821 réponses à ce sujet

[Vilegrim]

Thanks! Here are my counterpoints:

Your first point is that Origins clearly demonstrates why the Blight has to be stopped. This is true, though it's also true in Inquisition. In Hushed Whispers and Champions of the Just both demonstrate why Corypheus has to be stopped, and they do so by cleverly implementing the "show don't tell" guideline. It's bleak to see your companions fallen, corrupted by red lyrium or, in Leliana's case, the Blight. I'm also a fan of the game over screen text during those missions which outline the direct consequences of your failure. The key here is that you actually experience how crappy the world would be if Corypheus wins. It outlines both the totality of his victory and the stakes quite clearly, and it was a good choice to personalize your failure by centering the horror of a Corypheus failure on the bodies of your companions (this is also why it's false to say Inquisition keeps the darkness at a distance, but more on that later). Meanwhile, in Origins, you never see what happens to Lothering and it takes a DLC to see the effects of Ostagar. The most effective section of the game is the Deep Roads with the Broodmother for this reason: it's not just that the Blight is a threat, but that you are actually shown the specifics of the apocalypse and what will happen. Inquisition works similarly.

Speaking of showing the effects, it's simply not true that Inquisition doesn't show dark stuff or the consequences of war. What exactly am I missing about burning villages, slaughtered civilians, mass pits of dead that have risen to become undead, abominations taking over mansions and refugees, rogue bands of templars and mages killing and plundering, deserters from Orlesian armies doing the same in places like Emerald Graves, Red Templars kidnapping people and implanting red lyrium inside them to the point that one begs you to kill her? What, because it wasn't a cutscene? What about couples trying to flee bandits and being killed, a mother trying to protect her child by throwing herself on top of it before a sword through the chest kills them both? Because it's environmental storytelling, it doesn't exist? What about Cassandra's Seeker plotline and meeting the Seeker who had a demon planted inside him, asking Cassandra to kill him to stop the pain? I'm even going to specifically call out that you say we don't see the Warden sacrifices when we blatantly do in two different instances: at the Western Approach and Adamantine Fortress.

You say that it's a weakness that the Mage/Templar war is resolved early and the Breach closed. That stretch is one of my favorite parts of the game. Properly evaluating the mage and templar situation is something it would have taken the Inquisitor the entire game to get up to speed on, and even then it would have felt a bit strange. The entire game's purpose is explicitly stated as being closing the Breach and stopping those responsible. Why exactly isn't this the primary reason for choosing a side in the war? And indeed, Inquisition recognizes this. When discussing who should be approached, your advisors broach more topics than simply "who is right" (as if that's likely to be a useful discussion for the Inquisition at that point and time). Instead, more practical topics are discussed. Who does the Inquisition have the influence to approach? Are the mages dealing with Tevinter and should we intervene there? What's going on with the Lord Commander Templar? Perhaps most importantly, who would be able to assist more efficiently in closing the Breach, you know, that end of the world thing going on in the sky up there? Inquisition's greatest strength in who you pick is that it remains silent, allowing you to decide your own reasons for your actions. This is smart because motives will be complicated in what is a naturally complicated situation. Just see what a mess Mass Effect 2's Collector Base decision is when it comes to actually implementing motives for action in dialogue. Beyond that, it was a good decision to close the Breach early and then get destroyed at Haven, because it actually feels like the plot is moving. This is opposed to Origins, where the main plot sits and waits for the Landsmeet to happen. It's true that Inquisition doesn't really live up to that after Haven (Cory just sits and takes your victories with the Wardens and Orlais), but this is something that Trespasser fixes.

Speaking of Trespasser, we aren't just comparing Loghain and the Archdemon to Corypheus. We're comparing them to Corypheus and Solas. I could write more here about how Solas is the best BioWare villain since Sun Li, but I'm willing to just call this a wash.

