503 réponses à ce sujet

[Almostfaceman]

" 'Our' people? The ones we see in the forest, shadows wearing vallaslin? You are not my people.”

 

That's what he says about the Dalish. Solas on the other hand is, according to Abelas, one of his own.

 

"You stumble down our paths at the side of one of our own."

 

Solas and Abelas both make rather clear distinctions between themselves and the Dalish. Therefore "Your people yet linger" cannot mean anything but other elvhen/ancient elves

 

You're stumbling on the distinction, making it a road block when it is a journey. 

 

There can't be a restoration if there's nothing to restore. The thing to restore is the elves who have been separated from the Fade. Abelas and Solas are in some aspects clearly disappointed in their people and what happened to them... how incapable they became... when the Veil was raised. 

 

So, the lines about how Abelas and Solas see the differences between them and the modern elves does not raise an impossibility of restoration for the modern elves, it just describes the current state of affairs. 

 

Remember, this is the first game to point out that the modern elves still have a special connection with the Fade. 

 

Solas doesn't ignore the Dalish, and he doesn't ignore Sera. He also doesn't ignore the elves at the end of the game. He is clearly reaching out and that's because they are what needs to be restored. 

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

 

There can't be a restoration if there's nothing to restore. 

The very existence of Abelas and the Sentinels means that there *are* ancient elves still alive to restore. Even if the Sentinels were the last ancient elf population in existence (which they likely aren't b/c Solas tells Abelas to go find some more.), they exist.

 

There can't be a restoration if there's nothing to restore. The thing to restore is the elves who have been separated from the Fade. Abelas and Solas are in some aspects clearly disappointed in their people and what happened to them... how incapable they became... when the Veil was raised. 

 

Abelas has made it clear that the Dalish are not his people, and he's very clearly insulted by the claim if you say it as a Dalish. But he is fine with Solas saying his "people yet linger". He's not insulted in the least. He also verbally clarifies with Solas that the people who "yet linger" are Elvhen like Solas. Solas is an ancient elf. Abelas' lack of indignation and his verbal confirmation that the people who "yet linger" are like Solas means that the people who "yet linger" are ancient elves.

 

 So, the lines about how Abelas and Solas see the differences between them and the modern elves does not raise an impossibility of restoration for the modern elves, it just describes the current state of affairs. 

 

If modern elves are going to be restored and become Solas' people, then they can't be slated to die in the chaos that results when the Veil comes down. But Solas tells a Dalish inquisitor that all their friends and everyone they've ever known are going to die. The Inquisitor must know at least some modern elves and is very likely to consider several to be friends. Those modern elves, therefore, are going to die. Thus, it can't be true that modern elves are going to be restored and become Solas' people.

 

Solas doesn't ignore the Dalish, and he doesn't ignore Sera. He also doesn't ignore the elves at the end of the game. He is clearly reaching out and that's because they are what needs to be restored. 

Solas doesn't ignore anyone, though; from Dalish hunters to rebellious Qunari bakers. His interest in someone doesn't make them his People. Or even people at all, unfortunately. Though at least he changes his mind about that last bit if you befriend him.

 

[DragonNerd]

@Lulupab:  Where did I say Orlais has a right to do anything?

And last time I checked - Orlais didn't hunt elves (the Evanuris hunted humans for sport), slaughter dwarves (they were servants of the Titans at the time), killed titans (and mined their blood for power) and enslave their own people branding them like cattle with vallaslin.  So, this comparison is - to me - outlandishly inaccurate.  As I see it - what happened to Solas' people - was karma. 

 

As for whether or not he's "mad" - I honestly can't comprehend how someone rationalizes him... but, that's what makes the world so diverse I suppose. 

What? The Orlesians hunt elves like rabbits, hence the slur "rabbit." They hunt and kill the Dalish in Orlais viciously, and in turn the Dalish hunt them viciously. Chevaliers even enter alienages and test their swords on the city elves there. 

 

I understand. Trespasser didn't make me love him, either. It didn't change my opinion at all. Forcing myself to romance him did, sadly. The avid fans always suggest that players who dislike a character need to spend more time with them, but there are times when that's the worst thing you can do. It's like a house guest who has overstayed his or her welcome.

I've actually made the suggestion that people who always romance Solas try just befriending him or rivaling him. Solas acts a little differently toward someone he's not in love with. 

 

On games where I just befriended him, it always feels like he's yelling at me. And it's really hilarious. Unless he's being romanced, Solas comes off really angry and bitter, raises his voice easily, and gets beside himself with anger for no reason that is apparent to the Inquisitor. He's trying to hide but he's a terrible actor.

 

What's frustrating is the fact that the Inquisitor is never really allowed to ask him why he hates the Grey Wardens, goes into a rant about tearing down the Veil (when you say you can't imagine the world without it), scorns Briala as not his people after the ball and dodges the question when you ask him who his people are. . . . And then there's the fact that he practically announces in the temple of Mythal that he's ancient. It's so obvious that he's hiding. But when he's not being romanced, it becomes even more (hilariously) obvious, as the Inquisitor is unable to calm his outbursts with flirting.

 

This is one of the times when I would recommend someone try something different with a character -- not because you'd like them more, but for the sheer entertainment factor.

 

And agree that if you already hate Solas, romancing him is not going to remedy that, as I actually found it incredibly frustrating to romance someone who is obviously hiding and yet I can't question them about it. Lavellan is given a few lines (middle/snarky lines) where she can call Solas out on his lies, but he always dodges her observations, and in the end, all calling him out does ("You've been to court before, Solas?") is earn you some disapproval. 

 

 

@the op, when I first saw this thread,  I thought for certain it was a troll thread. But it's not, so here's my take on it. 

 

People hate Solas because he's a villain. Basically. He may be sorry about what he's doing, he may be convinced that he needs to destroy the world to save his own -- and he does use the word "destroy" too, and he also implies that he's saving the Inquisitor "for now" -- meaning they and everyone else is going to die later.

 

Solas may be sorry about it, but the fact remains that he's a villain. He doesn't value the lives of the people of Thedas. We've already seen this with the conclave. And you call him a monster for the conclave, his response is so chillingly calm and cold: "Wouldn't you kill thousands to save your own people?" (paraphrasing) He's a Grey Warden to the extreme. I felt bad for the mayor of Crestwood because he had no choice -- it was either drown those people or let the Blight spread. But Solas DOES have a choice. He's going to toss the people of Thedas aside like garbage in an almost obsessive attempt to fix his mistakes. He is basically Dru-Zod come to Dragon Age. 

 

For my part, I thought the entire arc of the Lavellan/Solas romance was going to be about Lavellan -- one remarkable elf -- teaching the Dread Wolf to value the people of Thedas. I thought Solas would do something terrible ala Anders and that Lavellan would give him the option to redeem himself by working with the Inquisition to fix his mess (again). 

 

But instead, Lavellan fails to convince Solas, and Solas just leaves to go blow up the world. And unless the Inquisitor is in the next game, I don't see how the Inquisitor/Solas story will ever be resolved, whether he was romanced or not. But I would really like to see the inquisitor at least play a part in the end of his story. 

 

Won't hold my breath, though.

 

I'd like to believe that Solas isn't in control, that the big twist is that Mythal is behind it all and that Solas is actually one of her ex-slaves.

 

I guess it's just the Solasmancer in me, wishing he wasn't at fault. When really, he is.  

[Dean_the_Young]

All of your posts seem to boil down to one thing -- harming/killing(etc.) the inhabitants of the modern world is bad.

 

This is a selfish view at the core. 

 

Since I am not an inhabitant of the modern world (of Thedas), and do not claim to be, 'selfish' is not the appropriate word. I do not self-identify with the people of Thedas.

 

Far more selfish would be the perspective of Solas, since he personally and his self-identified group collectively benefits at the cost of everyone else.

 

 

What makes the modern inhabitants more deserving of the world than Solas' people? This question has been touched upon, but never answered.

 

 

Individually, people are equally deserving of life. I'll freely agree this is a modern perspective of me the player.

 

 

Collectively, that would mean that larger groups are more deserving of life than smaller numbers. If they weren't, then the lives of individuals aren't actually equal in value.

 

There's also the point of unnecessary suffering. Solas's people aren't facing being murdered. They are, at worst, facing the prospect of dying of old age or other mundane causes just like everyone else. The people of Thedas do not need to die at all- and certainly not to prolong the lives of a minority.

[Dean_the_Young]

No, what I was intended to convey was that Dean seems to only considers the harm to the current inhabitants, while not considering that Solas' people have a legitimate right to exist as well. 

 

Unfortunately, I didn't write my post correctly, and its wording was too round-about. Oh well, I was too tired at the time. 

 

Solas's people can exist as well. Choosing to stay in stasis and hide away is their choice.

 

The existence of Solas's people is not in any exceptional danger. Only their immortality.

 

If Solas wants to preserve the people, have more babies. If Solas wants to preserve the culture, write it down, share it, and pass it on. There's an entire nomadic people who would love to learn.

