And it's called improving on past mistakes
Hawke had three goddamn personalities and they couldn't get that right.
And they will have somehow gotten better in time to get the Inquisitor right who could have far more variety?
Yeah sorry not buying it.
Hawke had three goddamn personalities and they couldn't get that right.
And they will have somehow gotten better in time to get the Inquisitor right who could have far more variety?
Yeah sorry not buying it.
Really because my sarcastic Hawke made sarcastic remarks unlike DA2 where every sentence that made was sarcastic which is something I hated about the personality system in DA2
And yes to needing a new, clever PC to trick the trickster. There is nothing the Inquisitor can personally do that Solas can't anticipate now. He knows them too well to be fooled by them. It needs to be a new person, even if they're getting support from the Inquisitor or Dorian.
I can live with or without a new protagonist. A clever well-written story is possible with either. Still, this sentiment puzzles me.
It puzzles me because there are rivalries in fiction. Very popular rivalries. Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty are the first to leap to mind. The concept that two enemies that know each other well can't have an entertaining an interesting conflict is foreign to me.
The Keep records us being friends with Merrill thus supporting her use of blood magic, and yet come DAI Hawke rants constantly about how all blood magic and blood mages are bad. So clearly a lot more than friendship and support/not support is needed for an accurate picture.
What other flags would you think need to be included to have a more complete picture of the relationship between Inky and Solas?
I was responding to your saying that the Keep was recording those so that it could handle the Inquisitor as an NPC and pointing out that the Keep recording those things could also just mean that they need them for NPC interaction with an Inquisitor player character. You seemed to be saying earlier that the Keep recording those decisions as plot flags would only be necessary for a situation in which the Inquisitor was not the PC. I was refuting that. Did I misunderstand you?
Ah okay. I think I misunderstood you. You're right, having the flags capture the Inquisitor's information to make them an NPC does not negate the possibility of them remaining the PC. I just think it's more likely that it indicates their NPC status.
Hawke had three goddamn personalities and they couldn't get that right.
And they will have somehow gotten better in time to get the Inquisitor right who could have far more variety?
Yeah sorry not buying it.
True, I really don't know how the Hawke import wasn't better handled, as there weren't too many flag variables they needed to account for. But that was a first attempt in this system and now they have feedback and know how the basics of that function. This is just one of the many features from DAI which can be built upon and improved for DA4, as many people have pointed out in other threads.
I can live with or without a new protagonist. A clever well-written story is possible with either. Still, this sentiment puzzles me.
It puzzles me because there are rivalries in fiction. Very popular rivalries. Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty are the first to leap to mind. The concept that two enemies that know each other well can't have an entertaining an interesting conflict is foreign to me.
Holmes and Moriarty were supposed to be on the same level intellectually, right? Moriarty had more resources in his criminal network, but they were basically intellectual equals. The Inquisitor and Solas are in no way equal. Solas can blink and turn people to stone. He created the Veil. The Inquisitor's unique power, the Anchor, is now gone. And even if they are the PC in the next game, they will necessarily have to start again at level one.
Trespasser made it clear that Solas knows how to manipulate the Inquisitor and the Inquisition, partly because of his trickster nature, and partly because he spent so much time getting to know the Inquisitor. The entire DLC was us playing into his plans. It also made clear that we need someone unknown to Solas to have any hope of stopping his plans.
Also, Sir ACD created Moriarty as a method of killing of Holmes, whom he had grown tired of writing. It wasn't until his audience's outcry that he continued to write more stories about him. And I've said before, Bioware is going to be very cautious about actually killing off a PC again in the future after ME3.
Holmes and Moriarty were supposed to be on the same level intellectually, right? Moriarty had more resources in his criminal network, but they were basically intellectual equals. The Inquisitor and Solas are in no way equal. Solas can blink and turn people to stone. He created the Veil. The Inquisitor's unique power, the Anchor, is now gone. And even if they are the PC in the next game, they will necessarily have to start again at level one.