Now, as for reasons why I feel Inquisition is clearly superior:

The game is actually about something. No, I'm not talking about "the plot" or "what happens", I mean thematically, something that imbues the events of the game with meaning outside of themselves. Mainly, I'm talking here about the focus on the character of a Chosen One and a complicated, nuanced discussion of organized religion. Simply put, Inquisition has the most mature and intelligent discussion of the role and importance (or lack thereof, if you choose to RP that) of organized religion that we've seen in a game. It doesn't posit Church leaders as either villains or saints like damn near every game out there (even well-written games such as Final Fantasy Tactics fall victim to this). It doesn't comment on whether religion is good or bad except insofar as it comments that both of those things can be true. Cassandra is the best portrayal of a religious person that you could hope for, someone who doesn't feel like a strawmen, but a reasonable person willing to see both sides but choosing to believe in faith. And I say this, by the way, as someone who doesn't have an ounce of spirituality in them. I can simply recognize and appreciate good writing when I see it. Similarly, the Inquisitor-as-Chosen-One is well handled. It actually kind of amazes me when I see people say that Inquisition sports the traditional Chosen One archetype. I'd say that perhaps BioWare was for once too subtle in its writing, except it wasn't really subtle at all in Here Lies The Abyss when they revealed that you were merely an accident, exactly like the villain says. Characters often tell you that whatever you belief doesn't really matter. The Chosen One as a religious reality is a separate question from the Chosen One as a political or social reality. As Varys says, power resides where men believe it resides, and the Inquisition is set to use that perception.

What this means is that quite a few characters in the game are actually manipulating either you or the Inquisition's followers. It's telling that after the Dawn Will Come you can go to Giselle and question her about some of these things. That scene, to me, isn't actually sappy at all, because it's Giselle making a calculated manuever to more or less brainwash the Inquisition's followers into believing you are Divine. Later, when it's revealed you aren't, you are given several RP opportunities to respond to this. Beyond your conversations with your companions and advisors, the best one is when Josephine asks what you should tell Orlais about the events of Here Lies. Do you want to lie? Tell the truth? Neither? Why? The game is riddled with these complicated questions about the central tenet of you-as-Inquisitor. What do you believe about your role? About religion? About the Chantry specifically? About the war? Does it even matter? You lament the loss of possibilities to be evil, but I celebrate finally having several viable roles to play within a given type of morality. An attempt at breadth is going to result in a loss of depth, and the Inquisitor, thanks to the focus of the dialogues in the main story, is given the opportunity to be more specific about specific topics than any previous BioWare protagonist, with the possible exception of the Bhaalspawn.

yet for all your claims we could be non-adrastrian, we had to act andrastrian, not pretend but be active members of the faith, no option to kick out the vile sisters of that horrific death cult, no option to try to save my followers from it's mutilating depraved clutches, no I had to meekly accept that I was wrong and they where right.

 

Like an atheist bound and gagged in an cult compound.

[Vilegrim]

 

 

As you can see by reading the post you quoted, I already covered all of this.  I explained exactly why the choices weren't offered, and what the presumed result would have been if they had been offered.

 

I also touched on most of this, however, regarding the Chantry Sister, it's needed to push the plot forward.  But let's look at Hawke, while we're at it, but let's look at a line from Inquisition, where, after introductions, you ask for help, and Hawke says something to the effect of "Are you sure you want my help, my advice nearly destroyed Kirkwall".  This is another example of missing the subtext:  Hawke wasn't cut out to be a "save the world" hero.  Hawke was always in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time.  That's all it was, and all it will ever be.

 

 

No, that was not a solution, Orzimar was stale mated, they would have fallen into civil war, you needed someone in charge NOW, and had to act, if you had stood aside and let the Templars go to it in the mages tower, you would have had at best a severely depleted shell of the Templar order that had a valid excuse not to help you,  the knights where not equipped to deal with a horde of undead and demons, or untangle what was happening, or indeed retrieve the ashes, if they HAD managed all of that you have the same problem as the templars, a spent shell of a force wounded and exhausted of no real battlefield value, the Elves and Werewolves, well the Werewolves had no reason to help and would most likely have won, or if they lost see 'spent useless force'' mentioned previously, so we come to Denerim, you needed the allies you had built up to be listened to at all, you needed the power that bought, the influence, Logain could have had a lone warden killed, eventually, but with the backing or an Arl, the backing of the Mages/templars and the backing of the Dwarven nation? Now that is someone who can walk into a court of nobles and get a hearing. 

[CardButton]

yet for all your claims we could be non-adrastrian, we had to act andrastrian, not pretend but be active members of the faith, no option to kick out the vile sisters of that horrific death cult, no option to try to save my followers from it's mutilating depraved clutches, no I had to meekly accept that I was wrong and they where right.

 

Like an atheist bound and gagged in an cult compound.

Lol this, man I have never felt more like I wanted to beat the ever loving crap out of a companion (and feel absolutely justified in doing so) than when I made the mistake with my Dalish and brought Cassy into the Temple of Mythal.  She's spends the whole time there passively insulting elven culture right next to your pc, its actually kind of amazing.

