagonist setup, it can be quite interesting a groundbreaking for an RPG and doesn't bioware want that??? I have stated my opinions in another thread of this nature. There are pros and cons for both options (no quizzy as pc vs quizzy as pc). But all in all I believe the pros for the quizzy to be involved in any conflict resolution with Solas outweigh the cons (which can be written/ designed out) in any future game dealing with this subject. Post trespasser there is simply more base material there for a dramatic development there for quizzy to play an important role in driving the efforts against Solas.

 

I do want a break from Southern Thedas though too and see new areas like Tevinter, and have freedom in any future game to play a character whose views/ goals and motivations are independent of the inquisitor and the goals and motivations of the inquisition whatever is left of it, a player character who is an independent third party in the conflict, but whose skills and expertise may be needed to accomplish a significant feat in the conflict - either help/ save the "lead" character (the inquisitor) in some way so that he can confront Solas or to lure the enemy out through his actions for example. 

 

There have been several successful and interesting RPGs with dual protagonists where one is the "lead" character and one is the "main" character. Those are independent things in storytelling. Wild Hunt comes to mind, but that worked as it did because it was made clear that the character (cirilla) pursued and thought by the main character (Geralt) was the key to defeating the main enemy, and there was a personal connection between the two (geralt had vested interest in seeing ciri allright).But even in Wild Hunt there were things that could have been improved in the "co-operation" aspect of having possible two major players in a story, each making sometimes independent actions of one another either help each other accomplish their mutual goals or by mistakes/ selfish pursuit of his/her own interest hurt the overall effort of the other. Also in that game both characters had their own unique "special" powers and abilities. 

 

It is however no small feat in writing a story for two major characters as player selectable choice/ consequences (if done right) do actually make such a story more dynamic in its story branching, but possibly more replay value that way too . otherwise you get a very "static" and flat characterization of the Quizzy as npc like Hawke in dai who is basically only there to "complement" efforts in completing a certain quest in dai but are not really dynamically involved in the unfolding interactive story the player creates or has the illusion of creating while playing the game. 

[Ieldra]

Yes. I want them to make an awesome game and not just settle for "good enough" and I don't just mean with the combat animations.

I think we all want that, and of course the game being good or not doesn't depend on who's protagonist. Whatever they'll do, though, I want the Inquisitor to have as little on-screen time as possible, and as I see it, the only time where she needs to be present is the final confrontation with Solas. There are enough parameters to write her well as an NPC in that single encounter.

 

Curse Trespasser for throwing everything into confusion.

 

As for a dual-protagonist setup, that has been done in various ways, and I'm not completely against it, but it means that there are fewer resources to allocate to either one, and even with one protagonist conversation options and reactivity have been limited enough to be noticeable as a problem in every game they ever made. I'd rather have them improve the way they write one protagonist.

[ottffsse]

I think we all want that, and of course the game being good or not doesn't depend on who's protagonist. Whatever they'll do, though, I want the Inquisitor to have as little on-screen time as possible, and as I see it, the only time where she needs to be present is the final confrontation with Solas. There are enough parameters to write her well as an NPC in that single encounter.

 

That is bad logic though for both camps and ONLY good for returning players who don't care much about the figure of the inquisitor and the Solas conflict. Say you are a new player to dragon age or / have amnesia since the new game comes out and you pretty much almost forgot what went down in dai 3 years ago. You play this let's say awesome game and then at the end deux ex machina this strange random npc you only briefly heard about comes in and steals your show??? and determines the end (if it is the conflict with Solas). I am pretty sure that won't be a nice ending for any player to suddenly be relegated to the fringe of the story. And it would definitely mean sub optimal plot writing / construction on bioware's part if they do something like this. If they they start to develop DA4 they will make a compromise to make sure as many potential players both old and new get into and are satisfied by the story the game presents. 

[Ieldra]

That is bad logic though for both camps and ONLY good for returning players who don't care much about the figure of the inquisitor and the Solas conflict. Say you are a new player to dragon age or / have amnesia since the new game comes out and you pretty much almost forgot what went down in dai 3 years ago. You play this let's say awesome game and then at the end deux ex machina this strange random npc you only briefly heard about comes in and steals your show??? and determines the end (if it is the conflict with Solas). I am pretty sure that won't be a nice ending for any player to suddenly be relegated to the fringe of the story. And it would definitely mean sub optimal plot writing / construction on bioware's part if they do something like this. If they they start to develop DA4 they will make a compromise to make sure as many potential players both old and new get into and are satisfied by the story the game presents. 