Trespasser made it clear that Solas knows how to manipulate the Inquisitor and the Inquisition, partly because of his trickster nature, and partly because he spent so much time getting to know the Inquisitor. The entire DLC was us playing into his plans. It also made clear that we need someone unknown to Solas to have any hope of stopping his plans.
Also, Sir ACD created Moriarty as a method of killing of Holmes, whom he had grown tired of writing. It wasn't until his audience's outcry that he continued to write more stories about him. And I've said before, Bioware is going to be very cautious about actually killing off a PC again in the future after ME3.
I'm not sure why you latched on to the particulars of one example to ignore my point. There are literally thousands of rivalries, with thousands of permutations.
I'm not sure why you latched on to the particulars of one example to ignore my point. There are literally thousands of rivalries, with thousands of permutations.
I answered your question by saying that the Inquisitor and Solas are not on the same level, so they are not equal rivals, regardless of how well they know each other. And because of this power imbalance we can't beat Solas in a traditional method but have to outsmart him, which was my original point. What did I ignore, and why did you ignore everything I posted that didn't involve Sherlock Holmes?
Holmes and Moriarty were supposed to be on the same level intellectually, right? Moriarty had more resources in his criminal network, but they were basically intellectual equals. The Inquisitor and Solas are in no way equal. Solas can blink and turn people to stone. He created the Veil. The Inquisitor's unique power, the Anchor, is now gone. And even if they are the PC in the next game, they will necessarily have to start again at level one.
Trespasser made it clear that Solas knows how to manipulate the Inquisitor and the Inquisition, partly because of his trickster nature, and partly because he spent so much time getting to know the Inquisitor. The entire DLC was us playing into his plans. It also made clear that we need someone unknown to Solas to have any hope of stopping his plans.
Also, Sir ACD created Moriarty as a method of killing of Holmes, whom he had grown tired of writing. It wasn't until his audience's outcry that he continued to write more stories about him. And I've said before, Bioware is going to be very cautious about actually killing off a PC again in the future after ME3.
You're saying Inquisitor and Solas aren't equal mentally cus Solas manipulated them, but to be fair, Moriarty has managed to manipulate Holmes, too. That's why its an interesting rivalry; its theoretically possible for Holmes to lose. I'd say the Inquisitor has a good chance of meeting and besting Solas planning-wise now that they are onto him. The Inquisitor isn't written to be a fool, necessarily. You can *choose* to do stupid things, of course, but that's up to the player. The Inquisitor still has the potential to meet Solas head on, on equal footing.
That petrify magic of his that you cited might very well be able to be negated, for instance, thus putting them on more equal footing. It could be done through magical or mundane means, or even just psychologically in that Solas doesn't want to petrify his best friend/lover to death and can't bring himself to do it.
That last one is the most interesting aspect to me of the whole rivalry. Could Solas kill off the Inquisitor in a blink? Currently, I would assume yes. But will he? Can he actually bring himself to do it? If he can't, then why not and can that hesitation be used to reach him? Or can that hesitation be used to kill him, if that's your preference? That's where all the interesting story bits lie and that's something that, really, only the Inquisitor is capable of fishing out of his storyline.
I answered your question by saying that the Inquisitor and Solas are not on the same level, so they are not equal rivals, regardless of how well they know each other. And because of this power imbalance we can't beat Solas in a traditional method but have to outsmart him, which was my original point. What did I ignore, and why did you ignore everything I posted that didn't involve Sherlock Holmes?
I didn't ignore what you said. I countered what you said when I said that a clever rivalry can be written despite the points you made. And it can, because it's been done before. Many times. It's a popular story telling device. Some people, like you, are somehow seemingly ignorant of this popular device and/or its potential. People like rivalries so it's used... a lot. So it's not something that should be discounted just because "the protagonist and antagonist know each other well".
And it's called improving on past mistakes
Bioware does not make mistakes.