[Korva]

Yes, the whole thing is a false equivalance and a blatant mischaracterization of others' opinions. I have never seem anyone propose destroying all the ancient elves who are left -- though yes, some people are contemptous of them in ways that I don't care for so much, because a "We deserve to rule!" attitude rubs me up the wrong way no matter whom it comes from (as does humanocentrism in general). The real issue is the fact that the Solas (and some players) thinks that his people -- which explicitly and vehemently does NOT include the modern elves, no matter how some folks here try to spin it -- are just too damn Special™ to exist in any other state than that exalted, godlike Specialness™, so anything and anyone that stands in the way of recapturing all of that is at best entirely acceptable collateral damage and at worst not every a person. Others of his kind would likely have a similar or worse attitude since they lack the exposure to modern people that he had, though Abelas turns out to be kind of reasonable given his circumstances.

 

It's not that I don't have sympathy for losing such a huge part of themselves -- and hell, I'd love a high-magic setting without the Veil if that could be achieved in a non-apocalpytic manner, and have become quite pro-spirit over the course of vanilla Inquisition (partly due to Solas himself though mainly due to Cole). To me, spirits and the Fade are among the more interesting aspects of an otherwise very generic setting. But the betrayal of trust, the callousness, the unabashed supremacist arrogance, and the pathetic "I'm not a monster, I'm a poor sad woobie!" pseudo-justifications are just off the scale and bacially nuked my original appreciation for Solas into radioactive dust.

 

The lack of a compromise in Solas' plan is not due to the Inquisitor being an narrow-minded zealot who refuses to let another people live -- that is Solas' stance, no matter how much "respect" and "friendship" he claims to feel.

Modifié par Korva, 30 novembre 2015 - 07:47 .

[Gervaise]

I entirely agree with you.    My disappointment with Solas is that he knew my Inquisitor showed respect for others; in fact I played him as a Dalish who started out rather narrow minded but learned through his interactions with other people to be more tolerant and appreciative of other people and cultures.   He formed genuine friendships with people of other races and championed those not strong enough to defend themselves.    I thought this was why Solas approved and respected me because I grew in wisdom as a character.   I listened to Solas when he said that spirits should be given the same respect as everyone else.  I defended Cole throughout and showed him nothing but understanding and friendship.   I showed proper respect for the Temple of Mythal and for the ancient elves within it.     I honestly thought Solas was a true respecter of the rights of the individual to exist no matter who they are, provided that doesn't threaten the existence of others and their personal freedoms.   

 

Then Trespasser well and truly shattered my illusions.   Plus when I asked the vital question: "Why is it necessary?" he patronises me instead of giving me a straight answer or at least a reasoned debate on the matter.    He even admits that we deserve better than he has planned for us.   And he thinks to salve his conscience by giving us a few years of relative peace - as though his former friend could have any peace of mind with this knowledge hanging over them.   

[midnight tea]

Of course I did. I've already explained this doesn't describe some secret unknown cache of ancient elves that nobody knows of where they abode. 

 

The elves do linger, as a mere shadow of what they're supposed to be before the Veil was raised. Solas has plans to restore his people, Abelas can be a part of those plans and that would be his place. 

 

You have to remember, Abelas sees Solas as the Dalish. 

 

No, he does NOT. He views him as his own - as a true elvhen. If you take the Dalish Inquisitor, Abelas says - "you have a features of those who call themselves elvhen" and calls them shemlen later, while if you take any other and Solas to the party he says "you travel with one of our own".

 

So no - he doesn't view him as the Dalish. He pretty obviously views him as an ancient elf.

 

 

Not as a fellow ancient elf. Before Trespasser, I took this at its most obvious meaning... that the Dalish were hungry for knowledge of their past and there would be a place for Abelas among some of the Dalish. And this would be true. 

 

And of course you keep ignoring the fact that Solas also says he destroyed his people. 

 

That's the thing - people seem to view this as 100% annihilation, when he says "destroy" - but we do know that's not the case. The fact that he destroyed Elvenhan doesn't yet mean he destroyed absolutely everything (or that him saying that he'll destroy the world will annihilate absolutely everything) - now, I personally don't think he just wants to restore a bunch of ancient elves to former glory, so the entire "he just wants to destroy the world for a selected few from his time" is kinda moot here, but those are two separate things. Solas may want to do something for the elves + restore all the people's connection to the Fade AND ancient elves may yet be relatively numerous. He does say his people yet linger. We do know that aside from Abelas, there was Felassan and he admits that there's more people like him. And we hear of strange elves that seem to inhabit Tirashan - which also happens to be one of the largest forests in entire Thedas.

[midnight tea]

Yes, I am so tired of hearing people say Solas is the true antagonist of DAI, and that the reveal at the very end (and Trespasser) make up for the tepid base game main plot. No...he is not the antagonist, he is set up as DA4's antagonist but in this game he isn't acting against the Inquisition. This game should focus on religion and faith, opposing Corypheus, and bringing order to Southern Thedas. It should not be an extremely long introduction to the next game in the series.

 

Actually, Solas IS likely the main antagonist of DAI and its sequel - you know why I say so? Well, aside from all the story, there was a relatively recent interview with David Gaider in which she revealed that DAI was supposed to be twice as long... only they didn't cut the story from it - they saved it for the next installment

 

Link to the interview (around 4:45 mark):

Spoiler

 

So there you go.

 

Also - I'm not really sure where's the contradiction between DAI being more complex than just one, separate installment of the series (especially that all installments are pretty intrinsically connected, story-wise) and being all about things you mentioned - in fact, it WAS about the things you mentioned: faith, religion, opposing the force that effectively South united against and, most importantly, the building of the Inquisition.

 

In fact, given that Inquisitor is being pegged as Solas' counter-balance and counter-part, (venerated, half-mystical leaders whose name inspires their friends and scares their enemies, bound by faith of their followers to protect them - both bloodied and hardened by previous battles) they needed time to establish themselves as ones.

 

Truly, DAI wasn't really about defeating Cory, but about the rise of the Inquisition. Given that it's now the force that is going to oppose Solas' own forces and whatever else they're going to throw at us, the installment when we build it a force to be reckoned with was needed.

 

 

 

 

People need to view DAI as a stand alone game rather than a prequel to Solas' story in the next game. We shouldn't have to be okay with Cory's lackluster presence because he's not really the antagonist to the story. The trouble the game has is that its original plot was dissected once the Exalted Marches DLC was cancelled and its plot was pushed into DAI. So Bioware made an incomplete story in this game and thinks it's okay that the first half of the story is lukewarm since it won't be resolved until the next game, anyway.

 

DAI isn't a standalone game - none of DA installments is, though it seems to be especially apparent for this one. We're not done with Inquisition, and we're not done with Inquisitor yet - the resolution to the story of Solas will necessarily need involvement of previous protagonist in larger extent than that of Hawke's.

 

And personally I can't find a fault with that - I may be slightly ticked that I'm going to wait for the resolution of many arcs in another game, just because I'm not the most patient person; on the other I'm pretty happy to see a continuation, because it likely means a more complex story.

 

The problem with standalones, even in a series, is that they present a story that has to be pretty self-contained, so there's only so much they can cram there, while they have to deal with leaving enough space with introduction and then resolution. DA series isn't necessarily bound by such restrictions, hence - since we've already established many things - the story itself can be expanded more, and so do many characters.

 

 

As for Cory being more of a red herring than an antagonist... LOL, so? I can't actually help but to love Bioware for the hilarious ironic twist they introduced - that Cory was a pretty standard villain (he's slightly more complex than that, but his backstory wasn't necessarily well implemented into the game), but he actually SAVED the world from Solas' initial plans by the virtue of being really hard to kill.

 

...An insane ancient magister darkspawn actually saved us from an initial plan of a more complex, yet possibly redeemable antagonist and THEN he was an unwitting catalyst for the rise of the unified South and Inquisition with it, as well as its leader - who may yet be a hero... or an antagonist later, given that we haven't yet got an opportunity to answer the question whether Inquisitor will save the world or destroy it.

 

I can't help but to enjoy such humorous twists. Call Cory lackluster or no, but in the larger scope of things his role in the story is a thing of beauty - an unintended savior of the world! I love it

[vbibbi]

Actually, Solas IS likely the main antagonist of DAI and its sequel - you know why I say so? Well, aside from all the story, there was a relatively recent interview with David Gaider in which she revealed that DAI was supposed to be twice as long... only they didn't cut the story from it - they saved it for the next installment

 

Link to the interview:

Spoiler

 

So there you go.

 

Truly, DAI wasn't really about defeating Cory, but about the rise of the Inquisition. Given that it's now the fore that is going to oppose Solas' own forces and whatever else they're going to throw at us, the installment when we build it a force to be reckoned with was needed.

 

 

DAI isn't a standalone game - none of DA installments is, though it seems to be especially apparent for this one. We're not done with Inquisition, and we're not done with Inquisitor yet - the resolution to the story of Solas will necessarily need involvement of previous protagonist in larger extent than that of Hawke's.