Who said anything about the Inquisitor stealing the show? She'll be present and she'll be talking, that's all, and to avoid this coming across as a DEM all you need is information about what happened while you're following your plot.

[wildannie]

That is bad logic though for both camps and ONLY good for returning players who don't care much about the figure of the inquisitor and the Solas conflict. Say you are a new player to dragon age or / have amnesia since the new game comes out and you pretty much almost forgot what went down in dai 3 years ago. You play this let's say awesome game and then at the end deux ex machina this strange random npc you only briefly heard about comes in and steals your show??? and determines the end (if it is the conflict with Solas). I am pretty sure that won't be a nice ending for any player to suddenly be relegated to the fringe of the story. And it would definitely mean sub optimal plot writing / construction on bioware's part if they do something like this. If they they start to develop DA4 they will make a compromise to make sure as many potential players both old and new get into and are satisfied by the story the game presents. 

That's a very good point, if we get dual protagonist it really should be set out from the start.  I like the idea of the inquisitor being  player controlled, but mainly as adviser, who makes decisions of the direction of missions which are then carried out by the other pc.  For me,  ideally this would not involve face to face conversations with the other pc, but conversations with an intermediary who relays the information on.   

Having another character conclude the story with Solas would be a massive disappointment, and I can't imagine how it wouldn't ruin the game for me.

[CardButton]

I think we all want that, and of course the game being good or not doesn't depend on who's protagonist. Whatever they'll do, though, I want the Inquisitor to have as little on-screen time as possible, and as I see it, the only time where she needs to be present is the final confrontation with Solas. There are enough parameters to write her well as an NPC in that single encounter.

 

Curse Trespasser for throwing everything into confusion.

 

As for a dual-protagonist setup, that has been done in various ways, and I'm not completely against it, but it means that there are fewer resources to allocate to either one, and even with one protagonist conversation options and reactivity have been limited enough to be noticeable as a problem in every game they ever made. I'd rather have them improve the way they write one protagonist.

Here is the problem with this setup.  If the Inquisitor simply shows up at the end only an NPC (and were all afraid they'll be a disaster like Hawke) in order to deal with Solas there are two very different issues that would arise, depending on how they handled it.  The first way is that the New PC gets to be the lead in this situation.  Even with the Inquisitor as a present NPC though this setting still ultimately devolves the impact of the choices made regarding Solas to the character who has less of a connection to him and ottffsse is absolutely right that it would relegate the Inquisitor to complete superfluousness outside of a cameo appearance. No matter how you disguise it this would effectively boil down Solas to Cory 2.  The Second option is the Inquisitor (as an NPC) comes in and steals the show, which nobody wants and is terrible narrative decision.  This would be reflective of another Trehearne disaster from GW2, where your PC has been lead for the majority of the game and then that spot is usurped by some random character in the climax.  Besides the ultimate problems with the writing of DA:i stemmed from a combination of the main story being absurdly short (14-15 hours at most, including the artificial roadblock of the power system) and the fact that the entire game revolves around dealing with plot elements that were introduced in previous games.

 

That's a very good point, if we get dual protagonist it really should be set out from the start.  I like the idea of the inquisitor being  player controlled, but mainly as adviser, who makes decisions of the direction of missions which are then carried out by the other pc.  For me,  ideally this would not involve face to face conversations with the other pc, but conversations with an intermediary who relays the information on.   

Having another character conclude the story with Solas would be a massive disappointment, and I can't imagine how it wouldn't ruin the game for me.

If we do get a dual protagonist system for DA4 and the setting is Tevinter, this should not happen for two reasons.  1) It devolves the new PC to being a simple proxy for the Inquisitor and therefore the lose an enormous amount of personal impact, because they could have easily been replaced by the Inquisitor and 2) The greatest narrative strength that would come from having 2 protagonists is the different perspectives we would gain from each,  The Inquisitor would be seeing Tevinter from an outsiders perspective, while the New PC would be seeing Tevinter from an insiders perspective.  This opens up an enormous amount of potential for storytelling and would lesson the blow of exposition immeasurably. Significantly lessening the chances of getting another "Temple of Mythal/Dalish character" situation where a PC is forced to ask about their own culture to get that information to the player. 