Bioware just has confused fans 
You're saying Inquisitor and Solas aren't equal mentally cus Solas manipulated them, but to be fair, Moriarty has managed to manipulate Holmes, too. That's why its an interesting rivalry; its theoretically possible for Holmes to lose. I'd say the Inquisitor has a good chance of meeting and besting Solas planning-wise now that they are onto him. The Inquisitor isn't written to be a fool, necessarily. You can *choose* to do stupid things, of course, but that's up to the player. The Inquisitor still has the potential to meet Solas head on, on equal footing.
That petrify magic of his that you cited might very well be able to be negated, for instance, thus putting them on more equal footing. It could be done through magical or mundane means, or even just psychologically in that Solas doesn't want to petrify his best friend/lover to death and can't bring himself to do it.
That last one is the most interesting aspect to me of the whole rivalry. Could Solas kill off the Inquisitor in a blink? Currently, I would assume yes. But will he? Can he actually bring himself to do it? If he can't, then why not and can that hesitation be used to reach him? Or can that hesitation be used to kill him, if that's your preference? That's where all the interesting story bits lie and that's something that, really, only the Inquisitor is capable of fishing out of his storyline.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I don't see how an ancient elven "god" who created the Veil and has spent centuries learning secrets in the Fade, and who apparently has an elven spy network could be on equal footing with the Inquisitor, who has lost the Anchor and depowered the Inquisition.
I didn't ignore what you said. I countered what you said when I said that a clever rivalry can be written despite the points you made. And it can, because it's been done before. Many times. It's a popular story telling device. Some people, like you, are somehow seemingly ignorant of this popular device and/or its potential. People like rivalries so it's used... a lot. So it's not something that should be discounted just because "the protagonist and antagonist know each other well".
You ignored everything in my response post except Sherlock Holmes. I don't see how you're equating "rivalry is interesting and can be a good plot device" to "one of the rivals is exponentially more powerful than the other, so traditional frontal attack tactics won't work in this case, and alternative solutions must be found."
Yes, rivalry can be interesting and a good narrative element. So? That doesn't change the fact that someone needs to use brains over brawn to defeat an elven god, and the Inquisitor is at a disadvantage over a new PC because Solas has a good idea of how the Inquisitor's brains work.
It puzzles me because there are rivalries in fiction. Very popular rivalries. Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty are the first to leap to mind. The concept that two enemies that know each other well can't have an entertaining an interesting conflict is foreign to me.
Sure. but both the Inquisitor and Solas have moved beyond being direct rivals. They are both the leaders of their own secret societies (even if the Inquisition is disbanded, some obviously stick around to continue their shadow war on Solas) Clearly, they will now be operating through agents and third parties. A chess match with living players.
Next game we will likely be caught up in that match. A wild card, perhaps? Or an ally of the Inquisition? Or another faction altogether? At any rate it's highly doubtful that either the Inquisitor or Solas will be taking the field directly anymore. Or at best, very brief, Flemeth-like cameos. They'll be too busy running their organizations for anything else.
Edit: Anyone who has played Pillars of Eternity, think of Lady Webb of Dunryd Row
Sure. but both the Inquisitor and Solas have moved beyond being direct rivals. They are both the leaders of their own secret societies (even if the Inquisition is disbanded, some obviously stick around to continue their shadow war on Solas) Clearly, they will now be operating through agents and third parties. A chess match with living players.
Next game we will likely be caught up in that match. A wild card, perhaps? Or an ally of the Inquisition? Or another faction altogether? At any rate it's highly doubtful that either the Inquisitor or Solas will be taking the field directly anymore. Or at best, very brief, Flemeth-like cameos. They'll be too busy running their organizations for anything else
That's one possibility, yeah. But it's not the only possibility. That's pretty much been my point.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I don't see how an ancient elven "god" who created the Veil and has spent centuries learning secrets in the Fade, and who apparently has an elven spy network could be on equal footing with the Inquisitor, who has lost the Anchor and depowered the Inquisition.