[CronoDragoon]

yet for all your claims we could be non-adrastrian, we had to act andrastrian, not pretend but be active members of the faith, no option to kick out the vile sisters of that horrific death cult, no option to try to save my followers from it's mutilating depraved clutches, no I had to meekly accept that I was wrong and they where right.
 
Like an atheist bound and gagged in an cult compound.

If you can describe a particular conversation where your character is forced to say they are Andrastian or believe in the Maker, I'm all ears. I can already think of one where you tell Cassandra you straight up don't believe: if you say during the first advisor meeting that you don't believe you're the Herald of Andraste, she asks you later to clarify if that means you don't believe in the Maker. There is obviously an option to affirm you don't, though I ended up choosing to say I believed in the Elven Gods instead.

What you're describing doesn't sound like it actually has anything to do with being Andrastian or not, though (which is completely different than being pro-Chantry or anti-Chantry). Nevertheless, you can still be anti-Chantry. You just can't decide to unilaterally scalpel off a significant portion of your support base because you hold a grudge against them. If you wish, you can just get a Game Over screen and pretend that they gave you that option, since it amounts to the same thing.

[Addictress]

There's an inherent flaw in your logic, and you presented it in this post:

Orsino didn't turn on Hawke until after, and Meredith, although well on the way, didn't go full tilt crazy until after the conflict. At the point in the narrative where the choice is made, Hawke can potentially have a sibling on either side. If Hawke is a mage, Carver can be a Templar, otherwise, Bethany can be in the Circle. This would be a motivation to join either side.

Tell me though, how many posts do you have running down Origin's story for the same mechanic? You have no choice, you either take the mages or the Templars, but you have to choose one or the other. You don't have a choice, you have to crown a king in Orzammar, and you have to deal with the werewolves. There is no option, in any of these, to tell them to deal with it and send a messenger, which should have been in there, right? There's no option to tell the Landsmeet to get their **** together and gather the troops to fight the Blight. There's no option to wish Eamon's knights good luck, and to send a messenger when they get things sorted out. Where was my CE's option to let everything but the alienage burn?

You see, those choices mirror the choices Hawke had to make. In DA 2, they're idiocy, but in Origins they're what? A stroke of genius? Here's the issue with my list of choices: All of them could wind up being a "Game Over" scenario if you don't deal with them, and frankly, choosing to walk away from Kirkwall at that time is the same thing, Game Over. All of the examples in the above paragraph could result in that scenario, but, even if you had to play out to Denerim, it's going to be game over, because your squad isn't enough to overcome the army that's waiting at the gate. It's the end of Ferelden as we know it, although the Orlesian Wardens will likely prevail, after the fact, so it's not the end of Thedas. This is the reason that narratives push you forward, and force you into choices, to extend the game. The real shocker is that this is why that co-ed goes into the basement in horror movies too. She had a choice to walk away, but then they might as well roll the end credits. This tactic also applies to every work of fiction ever made, where there's a chance for the protagonist to walk away, but they don't.

When one sets out to critique writing, one should understand how writing works, and why. One should be able to grasp subtext and what it means for the narrative in general. When one doesn't understand these things, the critique comes out "It was idiocy", which is shorthand for "I don't understand the story, therefore the story is stupid".

Thank the Maker *hugs*

[Addictress]

As you can see by reading the post you quoted, I already covered all of this. I explained exactly why the choices weren't offered, and what the presumed result would have been if they had been offered.

I also touched on most of this, however, regarding the Chantry Sister, it's needed to push the plot forward. But let's look at Hawke, while we're at it, but let's look at a line from Inquisition, where, after introductions, you ask for help, and Hawke says something to the effect of "Are you sure you want my help, my advice nearly destroyed Kirkwall". This is another example of missing the subtext: Hawke wasn't cut out to be a "save the world" hero. Hawke was always in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time. That's all it was, and all it will ever be.

[Addictress]

In Origins they made sense: You help a candidate become king because you need a stable Orzimar to send troops, you need the tower of mages to be not a demon infested hell scape to send troops, you need the werewolves or the elves (and can chose which) to send troops. You have 4 factions you need to get on side, and you do what it takes to do it.