 

I have a feeling this is going to come to nothing but...

 

The key phrase in David Gaider's statement is DAI was supposed to be twice as long. It's not. If they stick to the original story and continue it on to DA4, that doesn't mean the story in DAI is part 1 of 2. It's the story of the Inquisition, its rise and fall. Solas is not an antagonist to this story; in fact he is a great ally, if not for the reasons we assume at the time. Russia was not the antagonist of the Allies in WW2, but it sure wasn't our friend during the Cold War.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it has enough power to stop Solas on its own. It's either a shell of its former self in a shadow organization or it's a proxy for the Divine. It is not in a position to stop Solas, but to recruit others to stop him.

 

And yes, DAI is a standalone game. The ME trilogy was a series of games. The DA games are a series of individual stories told in the same setting with a lot of crossover elements. The ME series had the overall story of stopping the Reapers. The DA series doesn't have an overall story. Each game builds on the previous one but is not a direct sequel to the previous story (problematic as that can be sometimes).

[midnight tea]

I have a feeling this is going to come to nothing but...

 

The key phrase in David Gaider's statement is DAI was supposed to be twice as long. It's not. 

 

... Did you actually listen to the interview?

Because I think you missed "The amount of round we were going to cover with the story was twice as long - and the rest of that plot arc still exists. It's now in Patrick Weekes' hands".

 

Pretty straightforward, that.

 

 

If they stick to the original story and continue it on to DA4, that doesn't mean the story in DAI is part 1 of 2. It's the story of the Inquisition, its rise and fall. Solas is not an antagonist to this story; in fact he is a great ally, if not for the reasons we assume at the time. Russia was not the antagonist of the Allies in WW2, but it sure wasn't our friend during the Cold War.

 

The story doesn't have to be clearly marked 1 and 2 to be a continuation - and even if Gaider didn't reveal that DA4 more or less will contain the rest of the arc planned for Inquisition (as an organization, not necessarily DA3), Trespasser is pretty straightforward about that.

 

Also - I think your way of thinking about the story and characters is somewhat simplistic: a character doesn't have to be clearly denoted as antagonist to actually be one, nor the story suffers if it reveals who was really pulling the strings at the end of the first arc.

 

And Solas arc in Inquisition isn't that of an ally, but of a hidden antagonist - the one who 'started it all', in more than one way - but who, through his experience with the Inquisition, has a chance to become deeply morally conflicted about his own goals. The story of Inquisition then - in some part at least - is therefore a story of 'taming of the wolf', as well as building a unique relationship between the hero and his future enemy/conflict bringer (more meaningful if it's friendship or romance, but having its impact and possibly different results on disapproval path as well).

 

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it has enough power to stop Solas on its own. It's either a shell of its former self in a shadow organization or it's a proxy for the Divine. It is not in a position to stop Solas, but to recruit others to stop him.

 

A. nobody said that we'd be going against Solas in a way we went against Corypheus, that with the building an army and connections that help us build to stop forces Cory has accumulated, especially given that it is implied that Fen'Harel prefers to strike and work from shadows and that the Inquisition itself - or at least the core of it - is taking a more secretive route itself,

 

B. whether they recruit others or not, they'd be still the ones who do it. Solas may know old Inquisition inside-out, but so far the Inquisitor and Inquisition are pretty much the only ones who have absolutely any idea about him, or his plans or how he works. Unlike the Wardens in DAO or Hawke in DAII, during the campaign against Cory Inquisition became a force to be reckoned with on pretty much global scale - they've accumulated enough resources and connection with both nobles and nations to be a powerful organization even after disbanding/being absorbed into the Chantry; they've had funds, connections and manpower to scour the ruins in search of ancient artifacts and knowledge and uncovered secrets that put Thedas and people's understanding of history on its head three times over.

 

Even as a smaller force they're still the only significant power left standing that we know of that is capable of a difficult task of tracking and stopping Solas - especially with the South and the Chantry focused on rebuilding themselves, Wardens being decimated and embroiled in internal conflict that threatens to destroy them and Tevinter being at the cusp of social revolution, as well as full-fledged invasion of the Qunari.

Honestly, aside from some secretive organizations that may or may not be introduced (the Executors?) and likely have their own, separate agenda, who else is there other than the Inquisition?

 

 

 

And yes, DAI is a standalone game. The ME trilogy was a series of games. The DA games are a series of individual stories told in the same setting with a lot of crossover elements. The ME series had the overall story of stopping the Reapers. The DA series doesn't have an overall story. Each game builds on the previous one but is not a direct sequel to the previous story (problematic as that can be sometimes).

 

If DA - and especially DAI - would be a series of individual stories, Trespasser would be a completely different DLC, nor the last words of Morrigan during epilogue for the base game would be "the Inquisition shall stand ready".

 

And yes - the DA has an overall story - in fact it has been put at the forefront in DAI, specifically. Why do you think we had all that buildup leading to the reveal of of ancient beings that shaped the world? Why do you think they revealed at least two ancient elvhen entities that at some time were considered gods - and one of them being directly responsible for the creation of the Veil? Why do you think Flemeth calls Inquisitor "Harbinger Of The New Age"?

 

The story itself is clearly crystallizing - couple that with many devs' mentions about DAI being "a game they wanted to do since DAO" or Mark Darrah saying that DAI is "much more like a new franchise then it was like a sequel to existing franchise" and realize that DAI is something of a soft reboot, with likely a much tighter story centered around specific events and characters going from now on.

 

I mean... you really think it's a coincidence that the new lead writer was previously a writer for ME?

[vbibbi]

... Did you actually listen to the interview?

Because I think you missed "The amount of round we were going to cover with the story was twice as long - and the rest of that plot arc still exists. It's now in Patrick Weekes' hands".

Pretty straightforward, that.


The story doesn't have to be clearly marked 1 and 2 to be a clear continuation - and even if Gaider didn't reveal that DA4 more or less will contain the rest of the arc planned for Inquisition (as an organization, not necessarily DA3), Trespasser is pretty clear about that.

Also - I think your way of thinking about the story and characters is simplistic: a character doesn't have to be clearly denoted as antagonist to actually be one, nor the story suffers if it reveals who was really pulling the strings at the end of the first arc.

And Solas arc in Inquisition isn't that of an ally, but of a hidden antagonist - the one who 'started it all', in more than one way - but who through his experience with Inquisition has a chance to become deeply morally conflicted about his own goals. The story of Inquisition then - in some part at least - is therefore a story of 'taming of the wolf', as well as building a unique relationship between the hero and his future enemy (more meaningful if it's friendship or romance, but having its impact on disapproval path as well).


A. nobody said that we'd be going against Solas in a way we went against Corypheus, that with the building an army and connections that help us build to stop forces Cory has accumulated, especially given that it is implied that Fen'Harel prefers to strike and work from shadows
B. whether they recruit others or not, they'd be still the ones who do it. Solas may know Inquisition inside-out, but so far the Inquisitor and Inquisition are pretty much the only ones who have absolutely any idea about him, or his plans or how he works. During campaign against Cory they've accumulated enough resources to be a powerful organization even after disbanding or being absorbed into the Chantry; they've had funds and manpower to scour the ruins in search of ancient artifacts and knowledge and uncovered secrets that put Thedas and people's understanding of history on its head three times over. Even with a smaller force they're still the only significant power left standing that we know of - that with the South and the Chantry focused on rebuilding themselves, Wardens being deep in its own internal conflict and Tevinter being at the cusp of social revolution, as well as full-fledged invasion of the Qunari.


If DA - and especially DAI - would be a series of individual stories, Trespasser would be a completely different DLC, nor the last words of Morrigan during epilogue for the base game wouldn't be "the Inquisition shall stand ready".

And yes - the DA HAS an overall story - in fact it has been put at the forefront in DAI, specifically. Why do you think we had all that buildup leading to the reveal of of ancient beings that shaped the world? Why do you think they revealed at least two ancient elvhen entities that at some time were considered gods - and one of them being directly responsible for the creation of the Veil? Why do you think Flemeth calls Inquisitor "Harbinger Of The New Age"?

The story itself is clearly crystallizing - couple that with many devs' mentions about DAI being "a game they wanted to do since DAO" or Mark Darrah saying that DAI is "much more like a new franchise then it was like a sequel to existing franchise" and realize that DAI is something of a soft reboot, with likely a much tighter story centered around specific events and characters going from now on.

I mean... you really think it's a coincidence that the new lead writer was previously a writer for ME?

Most of your argument seems to assume you know what will occur in DA4. You don't. I don't. Heck, I'm not sure Bio knows at this point, other than the general story of Tevinter and Solas. I would think that the process of early draft writing is to figure out what content needs to happen in order to achieve the end state Weekes has in mind.

You also seem to be assuming the Inquisitor is going to remain the PC in the next game. There are multiple threads on the boards debating the likelihood of this, and being generous, I think it's a very slim chance of the Inquisitor being the PC again.