You ignored everything in my response post except Sherlock Holmes. I don't see how you're equating "rivalry is interesting and can be a good plot device" to "one of the rivals is exponentially more powerful than the other, so traditional frontal attack tactics won't work in this case, and alternative solutions must be found."
Yes, rivalry can be interesting and a good narrative element. So? That doesn't change the fact that someone needs to use brains over brawn to defeat an elven god, and the Inquisitor is at a disadvantage over a new PC because Solas has a good idea of how the Inquisitor's brains work.
The disadvantage in power is what makes many rivalries interesting. But you keep moving the goal posts in this conversation. I quoted your point that the Inquisitor can't come at Solas because Solas knows the Inquisitor. My point was that this wasn't a factor in disqualifying a good story progression and my point stands. You want to get lost in the details of my example instead of acknowledging the point that two enemies knowing each other doesn't mean they can't continue an interesting conflict. They can, it's a story device in common use.
ME3 was excessively bad in this. New players didn't have any issue, sure, but old players had plenty of issues. In fact, ME3 is what I'd quote as about the worst example you could use. ME1 was all right, ME2 was problematic, but ME3...ME3 destroyed my characters as surely as had the writers deliberately set out to do so. It is as I said: returning characters tend to accumulate undesired traits because at some point, the writers always forget that they aren't writing for their characters, but for the players'.Nah. I don't think it'd be too bad. Plenty of games carry a single protag through multiple games. Villains too. ME3 is a pretty good example. I never saw new players having any issue with that.
The disadvantage in power is what makes many rivalries interesting. But you keep moving the goal posts in this conversation. I quoted your point that the Inquisitor can't come at Solas because Solas knows the Inquisitor. My point was that this wasn't a factor in disqualifying a good story progression and my point stands. You want to get lost in the details of my example instead of acknowledging the point that two enemies knowing each other doesn't mean they can't continue an interesting conflict. They can, it's a story device in common use.
OK I think I must not be understanding you. My point is that the Inquisitor needs a new protagonist to be the one to defeat Solas, because the new PC will be an unknown to Solas and had the advantage of Solas having no strategy against a complete unknown. The Inquisitor as PC means that Solas already has an advantage of knowing how the Inquisitor thinks and can anticipate how they will react (Trespasser).
This does not mean that the Inquisitor and Solas aren't rivals. Yes, it's well documented that rivalries make good relationships in fiction. It sounds like we are of differing opinions on this, as I believe the close nature of the Inquisitor and Solas means they need some third party (new PC) in order to defeat Solas' plans. You seem to say that it's not necessary. I'm not sure why the fact that they're rivals and rivalry is a common story device means that the Inquisitor can beat Solas conventionally. This is a story where magic is a game changer, and Solas has magical power and ancient knowledge that no one else in the world has access to. Possibly the Well of Souls has this information, but we don't know the details of what it contains, and Morrigan could have its power.
ME3 was excessively bad in this. New players didn't have any issue, sure, but old players had plenty of issues. In fact, ME3 is what I'd quote as about the worst example you could use. ME1 was all right, ME2 was problematic, but ME3...ME3 destroyed my characters as surely as had the writers deliberately set out to do so. It is as I said: returning characters tend to accumulate undesired traits because at some point, the writers always forget that they aren't writing for their characters, but for the players'.
Hawke had three goddamn personalities and they couldn't get that right.
And they will have somehow gotten better in time to get the Inquisitor right who could have far more variety?
Yeah sorry not buying it.
Well my Sarcastic Hawke was still sarcastic, odd..... Or are you going on about Hawke not being ok with blood magic?
ME3 was excessively bad in this. New players didn't have any issue, sure, but old players had plenty of issues. In fact, ME3 is what I'd quote as about the worst example you could use. ME1 was all right, ME2 was problematic, but ME3...ME3 destroyed my characters as surely as had the writers deliberately set out to do so. It is as I said: returning characters tend to accumulate undesired traits because at some point, the writers always forget that they aren't writing for their characters, but for the players'.