Hawke has to for no apparent reason agree to help an obviously evil as hell chantry sister who accosted him at random and made threats...erm why? You don't need the money, and could set her on fire and go about your day fairly easily. And it gets worse from their, the 'but thou musts' build up and build up, with no real reason for actually doing it apparent, apart from Hawke being an idiot, if the motivation is 'the protagonist is an idiot' you have a major problem in a non-comic story.

Are you talking about Sister Petrice?

Are you really asking why Hawke would not get involved with Sister Petrice?

[Dabrikishaw]

Are you talking about Sister Petrice?

Are you really asking why Hawke would not get involved with Sister Petrice?

There's no reason to help Petrice if you don't care about Kertojan but the game forces you to because, as I said earlier,  of that issue with making you take certain quests even after you get the 50 sovereigns and maps for the Deep Roads Expedition.

[TheKomandorShepard]

There's no reason to help Petrice if you don't care about Kertojan but the game forces you to because, as I said earlier,  of that issue with making you take certain quests even after you get the 50 sovereigns for the Deep Roads Expedition.

Pretty much this and this is only one of many dumb things game forces you to do or just refuses allow you to do despite doing that would be something that any sane person would do.

[ShadowLordXII]

Thanks! Here are my counterpoints:

 

Need a DLC to see Ostagar's effects? You were at Ostagar; not to mention that the player sees everything that happened there. You saw the battle, you saw Loghain abandon the king; you saw the king die; you saw his army get slaughtered, and you see Duncan die. It was a dark hour where it looked like even the PC would die. Your conversation with Morrigan and Flemeth in the Wilds about what happened is an extension on what you saw. Return to Ostagar supplements and confirms what you already know because you witnessed and experienced it.

 

Inquistion doesn't have any moment that equals Ostagar.

 

I didn't say that these events don't happen, merely that there's a clear distance between the player and the event. The instances that you bring up are all treated with the same dull and underwhelming tone, mood and emotion as a casual conversation. There's no sense of urgency or stake for resolving any of that stuff because the game doesn't impress the importance of those situations. In fact, a lot of that stuff happens in Game areas that aren't even important to main plot. You could honestly skip the Exalted Plains; Emerald Fields; and Emprise De Lion and there is no detrimental effect.

 

As for the Warden sacrifices, I've already gone over this in another topic. The sacrifices here are quick and there isn't any time given to let the gravity of the moments sink in. Plus, the game quickly hurries to the next part. That's child's play compared to the Joining in Origins where there's build-up and real tension to the event. Then when Jory and Daveth die, the game doesn't squirm from showing just how painful and brutal their deaths were before having the PC himself go through the Joining and get greeted by the Archdemon.

 

And once again, the dark future is a dark experience. So is the Envy Demon's vision to the Inquisitor at Therinfel Redoubt. But it's the future and one that you prevent by going back to the past. It's essentially a temporary problem that's resolved when you return to the present. The vision is just an illusion. An illusion of temptation that serves primarily to introduce the Inquisitor to Cole. By contrast, the Broodmother process cannot be reversed; Ostagar can't be undone; nor can the Joining be erased; killing off your companions is permanent (unless the writers decide to cop out); and Redcliffe remains lifeless if you abandon it.

 

It is strange for the two conflicts that were promoted as the "Biggest Threats to Thedas" would be resolved very quickly. The Mage-Templar conflict had been built up for years from Origins to DA2 and thus, you'd think that the conflict would get some serious focus. Perhaps we could experience the Conclave? Actually engage multiple mage-templar factions and risk conflict when opposing groups are brought into the Inquisition? Take an active and willing stance on either changing Chantry policy towards mages and templars such as keeping the system the same, changing the system radically or moderately?

 

None of that occurs. The conflict was resolved far too quickly and that's disappointing considering that this war is meant to be a key event in all of Thedas.

 

I'd also have you keep in mind that Justinia did intend for the Inquisition to deal with the Mage-Templar War. But when she died from the Breach, Cassandra decided to focus on closing the Breach. However, even the Breach is resolved pathetically easy and robbed of any potency as a threat. If you're not going to do anything with these things and just put them on the back-burner, then why put them in the game at all? There is so much more that could be done with the Mage-Templar Conflict and the Breach in Inquisition, but BW didn't do it.

 

Guess that's a consequence of putting too much stuff in one game at one time.