Yes, there are hints at what is to come in the DA universe, but as we have seen with each game, comic, book, what have you, the best laid plans never go to plan. We can't know if Weekes will keep Gaider's original story plan for future games, and if he does, why assume the Inquisition will retain its role as previously planned? Hawke had almost no connection to the content we know was kept from Exalted Marches (Temple of Mythal) so why would content pushed into the next game necessarily be performed by the Inquisition? Plus, the content of Exalted Marches was rearranged to fit the new format, so the second half of DAI's story could be just as jumbled with new story elements.

I still disagree with your assessment of Solas as a hidden antagonist in DAI. To be an antagonist, he would need to be working against us, and in the frame of DAI's story he is working with us (to close the Breach and stop Cory). His actions in DAI are about fixing his mistake in giving his orb to Cory, it's his actions in Trespasser going forward that will be antagonistic. If anything, he is a secret ally of convenience, as his reasons for helping are misunderstood until the end. But he shares the same goal in DAI, stopping Cory.

After disbanding or joining the Divine's guard, the Inquisition is not the most powerful remaining organization. If it's disbanded it literally has no power, just a secret information system. If it's with the Divine, it publicly must follow the Chantry, so a majority of its efforts will be put toward that public facade. Plus, it's mostly deported even acting as the honor guard. There are other organizations with more power. Notably, Nevarra's military. But theoretically other groups: the Executirs across the sea, maybe Kal Sharok, Tevinter and Qunadar if they're able to ceasefire.

Flemeth calls us the harbinger just like she hinted at Hawke to leap into the abyss when the time was right; she has cool sound bites that make our PC sound awesome. Same with Morrigans parting line in the epilogue, it's a nice way of saying "more DLC to come, don't trade in the game yet!" Much nicer than ME3's pop up telling us to buy more DLC.

I will say that DA has an overall theme of uncovering ancient history and learning about the world, but that is not an overarching storyline. ME had the Reapers in every game, whether uncovering them in the first, "preparing" for them in the second, and fighting them in the third. DA has us learning about the world and its history, but we don't make an historical discovery in DAO that leads to a discovery in the next games. It was designed to be a single game if it didn't perform well, so it just introduced us to Thedas. ME was always planned as a trilogy.

For Weekes becoming lead writer, I would assume that's because he was already working for Bioware as a writer, proved good at the writing he did, and could manage a team. He wasn't lead writer in ME was he? Why would him becoming lead writer mean that DA is now going to follow ME's formula?

Finally, I've never heard Darrah's quote before, do you remember where you heard it? I'm not really surprised by it, but that is such a polarizing quote that I'm surprised the boards haven't launched onto it for analysis. If that is his attitude toward DAI then I have one more reason not to appreciate Bioware. The third game in a series is a call for a soft reboot? Screw you Darrah, I liked the direction DAO went and enjoyed DA2 more than DAI. How about instead of trying to reinvent each game, build on the strengths of each previous installment? I don't have much hope for DA4 if it's going to follow in this soft reboot of the series.

[midnight tea]

Most of your argument seems to assume you know what will occur in DA4. You don't. I don't. Heck, I'm not sure Bio knows at this point, other than the general story of Tevinter and Solas. I would think that the process of early draft writing is to figure out what content needs to happen in order to achieve the end state Weekes has in mind.

 

Most of my arguments assume what will happen in DA4 based on story and comments or hints of the devs - it's not just some idle talk based on nothing.

 

You also seem to be assuming the Inquisitor is going to remain the PC in the next game. There are multiple threads on the boards debating the likelihood of this, and being generous, I think it's a very slim chance of the Inquisitor being the PC again.

 

Please show me a single sentence in my previous comment that suggests that I think that Inquisitor will definitely be a PC. I said no such thing. The Inquisitor will return in some capacity - that in itself is rather safe to assume - but if they're going to be a PC, secondary PC or an NPC like Hawke, or else is yet to be seen.

 

 

Yes, there are hints at what is to come in the DA universe, but as we have seen with each game, comic, book, what have you, the best laid plans never go to plan. We can't know if Weekes will keep Gaider's original story plan for future games, and if he does, why assume the Inquisition will retain its role as previously planned? Hawke had almost no connection to the content we know was kept from Exalted Marches (Temple of Mythal) so why would content pushed into the next game necessarily be performed by the Inquisition? Plus, the content of Exalted Marches was rearranged to fit the new format, so the second half of DAI's story could be just as jumbled with new story elements.

 

Considering that neither Gaider nor Weekes have full control over story - that it is a collective effort that has to be approved by higher-ups - what makes you think that they can just change the story on a whim?

 

If Gaider wasn't certain that at least the general direction where things are going, would he be revealing that in an interview - especially given how careful Bioware is lately with revealing anything?

 

It's true that the story may yet change significantly, given that not everything in development stage would go as planned, for whatever reason - but based on many things either in story or game performance or Bioware employees say, we can make an educated guess that can hold until more information is revealed.

 

Also - did DAII or Hawke ever get an epilogue as Trespasser? Did his relationship with Corypheus ever reached a complexity of that between Inquisitor and Solas (even on disapproval path)? No - yet they still brought Hawke to be an essential element on critical path in thwarting Cory's plans - so what makes you assume that they won't bring Inquisitor, especially that both Trespasser and DLC tiles for it clearly state that it's Inquisitor who would be doing the redeeming or killing of Solas.

 

 

I still disagree with your assessment of Solas as a hidden antagonist in DAI. To be an antagonist, he would need to be working against us, and in the frame of DAI's story he is working with us (to close the Breach and stop Cory). His actions in DAI are about fixing his mistake in giving his orb to Cory, it's his actions in Trespasser going forward that will be antagonistic. If anything, he is a secret ally of convenience, as his reasons for helping are misunderstood until the end. But he shares the same goal in DAI, stopping Cory.

 

I'm not really sure why you're insistent that the roles like protagonist or antagonist or ally should be something simple and easy to differentiate between? ...Why?

 

Solas is working with the Inquisition, because Corypheus plans have thrown his into chaos - don't forget that if Cory didn't survive, he'd have obtained the orb and went with his plan and destroyed the world already. So he has to remove an obstacle, hence he works trough means that help him accomplish his goal; he has his moments of realization, wavering, likely times when he reconsidered his plans or tried to alter them, but at the end of Inquisition he doesn't change his course. The obstacle is gone, which pushes him back to the role of antagonist. It's not really that hard to follow.

 

 

After disbanding or joining the Divine's guard, the Inquisition is not the most powerful remaining organization. If it's disbanded it literally has no power, just a secret information system. If it's with the Divine, it publicly must follow the Chantry, so a majority of its efforts will be put toward that public facade. Plus, it's mostly deported even acting as the honor guard. There are other organizations with more power. Notably, Nevarra's military. But theoretically other groups: the Executirs across the sea, maybe Kal Sharok, Tevinter and Qunadar if they're able to ceasefire.

 

If your argumentation has to rely on an argument that majority of efforts of the Inquisition would have to put on public facade (despite Leliana claiming that - if they become the peacekeeping organization - 'they have a force to respond' is that happens, and that 'they've got what they need' if they're disbanded) or that Nevarran Military - despite not knowing anything about its foe - can do anything, then really my assessment that Inquisition is so far our best bet isn't in any danger.

 

You also didn't address my point about us not necessarily fighting Solas the way we did Corypheus - with an army of significant size. It's specifically the secret information system (that you mention) that will likely play the most important role, and neither Nevarra, Kal-Sharok or Tevinter can realistically have anything that matches what Inquisition managed to build or find out.

The Qunandar HAD their secret Ben-Hassarath division that collected enough information about Fen'Harel and eluvians, but given that it was wiped by no one else but Inquisitor/Solas in Trespasser, their only lyrium source destroyed, the information they've collected likely absorbed into Inquisition and with their actions officially disavowed by Qunandar the likelihood of them having anything in store against Solas is highly unlikely.

 

Really, the only thing we have left are the Executors - and we don't know anything about them, other than they don't mean Inquisition harm so long as Corypheus is a threat. That itself suggests that they have their own agenda, which may be more aligned with that of Solas than that of Inquisition's.

 

So, again, only Inquisition remains so far. Even better - it's a force that is already well-established in the story. No need to waste time to build or introduce a force all over again in DA4, when we have a perfectly legible and knowledgeable organization, with a leader that knows the current threat better than pretty much anyone, already developed and ready to kick all kinds of butts.

 

 

Flemeth calls us the harbinger just like she hinted at Hawke to leap into the abyss when the time was right; she has cool sound bites that make our PC sound awesome. Same with Morrigans parting line in the epilogue, it's a nice way of saying "more DLC to come, don't trade in the game yet!" Much nicer than ME3's pop up telling us to buy more DLC.

 

Yes, and DLCs came - including a proper epilogue - only to reveal that neither Inquisition, nor Inquisitor is going nowhere and they're no working to either stop or save Solas from himself. Neither DAO nor DAII had anything like it.