[vbibbi]

Hmm... here's a spitball idea for yah and I'd love your opinion on this vbibbi. Whats your thoughts on the concept that they compensate the for the required appropriate play style to pull of a PC Inquisitor (discussed above), with a dual protagonist story? I know I'm incredibly biased when it comes to discussing the prospect of a dual protagonist narrative, but your right ... while the game mechanics I discussed above would certainly be endearing and functional for an Inquisitor PC, forcing players (especially new players) to constantly use them could pose a problem. But what if there was a way to turn this accessibility weakness into a sort of strength?

What if the new PC would have a more traditional faster paced combat style (perhaps they fight like the NPC's do) and leveled more traditionally (after all they are just starting their adventure)? To further differentiate them from the Quizzy the new Protagonist would be the one that actually gets an exclusive Talent Tree (I'm sort of partial to the idea that it would be centered around something tactical and universally good for any class rather than class specific, like traps/bombs/crowd control abilities), while the Inquisitor remains based around the weapon crafting mechanic for their prosthetic. As players switched between them this could potentially give two distinct combat styles to toy around with and prevent either from becoming too stale or grindy. Mechanically speaking (and heck financially speaking) this wouldn't be too hard to implement since really the Inquisitor would require the custom combat animations, but its the new PC that gets the new Talent Tree (and everything that comes with that). While two PCs would raise the cost this could be somewhat diluted by the splitting any new combat mechanics between the two.

The narrative setup could actually be remarkably simple. The prologue deals with the Inquisitor's arrival into Tevinter (I assume secret, perhaps as a slave?) This would serve as a basic gameplay tutorial and give brief but appropriate information regarding DA:i and Solas (and the Inquisitor's relationship with them). They could then start at a higher level (not super high), which would allow new players to get a taste of what "higher" level play is somewhat like and the Prologue ends with the Inquisitor viewing Minrathous for the first time (get a nice exterior panning shot of one of the greatest cities in all of DA). Then chapter 1 starts, and we switch perspectives to the new PC and get to deal with their story, their involvement, their interests. We get to play them for a long while until we conclude a critical point of their own story and then switch back over to the Quizzy to see what they were dealing with during the same time period (but by this point the new PC should be much closer in level to Inquisitor PC, but remember the Quizzy started higher but grows slower so eventually it will balance out). This would functionally allow the Inquisitor to start at a higher level (as they should), but still allow players (especially new players) to level a character from lvl 1.

Just a couple of thoughts.

I think dual protagonist would be an interesting concept, the game would need to be structured like DA2 and have self contained acts where we play as one of the PCs. It could be interesting, especially if the Inquisitor's parts were less heavily combat based and more investigative and skill heavy. Not negating all combat from their role, but make it more about uncovering secret operatives, learning more about the Veil and how to sustain it, things like that. The new PC would be focused more on the Tevinter Qunari conflict and be more combat focused.

Ideally, we could have the Inquisitor operating in Seheron or another Qun controlled zone and the new PC is in Tevinter, or vice versa. This allows the player to view both sides of the conflict and decide whom to support, rather than filtering everything through the eyes of one side. So PCs would be acting concurrently, just in different locations. I'm not sure how realistic this is though. It would be tough to pull off well, and could do a lot of harm if done poorly.

[vbibbi]

Also, this would most likely assume Bioware abandons the open world concept, as having separate acts for different PCs seems antithetical to open world. I actually just started TW3 so have not yet gotten to playing as Ciri so can't comment on how that works

[Heimdall]

If we do get a dual protagonist system for DA4 and the setting is Tevinter, this should not happen for two reasons.  1) It devolves the new PC to being a simple proxy for the Inquisitor and therefore the lose an enormous amount of personal impact, because they could have easily been replaced by the Inquisitor and 2) The greatest narrative strength that would come from having 2 protagonists is the different perspectives we would gain from each,  The Inquisitor would be seeing Tevinter from an outsiders perspective, while the New PC would be seeing Tevinter from an insiders perspective.  This opens up an enormous amount of potential for storytelling and would lesson the blow of exposition immeasurably. Significantly lessening the chances of getting another "Temple of Mythal/Dalish character" situation where a PC is forced to ask about their own culture to get that information to the player. 

I think the best way to handle it would be for the Inquisitor, acting as a leader giving out missions, will interact with the new PC through Dorian, who will partner with the new PC to fight the current threat, which will most likely be more than simply pursuing Solas.  The new PC and Dorian will be pursuing their own autonomous investigation, likely involving dragons I think, while the Inquisitor pursues leads through covert infiltration, negotiation, and delegation, focused on looking into Solas.

 

That will provide the new PC with more room for agency in this setup.