They actually remembered that in DAI, given how the Inquisitor was written, so I don't think an improvement is impossible, but the track record is pretty bad.
You not being allowed to not be upset when the asari home world fell does not equal to your character being destroyed.
As much as I'd like to follow your line of arguments, I don't think it's valid. If they *want* to bring the Inquisitor back, they'll find a way to do it and make it appear remotely plausible, or just do it regardless of our very subjective opinion of what would make most sense. Remember they brought Leliana back regardless of even her on-screen death? I never killed Leliana and so this didn't affect me, but if they can do that, there's no limit to the implausibilities they're willing to accept for something they really want.OK I think I must not be understanding you. My point is that the Inquisitor needs a new protagonist to be the one to defeat Solas, because the new PC will be an unknown to Solas and had the advantage of Solas having no strategy against a complete unknown. The Inquisitor as PC means that Solas already has an advantage of knowing how the Inquisitor thinks and can anticipate how they will react (Trespasser).
That was just one stone in the mosaic. Making my character canonically stupid IS destroying him. Making him embrace values I painstakingly avoided to express in the two games that came before without my input IS destroying him. I didn't mind him being angry about the loss, that's only natural, but talking as if he could've prevented it? ME3 put several of the most stupid lines I've ever seen in fiction - and I've seen a lot - into the mouth of my character without my input.You not being allowed to not be upset when the asari home world fell does not equal to your character being destroyed.
I loved Trespasser and I'm content with the way my Inquisitors' stories were concluded, but that's why I too am pleased that DA4 will feature a new protagonist. The fate of returning characters rarely improves in the sequel.
At this point, we know nothing about the protagonist of DA4 - or even where it will be set or how many years will pass after Inquisition - but it's safe to say the protagonist won't be the Inquisitor, Hawke, the Warden, or Shepard. I'm hoping they do a significant time jump, long enough to make a clean break from all previous characters and introduce us to an entirely new cast. I'm ready to fall in love again.
Well my Sarcastic Hawke was still sarcastic, odd..... Or are you going on about Hawke not being ok with blood magic?
my sarcastic Hawke was not always sarcastic. Some hings, like the death of his mother, p*ssed him off. And sometimes he knew when to take a situation seriously.
Of course, my paragon Shepard was always emotionally fragile, whether I wanted him to be or not.
Hopefully we'll just meet agents of the Inquisition rather than the Inquisitor him/herself.
Solas spies camouflaged for agents of the Inquisition you mean,his spirits are everywhere
Really because my sarcastic Hawke made sarcastic remarks unlike DA2 where every sentence that made was sarcastic which is something I hated about the personality system in DA2
And they still got it wrong. Which is my point. (Also my Hawke's snarky remarks were a self defense mechanism. I thought the dialogue made it obvious. It's why he's cracking jokes with his mother's dying body in his arms.) Varric does the same thing in the bad future. Some people are like that.
Meanwhile he's acting like aggressive Hawke in Inquisition.
True, I really don't know how the Hawke import wasn't better handled, as there weren't too many flag variables they needed to account for. But that was a first attempt in this system and now they have feedback and know how the basics of that function. This is just one of the many features from DAI which can be built upon and improved for DA4, as many people have pointed out in other threads.
I know but that's my issue. The Inquisition has waaaay more variance than Hawke every could. And they weren't even close with Hawke. Not even close.
Well my Sarcastic Hawke was still sarcastic, odd..... Or are you going on about Hawke not being ok with blood magic?
Throwing a snarky quip once in a blue moon (and not sounding all that different from aggressive hawke oddly enough) does not a snarky Hawke make.
Also Hawke raging about bloodmagic when they friended Merrill is pretty stupid yes.
Retour en haut