 

And actually, Flemeth telling Hawke to jump into the abyss... is pretty much literally what happened in DAI, in Adamant, lol. If a "cool quote" evidently materialized itself in some form in the next games, it only speaks volumes of how seriously we should take "cool sound bites" from Flemeth.

 

 

I will say that DA has an overall theme of uncovering ancient history and learning about the world, but that is not an overarching storyline. ME had the Reapers in every game, whether uncovering them in the first, "preparing" for them in the second, and fighting them in the third. DA has us learning about the world and its history, but we don't make an historical discovery in DAO that leads to a discovery in the next games. It was designed to be a single game if it didn't perform well, so it just introduced us to Thedas. ME was always planned as a trilogy.

 

ME has Reapers in every game, and DA has the Blight in every game (and dragons, of course) - in one form of another (what do you think Red Lyrium is infected with? And who did Hawke released from his ancient prison?). I mean, aside from all the hints and prophesies that have suggested existence of impending overarching plot and ever since DAO; and DAO existed predominantly to introduce people to the basic setting and dynamics of the world of Thedas.

Also - DA as a series is evidently planned to be a much longer story than trilogy, so they take their time to introduce the lore and the world at a slower pace. It is, by the nature of how it's constructed story-wise, a much more complex endeavor, since we're not following a single protagonist over the course of all games (and books. And comics. And other mediums) over a longer period of time. It IS however a universe with a larger story that is being uncovered at increasing pace throughout the existing installments.

 

I mean, the eventual appearance of Fen'Harel has been hinted at since the beginning - so was the importance of characters such as Flemeth, the threat of the Blight, the secrets hidden in forgotten history of Elvenhan and Deep Roads, the importance of Dragons or the prophecies of impending change and coming of a new age. Really, at this point it's really not hard to notice that the story coalesces itself into something grand, with story bits falling into place like pieces of a puzzle.

 

 

For Weekes becoming lead writer, I would assume that's because he was already working for Bioware as a writer, proved good at the writing he did, and could manage a team. He wasn't lead writer in ME was he? Why would him becoming lead writer mean that DA is now going to follow ME's formula?

 

Lol, because he's very familiar with ME formula, of course. Now, I'm not saying that Mr. Weekes became lead writer for DA only because he worked on ME, but it's likely a fact that wasn't overlooked. He may have not been a lead writer in ME, but from what I know he was pretty instrumental in it, with many of his characters and written bits being generally liked and praised.

 

 

Finally, I've never heard Darrah's quote before, do you remember where you heard it? I'm not really surprised by it, but that is such a polarizing quote that I'm surprised the boards haven't launched onto it for analysis. If that is his attitude toward DAI then I have one more reason not to appreciate Bioware. The third game in a series is a call for a soft reboot? Screw you Darrah, I liked the direction DAO went and enjoyed DA2 more than DAI. How about instead of trying to reinvent each game, build on the strengths of each previous installment? I don't have much hope for DA4 if it's going to follow in this soft reboot of the series.

 

It's from a video on official Bioware channel in fact, pretty close at the beginning of it.

Spoiler

 

Anyway... everyone has their own preferences, and if you don't like the course the franchise takes, or may take, you're entitled to feel the way you do. Personally I can't help but to look forward to see what they're going to do with DA4 - I like it that the franchise has apparently found a stronger sense of identity after what seemed a period that produced interesting results, but oftentimes felt as if they were still searching for what the series is really about. What it will result as in DA4 we're yet to see, but, like I said, I'm looking forward to it, with something of a careful optimism.

[Korva]

Actually, Solas IS likely the main antagonist of DAI and its sequel

 

The sequel maybe, but not Inquisition. In the self-contained Inquisition story, he makes some initial contributions, hijacks the ending if you can be bothered to watch the whole credits, but can otherwise be completely ignored.

 

... granted, most of Bioware's actual antagonists sadly aren't actually very relevant to or active in their stories either, but that is beside the point.

 

DAI isn't a standalone game - none of DA installments is

 

True, but that does not change the fact that each game needs to be a working self-contained story first and foremost, with none of its elements and characters being mere smokescreens for some all-important metaplot. Sadly, Inquisition makes that mistake. The (supposed) main story themes lack cohesion, depth, writer enthusiasm, true player involvement and meaningful resolution. The (supposed) main character isn't really a character but a cipher, though that is true for most Bioware games: the focus has always been on the NPCs.

 

If all those story elements and characters had been given proper, enthusiastic, in-depth treatment, if Trespasser hadn't deliberately and completely invalidated the main game's accomplishments in my eyes, I'd be less fed up with the series and its "real story" ... because it wouldn't be the "real story" but rather one of many, all given equal thorough treatment. As it is, I'm pretty done with Dragon Age, and utterly sick of Solas-this, Solas-that, Solas-everything. The whole world does not revolve around him. Inquisition, its themes and characters including its player character, deserved better than to just exist as half-arsed rushjob bait-and-switch backdrops for getting players to like him. And again: I genuinely, for the most part and despite his flaws, did like the Solas I thought I'd gotten to know in Inquisition. Not everyone who dislikes him now blindly hated everything about him from the start.

 

It's a bit like wanting to sit down with a nice, solid nature documentary and being shown some gushy "romcom" instead. If the labels on the box had been honest, I wouldn't have touched the whole thing to begin with because it 1) doesn't interest me in any way and 2) hits several really wrong buttons with me.

[vbibbi]

 

Please show me a single sentence in my previous comment that suggests that I think that Inquisitor will definitely be a PC. I said no such thing. The Inquisitor will return in some capacity - that in itself is rather safe to assume - but if they're going to be a PC, secondary PC or an NPC like Hawke, or else is yet to be seen.

I am referring to this: "The story of Inquisition then - in some part at least - is therefore a story of 'taming of the wolf', as well as building a unique relationship between the hero and his future enemy/conflict bringer (more meaningful if it's friendship or romance, but having its impact and possibly different results on disapproval path as well)."

If the first part of this divided story, as you're saying, is about building up the relationship between protagonist and antagonist, the second part of the story would then have to keep the same protagonist, otherwise that build up that you reference is wasted. Granted, this spins into a separate issue of whether or not the Inquisitor should return as PC, and there are other threads discussing that.

 

Considering that neither Gaider nor Weekes have full control over story - that it is a collective effort that has to be approved by higher-ups - what makes you think that they can just change the story on a whim?

 

If Gaider wasn't certain that at least the general direction where things are going, would he be revealing that in an interview - especially given how careful Bioware is lately with revealing anything?

 

It's true that the story may yet change significantly, given that not everything in development stage would go as planned, for whatever reason - but based on many things either in story or game performance or Bioware employees say, we can make an educated guess that can hold until more information is revealed.

 

Also - did DAII or Hawke ever get an epilogue as Trespasser? Did his relationship with Corypheus ever reached a complexity of that between Inquisitor and Solas (even on disapproval path)? No - yet they still brought Hawke to be an essential element on critical path in thwarting Cory's plans - so what makes you assume that they won't bring Inquisitor, especially that both Trespasser and DLC tiles for it clearly state that it's Inquisitor who would be doing the redeeming or killing of Solas.

True, it's not as simple as saying the Lead Writer has carte blanche on all plot details, but I think that the cancelled Exalted March demonstrates that there are many factors in story pacing when a game series is not as defined as a trilogy/direct sequel. I wasn't saying that Corypheus was definitely going to be in Exalted Marches; as far as I know, the only thing we know was going to be in the DLC was the Temple of Mythal, and that is more about revelations about the Enuvaris and eluvians than Corypheus. It's likely that he was involved, but we can't assume that.

 

I agree that the Inquisitor should return in some form, most likely similar to Hawke in DAI. I would hope that they're implemented better, though, since as you say, they brought back Hawke to help against Cory, and then s/he abruptly left after the Fade for no reason. But I'm using the DLC as an example that when there are significant changes to the narrative structure, there's no guarantee that future games will resemble their original concepts.

 

 

I'm not really sure why you're insistent that the roles like protagonist or antagonist or ally should be something simple and easy to differentiate between? ...Why?

 

Solas is working with the Inquisition, because Corypheus plans have thrown his into chaos - don't forget that if Cory didn't survive, he'd have obtained the orb and went with his plan and destroyed the world already. So he has to remove an obstacle, hence he works trough means that help him accomplish his goal; he has his moments of realization, wavering, likely times when he reconsidered his plans or tried to alter them, but at the end of Inquisition he doesn't change his course. The obstacle is gone, which pushes him back to the role of antagonist. It's not really that hard to follow.

 

Because I'm using the commonly accepted terms for protagonist and antagonist, otherwise how are we going to communicate about these larger concepts? I'm really not looking for a discussion of what constitutes an antagonist and what doesn't, it's going to sound snobbish but at this point I don't think video games are complex enough to support an argument of the fluid roles of commonly accepted literary terms.

 

Yes, once the obstacle is gone he does become an antagonist, because now his goals and ours diverge. But up until that point, regardless of motivation, he is acting toward the same goal as we are, he's not sabotaging our work or reporting our movements to the enemy. So he is an ally of convenience.

 

 

If your argumentation has to rely on an argument that majority of efforts of the Inquisition would have to put on public facade (despite Leliana claiming that - if they become the peacekeeping organization - 'they have a force to respond' is that happens, and that 'they've got what they need' if they're disbanded) or that Nevarran Military - despite not knowing anything about its foe - can do anything, then really my assessment that Inquisition is so far our best bet isn't in any danger.

 

You also didn't address my point about us not necessarily fighting Solas the way we did Corypheus - with an army of significant size. It's specifically the secret information system (that you mention) that will likely play the most important role, and neither Nevarra, Kal-Sharok or Tevinter can realistically have anything that matches what Inquisition managed to build or find out.

The Qunandar HAD their secret Ben-Hassarath division that collected enough information about Fen'Harel and eluvians, but given that it was wiped by no one else but Inquisitor/Solas in Trespasser, their only lyrium source destroyed, the information they've collected likely absorbed into Inquisition and with their actions officially disavowed by Qunandar the likelihood of them having anything in store against Solas is highly unlikely.

 

Really, the only thing we have left are the Executors - and we don't know anything about them, other than they don't mean Inquisition harm so long as Corypheus is a threat. That itself suggests that they have their own agenda, which may be more aligned with that of Solas than that of Inquisition's.

 

So, again, only Inquisition remains so far. Even better - it's a force that is already well-established in the story. No need to waste time to build or introduce a force all over again in DA4, when we have a perfectly legible and knowledgeable organization, with a leader that knows the current threat better than pretty much anyone, already developed and ready to kick all kinds of butts.

 

I'm arguing your point that "Even as a smaller force they're still the only significant power left standing that we know of that is capable of a difficult task of tracking and stopping Solas - especially with the South and the Chantry focused on rebuilding themselves, Wardens being decimated and embroiled in internal conflict that threatens to destroy them and Tevinter being at the cusp of social revolution, as well as full-fledged invasion of the Qunari."

 

I am arguing that they don't have the power to stop Solas, only to try and track him down and recruit others to stop him. Either version of the Inquisition after Trespasser is massively depowered (not deported as in my previous post), so they don't have any bite to back up their bark. They are the only ones who know about the threat Solas poses, yes, but they will need to bring in allies to help stop him. I know I shouldn't assume the plot of DA4 after saying none of us knows what will occur, but a possible plot point in the next game would be to have the Inquisition try and stop the war between Tevinter and the Qunari because they need them to instead focus on stopping Solas. The Inquisition is the brains behind stopping Solas, but they aren't in a position to be the brawn.

 

And I like Leliana, but I am going to be highly skeptical of any power phrases (or sound bytes) at the end of a Bioware game. History has shown that they like making things seem more important, urgent, or relevant to the current game than they really will be in the next installment. The DAO epilogue slides? Retconned. Leliana and Cassandra at the end of DA2? Ignored them looking for the Warden, Hawke ended up just on the run, not mysteriously involved in some scheme. ME1 alerting the Council to the Reapers? Retconned so that they no longer believe the threat in ME2. Shepard preparing for the Reapers after the Suicide Mission? Retconned so that s/he willingly waits in a jail cell for months instead of trying to bring together forces to stop the threat.

 

So anything said by Morrigan in the original ending slides, Leliana at the end of Trespasser, Flemeth in her mystic sound bytes, I'm not taking too seriously. Even if Bio does intend of following up on what they talk about, there's always going to be changes in the plan as we've already discussed, so they could change their minds. This is why they have to be as vague as possible in these statements, so that if things change they don't have a blatant contradiction on their hands but can interpret the vague phrase as they need.

 

And I think Bio would want to build up a new force in DA4 to stop Solas. If they want to continue to bring in new players to the games, they will not want to have too much baggage from previous games to confuse them. Having a clean break from Southern Thedas seems like Bio's method of wrapping up as much as possible from the old games and having a good entry point to new gamers. Plus, if we have to start over at level one in each game, it makes more sense for the PC to build up to power rather than be handed power from the previous protagonist.

 

 

 

ME has Reapers in every game, and DA has the Blight in every game (and dragons, of course) - in one form of another (what do you think Red Lyrium is infected with? And who did Hawke released from his ancient prison?). I mean, aside from all the hints and prophesies that have suggested existence of impending overarching plot and ever since DAO; and DAO existed predominantly to introduce people to the basic setting and dynamics of the world of Thedas.

Also - DA as a series is evidently planned to be a much longer story than trilogy, so they take their time to introduce the lore and the world at a slower pace. It is, by the nature of how it's constructed story-wise, a much more complex endeavor, since we're not following a single protagonist over the course of all games (and books. And comics. And other mediums) over a longer period of time. It IS however a universe with a larger story that is being uncovered at increasing pace throughout the existing installments.

 

I mean, the eventual appearance of Fen'Harel has been hinted at since the beginning - so was the importance of characters such as Flemeth, the threat of the Blight, the secrets hidden in forgotten history of Elvenhan and Deep Roads, the importance of Dragons or the prophecies of impending change and coming of a new age. Really, at this point it's really not hard to notice that the story coalesces itself into something grand, with story bits falling into place like pieces of a puzzle.

I think we're just going to have different ideas of story structure and series versus connected worlds. DAO is about stopping the Blight. DA2 is about rising to power in Kirkwall. DAI is about closing the Breach and stopping Corypheus. Presumably DA4 will be about stopping Solas. Yes, these have elements which bleed from one game into the next, and certain events couldn't happen in subsequent games without the previous game taking place. But a series is going to be more like:

 

The Warden stops the Blight. Then they discover that the Architect had a chunk of red lyrium which he used to try to Awaken the dragon, and investigates that. The investigations lead to Kirkwall where the Warden finds out that her tyrannic regime against the Circle came about from her discovery of the ancient thaig. But before the Warden can investigate further, Meredith's annulment of the Circle leads to the mage-templar war. This leads to the Conclave and the Breach, and the Warden has to investigate that before anyone will be willing to help find out more about red lyrium (plus what's going on with the Orlesian Wardens?) etc etc etc

 

The overarching themes between the games are the characters and the setting. They are related but it's not one story, it's multiple stories that intersect.

 

Let's say for argument's sake that the five DA games they had initially planned for culminate with Solas taking down the Veil or the return of the Enuvaris or Old Gods or something. After playing the final game, would you then say that DAO was about stopping Solas? Or DA2? No, those were about completely different things. But after ME3, I would say that ME1 was about stopping the Reapers, just in the very initial stages of that conflict.

 

 

 

It's from a video on official Bioware channel in fact, pretty close at the beginning of it.

Spoiler

 

Anyway... everyone has their own preferences, and if you don't like the course the franchise takes, or may take, you're entitled to feel the way you do. Personally I can't help but to look forward to see what they're going to do with DA4 - I like it that the franchise has apparently found a stronger sense of identity after what seemed a period that produced interesting results, but oftentimes felt as if they were still searching for what the series is really about. What it will result as in DA4 we're yet to see, but, like I said, I'm looking forward to it, with something of a careful optimism.

 

Okay thank you for sharing the link. That is still upsetting to me, that the executive producer is viewing the third game in a franchise to be a reboot, that is was necessary to reboot after two games. We can't know more until DA4 comes out, or at least we have more information on it, but I would not be surprised if it is wildly different from DAI just as the other two games were wildly different. PR speak doesn't always come out as "truth" so hopefully they won't take DAI as the template for future games in this reboot.

[vbibbi]

True, but that does not change the fact that each game needs to be a working self-contained story first and foremost, with none of its elements and characters being mere smokescreens for some all-important metaplot. Sadly, Inquisition makes that mistake. The (supposed) main story themes lack cohesion, depth, writer enthusiasm, true player involvement and meaningful resolution. The (supposed) main character isn't really a character but a cipher, though that is true for most Bioware games: the focus has always been on the NPCs.

 

If all those story elements and characters had been given proper, enthusiastic, in-depth treatment, if Trespasser hadn't deliberately and completely invalidated the main game's accomplishments in my eyes, I'd be less fed up with the series and its "real story" ... because it wouldn't be the "real story" but rather one of many, all given equal thorough treatment. As it is, I'm pretty done with Dragon Age, and utterly sick of Solas-this, Solas-that, Solas-everything. The whole world does not revolve around him. Inquisition, its themes and characters including its player character, deserved better than to just exist as half-arsed rushjob bait-and-switch backdrops for getting players to like him. And again: I genuinely, for the most part and despite his flaws, did like the Solas I thought I'd gotten to know in Inquisition. Not everyone who dislikes him now blindly hated everything about him from the start.

 

Yeah you raise a good point. DAI shows why it's not good to rely too strongly on other source material within the game, and Bio should be careful about making sure each game is self contained and self reliant.

 

If I hadn't read TME, WEWH would have made no impact on me at all and I would have no context on the key players or why one is better than another to rule Orlais.

 

Cole is decent as is, but his references to Rhys and Evangeline and the war table missions are oddly specific yet lacking for anyone who hadn't read Asunder.

 

There's also the issue of what a waste Michel and Imshael and that grumpy Dalish elf in the Hinterlands are, and Briala's eluvian network, and the lack of focus or detail on the Orlesian Civil War. The writers seemed to think that they're covered enough in their books that they don't need to flesh them out in the game.

 

I would not be surprised if Corypheus had as little screentime and character development as he did because the writers were relying on his appearance in Legacy to provide most of his characterization.

[Aren]

What's the difference between an ancient elf and a dalish elf 

Physically speaking?

[vbibbi]

 

What's the difference between an ancient elf and a dalish elf 

Physically speaking?

 

Ancient elves have more ear hair.

[Almostfaceman]

 

 

The very existence of Abelas and the Sentinels means that there *are* ancient elves still alive to restore. Even if the Sentinels were the last ancient elf population in existence (which they likely aren't b/c Solas tells Abelas to go find some more.), they exist.

 

 

Abelas has made it clear that the Dalish are not his people, and he's very clearly insulted by the claim if you say it as a Dalish. But he is fine with Solas saying his "people yet linger". He's not insulted in the least. He also verbally clarifies with Solas that the people who "yet linger" are Elvhen like Solas. Solas is an ancient elf. Abelas' lack of indignation and his verbal confirmation that the people who "yet linger" are like Solas means that the people who "yet linger" are ancient elves.

 

 

If modern elves are going to be restored and become Solas' people, then they can't be slated to die in the chaos that results when the Veil comes down. But Solas tells a Dalish inquisitor that all their friends and everyone they've ever known are going to die. The Inquisitor must know at least some modern elves and is very likely to consider several to be friends. Those modern elves, therefore, are going to die. Thus, it can't be true that modern elves are going to be restored and become Solas' people.

 

Solas doesn't ignore anyone, though; from Dalish hunters to rebellious Qunari bakers. His interest in someone doesn't make them his People. Or even people at all, unfortunately. Though at least he changes his mind about that last bit if you befriend him.

 

 

 

The very existence of Abelas only proves that the elves in the Temple of Mythal exist. It's a very specialized circumstance. Anything else is wishful thinking on your part. 

 

Abelas has absolutely no way of knowing Solas is anything other than a modern elf. Your assumptions to the contrary are just those, assumptions. Solas and Sera both have the pointy ears and no tats on their faces. 

 

The rest (and more) I address here. 

[X Equestris]

What's the difference between an ancient elf and a dalish elf 
Physically speaking?

The ancient elves are taller and more muscular. Not sure they have any hair. I don't think we've ever seen one with hair, but they usually wear hoods, so it's hard to be sure. And presumably, if the Veil were wiped away, they would all be immortal and have access to magic again.

[X Equestris]

The very existence of Abelas only proves that the elves in the Temple of Mythal exist. It's a very specialized circumstance. Anything else is wishful thinking on your part. 
 
Abelas has absolutely no way of knowing Solas is anything other than a modern elf. Your assumptions to the contrary are just those, assumptions. Solas and Sera both have the pointy ears and no tats on their faces. 
 
The rest (and more) I address here.

Modern elves have a different look about them than the ancient ones. Abelas could probably tell the difference. Further, we have epilogues from Trespasser talking about strange elves stirring. And Felassan came from somewhere. I think it's safe to say that there are other populations of ancient elves.

[Medhia_Nox]

Yeah you raise a good point. DAI shows why it's not good to rely too strongly on other source material within the game, and Bio should be careful about making sure each game is self contained and self reliant.

 

If I hadn't read TME, WEWH would have made no impact on me at all and I would have no context on the key players or why one is better than another to rule Orlais.

 

Cole is decent as is, but his references to Rhys and Evangeline and the war table missions are oddly specific yet lacking for anyone who hadn't read Asunder.

 

There's also the issue of what a waste Michel and Imshael and that grumpy Dalish elf in the Hinterlands are, and Briala's eluvian network, and the lack of focus or detail on the Orlesian Civil War. The writers seemed to think that they're covered enough in their books that they don't need to flesh them out in the game.

 

I would not be surprised if Corypheus had as little screentime and character development as he did because the writers were relying on his appearance in Legacy to provide most of his characterization.

+1000

 

Seriously, the story must be self-contained.  Adding things like Michel/Ishmael really just felt like they were trying to wipe the slate clean for Mr. Weekes to take over.  

 

Especially with the importance I'm now going to hope Ishmael, Gaxkang, Xebeckek and the Formless One have in beating Solas to a bloody pulp.  

[midnight tea]

I am referring to this: "The story of Inquisition then - in some part at least - is therefore a story of 'taming of the wolf', as well as building a unique relationship between the hero and his future enemy/conflict bringer (more meaningful if it's friendship or romance, but having its impact and possibly different results on disapproval path as well)."

 

If the first part of this divided story, as you're saying, is about building up the relationship between protagonist and antagonist, the second part of the story would then have to keep the same protagonist, otherwise that build up that you reference is wasted. Granted, this spins into a separate issue of whether or not the Inquisitor should return as PC, and there are other threads discussing that.

 

Of course all the buildup is wasted if not used in DA4 - which is exactly the reason to think that Inquisitor is going to return at some capacity to close that arc. That doesn't mean that they have to be at the absolute center of the story to do that; one of the main driving forces of the plot, yes, but it's not that hard to think of ways to do that that doesn't require Inquisitor as the main PC.

 

Just look at TES: Oblivion - it was a story of Martin Septim rising to his destiny of stopping Mehrunes Dagon. He wasn't, however, the PC: PC was there to do the bulk of the job in order to allow Martin Septim to fight the main baddie.

 

Similar thing can be done in DA4 - we're yet to see if and how Bioware will implement that into the story, but it's far from undoable. Especially that they've already expressed interest in games with multiple protagonists, like GTAV or Witcher 3.

 

 

True, it's not as simple as saying the Lead Writer has carte blanche on all plot details, but I think that the cancelled Exalted March demonstrates that there are many factors in story pacing when a game series is not as defined as a trilogy/direct sequel. I wasn't saying that Corypheus was definitely going to be in Exalted Marches; as far as I know, the only thing we know was going to be in the DLC was the Temple of Mythal, and that is more about revelations about the Enuvaris and eluvians than Corypheus. It's likely that he was involved, but we can't assume that.

 

I think most people here know that DAII had a troubled development history - it was a game that was not given enough time to be built (in fact it was initially thought up to just be an expansion for DAO, according to Gaider), hence it wasn't as well received and therefore the DLC was cut.

 

Not much has changed when it comes to overarching story - especially given more than a few clues that suggest that it was Hawke that was pegged to take the mantle of Inquisitor in DAIII. The details of the story changed in development then, but not the direction the overarching plot is going.

 

And given that compared to DAII, DAI was given longer period to be developed (including additional year) and happens to be a critical and apparently financial success, I see no reason why they'd have to drastically change their plans now. It could still happen, sure, but the confidence with which they've delivered Trespasser suggests that so far they're pretty sure they'd be able to make DA4 close enough to whatever they currently have planned for it.

 

Because I'm using the commonly accepted terms for protagonist and antagonist, otherwise how are we going to communicate about these larger concepts? I'm really not looking for a discussion of what constitutes an antagonist and what doesn't, it's going to sound snobbish but at this point I don't think video games are complex enough to support an argument of the fluid roles of commonly accepted literary terms.

 

Well, it seems to me that Bioware thinks otherwise - we shall yet see how this will end, but considering that the epilogue to DAI has offered up a sympathetic antagonist that can yet be redeemed suggests that yes: at this point in the history of the medium - and specifically western RPGs - the games have reached enough of complexity in order to experiment with plot and roles.

 

Heck: just look at Portal 2 and GLADOS. What are you going peg her as? Antagonist? She was certainly that for a time - only to be replaced by something that was our ally of convenience first.

 

 

I am arguing that they don't have the power to stop Solas, only to try and track him down and recruit others to stop him. Either version of the Inquisition after Trespasser is massively depowered (not deported as in my previous post), so they don't have any bite to back up their bark. They are the only ones who know about the threat Solas poses, yes, but they will need to bring in allies to help stop him. I know I shouldn't assume the plot of DA4 after saying none of us knows what will occur, but a possible plot point in the next game would be to have the Inquisition try and stop the war between Tevinter and the Qunari because they need them to instead focus on stopping Solas. The Inquisition is the brains behind stopping Solas, but they aren't in a position to be the brawn.

 

.... And how is that different from what happened in Inquisition? It was the brain that has eventually has accumulated the brawn.

 

Not that I think that it matters now, because we're yet to see whether any significant brawn is needed to stop Solas - IMO, if Inquisition in its former shape and power to strike was needed it would be retained. Plus, so far I see no reason why, even if DA4 will be as direct continuation of DA3 as we can get, to make it Inquisition bis, where we build a new or restructured organization all over again. Continuing with the story doesn't mean that we have to continue it the same way all over again in terms of game-play or the way the plot is shaped: in fact, it provides an opportunity to shift gears and try something new.

 

And so far it seems that it's the brain that matters and that Inquisition has turned from a very visible, direct force into something working largely in secret. And it's logical - the South wouldn't be able to rebuild in peace if it was widely known that the Dread Wolf is coming for everyone and oh, by the way, he's created the Veil and done many things that are usually ascribed to Andrastian Maker. It would push the continent into chaos again; possibly start a religious war or two. That way - with Inquisition as a peacekeping organization or officially disbanded to placate the public - they can at least strengthen oneself to fight any future threat.

 

And I like Leliana, but I am going to be highly skeptical of any power phrases (or sound bytes) at the end of a Bioware game. History has shown that they like making things seem more important, urgent, or relevant to the current game than they really will be in the next installment. The DAO epilogue slides? Retconned. Leliana and Cassandra at the end of DA2? Ignored them looking for the Warden, Hawke ended up just on the run, not mysteriously involved in some scheme. ME1 alerting the Council to the Reapers? Retconned so that they no longer believe the threat in ME2. Shepard preparing for the Reapers after the Suicide Mission? Retconned so that s/he willingly waits in a jail cell for months instead of trying to bring together forces to stop the threat.

 

What I'm talking about doesn't just bases everything on one sound byte - it's the entirety of what was said or presented, especially during Trespasser that gives hint to a possible direction of the future story. 

 

The epilogue in DAO was written in a time when they didn't yet know if they're going to get to make a next game - Gaider himself said that it was problematic. The DAII was hampered by its own tumultuous development history and lukewarm reception - something that didn't happen for DAI. And it seems that they've learned on their mistakes, because if I remember correctly, either Weekes or Laidlaw said that epilogue for Inquisition/Trespasser are written with more of a consideration for what is going to happen in the future. If that will happen, we're yet to see, but I see far less problems with realizing what they want to do with DA4 than they've ever had with any DA title.

 

And I think Bio would want to build up a new force in DA4 to stop Solas. If they want to continue to bring in new players to the games, they will not want to have too much baggage from previous games to confuse them. Having a clean break from Southern Thedas seems like Bio's method of wrapping up as much as possible from the old games and having a good entry point to new gamers. Plus, if we have to start over at level one in each game, it makes more sense for the PC to build up to power rather than be handed power from the previous protagonist.

 

Did bringing the same protagonist and baggage from previous installments do much to dissuade new players from Mass Effect?

 

No, it didn't. So I see no reason why the same shouldn't be for DA, even if they won't ever follow the ME formula exactly.

 

Also - "building up power" doesn't always mean doing the same thing all over again. Why should it? Did any game from DA series followed the same formula? Nope; there are similarities, especially between DAO and DAI, but both still do their own thing. So why assume that DA4 should do the same thing?

Why can't it be turned into, say, something more focused on investigation and pursue, like Witcher 3? Especially that right now the game is truly itching for an installment that fully fleshes out what we've seen uncovered to in DAI - the lost ancient history of Thedas; the secrets of the lyrium and Titans, the origins of the Blight... since we know that all of them are inter-connected and were also pushed too much into the forefront to just be shoved back and ignored.

 

Perhaps now we'd be hoarding more of ancient secrets and powers, rather than a mere force in military terms, considering that ancient secrets and powers is what we're mostly up against now. more so that we're more than likely going to Tevinter now - a country where magical power is not shunned and which sits on ancient secrets and things they've stolen from Elvenhan, as well as a nation that is intrinsically connected to unleashing of the Blight from the Golden City. Heck, it's a country form which DA3 villain hails from.

 

Let's say for argument's sake that the five DA games they had initially planned for culminate with Solas taking down the Veil or the return of the Enuvaris or Old Gods or something. After playing the final game, would you then say that DAO was about stopping Solas? Or DA2? No, those were about completely different things. But after ME3, I would say that ME1 was about stopping the Reapers, just in the very initial stages of that conflict.

 

No, they were not about completely different things - each of the DA protagonist is involved in critical events that so far have ensured Thedas' survival: the Warden stops the Fifth Blight (thanks to direct intervention of Flemeth, btw) > Hawke releases Corypheus > Corypheus messes with Solas' plans and gives rise to Inquisition > Inquisitor saves the world.

 

I'd also like to point out that there IS a threat that is being consistently fleshed out and built up in every game since DAO: the Blight - something I've already mentioned and you seem to have conveniently ignored.

 

Even Solas is terrified of the Blight and the game suggests it's something he has little idea how to deal with (as much as he dislikes the Wardens, he gives them credit for "buying us some time" - us, as in him as well), which in itself suggests that it might be the final threat at the end of the story.

 

 

Okay thank you for sharing the link. That is still upsetting to me, that the executive producer is viewing the third game in a franchise to be a reboot, that is was necessary to reboot after two games. We can't know more until DA4 comes out, or at least we have more information on it, but I would not be surprised if it is wildly different from DAI just as the other two games were wildly different. PR speak doesn't always come out as "truth" so hopefully they won't take DAI as the template for future games in this reboot.

 

Well, Mike Laidlaw also said that: 'We wanted Inquisition to be the one which people would point to and say, 'they've found their feet. They've finally nailed down what this series is about.' Not that this locks us down or shackles us in any way, it just makes a clear statement on the priorities."

(from: http://www.eurogamer...s-of-dragon-age)

 

Anyway, it really depends what you mean a "template" - I myself have already explained that continuing with DAI's storyline or arcs introduced in it (including major ones) doesn't mean that the next game has to be a carbon copy of the previous one.

Nothing stops them from expanding on the ideas they've introduced, but in some sort of new spin on it. Shifting the focus from building an organization to reshaping it and using them more as a spy network than a military force. Focusing more on investigation and discovery that building alliances. Dealing with different sets of conflict and different kinds of enemies. Being more of a side of a conflict than a vindicated hero with a clear mission. Possible inclusion of more than one protagonist.

 

With what they've given us in DAI - and especially Trespasser - the possibilities are numerous and many of them are petty exciting, IMO.

 

In any case - we're yet to see what they'e going to do. So far it seems that the game haven't even been greenlit yet, though I don't think they're in any danger when it comes to that.

[midnight tea]

Seriously, the story must be self-contained. 

 

No it doesn't. It's weird to even suggest that it should be, given that we know clearly that DA was never a self-contained story; it was pretty much always one that was reliant not just on things that happened in past games, but also presented in different mediums.

 

And just because it would be advisable to reach for different mediums or play previous games doesn't yet means that it's bad.

While I'm not arguing that some plot elements or character could perhaps be introduced better or given more information about, the open, multi-media, multi-series story doesn't owe anyone to give all the information on a silver platter in every story chapter: on the contrary, it actively encourages people to reach for all other chapters and installments, which is not only pretty smart in terms of business, but it also makes a larger point about human perception (as in, our perception of characters or events) being shaped by how much we know, or how much we decide to know.

 

Personally I think it's brilliant - not only it requires using one's brain and some time and dedication to investigate, it means that each chapter in the story is different depending on what we read or play, or what we've previously known or don't yet know. Personally I'm actually pretty stoked with the prospect that people who didn't play DAI prior to DA4 will likely have a pretty different view on Solas or Inquisitor or Thedas than those who played Inquisition.

 

In other words - Dragon Age isn't the Elder Scrolls. If you want to have a self-contained story, go play TES (which I have nothing against, I love TES franchise in fact; I'm just making an observation on the significant differences between franchises and stories they present in each game).

[Medhia_Nox]

@midnight tea:  I think you're missing the point when I say "self-contained". 

 

It is not the fact that Corypheus was a puppet of Solas.  That's a perfectly fine story.  

But Corypheus lacks anima.  He doesn't carry the story well on his own.  When revealed AS the missing piece to a larger story he makes more sense... but this is very poor storytelling.

 

Corypheus should have carried DA:I on his own.  I think Corypheus was tragic not because he was used by o'le bald rat face... but because he was not used enough by the writers.  The character carries with it so much more than Solas ever could simply because we have been inundated with "Maker" "Golden City" "Black City" "Blight" and "Magisters" since the opening scenes of DA:O.  

 

I am personally against Tresspasser... as I feel it undermines the story and ONLY feels so good for people because it finally adds gravitas to the tale.  Tresspasser is the first time you feel like the things you are doing have any bearing on the greater whole.  

 

But the game should have ended with Solas disappearing and nothing more (like he does in the original game).  Poor DA:I was already trying to get to DA:4 before Corypheus' body was atomized. 

 

DA:2 was terrible for being just an interlude for DA:I... and while DA:I recovered... it still suffered from the same poor story pacing.

 

The entire problem with DA:I... is that we're talking about Solas now and not Corypheus. 

 

((NOTE: I still enjoyed DA:I - but I'm not going to say that the story was well written as far as pacing goes.))