 

That's what I mean about Origins being more focused and stronger for it. It knew that story that it wanted to tell and stuck to that story. The story centers on stopping the Blight and saving Ferelden. The PC is a Grey Warden whose moral and ethical actions are done for the sake of stopping the Blight and whether they deserve to be called a hero depends on their actions which can be challenged by various moral decisions. At the end of the day, the Warden could honestly be regarded as being just as evil and destructive as Loghain or the Blight, but they're going to be remembered as the Hero despite as anything but a hero. Thus, we have the question of whether a hero is truly created from character and action or if that's just a label that can be applied to anyone in the right place at the right time?

 

Inquisition's theme regarding faith and the chosen one is a fresh take, I'll concede to that. I also like that the Inquisitor's status is left for the player to decide even in the face of the truth and evidence against divine providence.

 

I'm just disappointed that the Inquisitor couldn't challenge things further by potentially becoming the very thing that he'd sworn to protect the world against. It would have been really interesting to have the Inquisitor be able to use ruthless or evil methods to gain power for themselves while no one else can stop them. Heck, the Chantry is currently ripe for a takeover without a leader. How cool would it be if the Inquisitor decided to create a new Andrastian faith with them at the center of power? Thus now, we have to ask the question of whether this eventuality is a result of character flaw or inevitable due to the power that all religious institutes eventually culminate.

 

Instead, we have yet another lost opportunity for Role-Playing. How viable is having half of the moral paradigm locked away from the player by design? That's a clear step backwards from Origins and DA2 where the PC had ample opportunity to step towards the dark side if the player decided that they wanted that for their Hawke/Warden. The temptation to abuse power should be ever present for an Inquisitor thrust into command of an organization that rivals a nation in strength and is worshiped as a divine figure by a large portion of people. The fact that Inquisition shies away from this possibility harms its potential depth.

 

Solas can't be considered an antagonist in Inquisition's story since he was actively an ally. It's true that he did have his own agenda and gave Corypheus his orb for his own plans. But at worst, he could be considered an Anti-Villain and we the player aren't aware of this until after Corypheus is defeated. The central conflict revolves around Corypheus and his actions, not Solas. Solas merely empowered Corypheus and that plan would have backfired (per his own admission) if not for the Inquisitor's accidental intervention.

 

My point here being that while Solas is clearly the best character in Inquisition, he just isn't an active opponent to the main conflict. He isn't an active antagonistic force acting against the Inquisition. Even in Trespasser, Solas saves the Inquisitor's life before going off to enact his plan. It was that scene where he truly shifted from Anti-Villain to Future Antagonist, but he still hasn't done anything antagonistic, he's still helping the Inquisition for some reason. I guess for those purposes, we can't consider Solas a villain for Inquisition because he hasn't done anything apart from one mistake. It would be different if Solas was doing anything to act against the Inquisition or secretly escalate the conflicts at play, but he's actively helping you resolve these conflicts.

 

How can Solas be considered an antagonist if he never acts against you?

[Vilegrim]

If you can describe a particular conversation where your character is forced to say they are Andrastian or believe in the Maker, I'm all ears. I can already think of one where you tell Cassandra you straight up don't believe: if you say during the first advisor meeting that you don't believe you're the Herald of Andraste, she asks you later to clarify if that means you don't believe in the Maker. There is obviously an option to affirm you don't, though I ended up choosing to say I believed in the Elven Gods instead.

What you're describing doesn't sound like it actually has anything to do with being Andrastian or not, though (which is completely different than being pro-Chantry or anti-Chantry). Nevertheless, you can still be anti-Chantry. You just can't decide to unilaterally scalpel off a significant portion of your support base because you hold a grudge against them. If you wish, you can just get a Game Over screen and pretend that they gave you that option, since it amounts to the same thing.

 

 

or I could just not play again or buy any DLC, which is the option I have taken.  Every character says things like 'thank the maker' for instance, regardless of what you said about faith.  

[The Baconer]

There's no reason to help Petrice if you don't care about Kertojan but the game forces you to because, as I said earlier,  of that issue with making you take certain quests even after you get the 50 sovereigns and maps for the Deep Roads Expedition.

 

Yeah, there's pretty much no reason to let Petrice leave Lowtown alive. But the ploooooooooot....

[AlanC9]

yet for all your claims we could be non-adrastrian, we had to act andrastrian, not pretend but be active members of the faith, no option to kick out the vile sisters of that horrific death cult, no option to try to save my followers from it's mutilating depraved clutches, no I had to meekly accept that I was wrong and they where right.
 
Like an atheist bound and gagged in an cult compound.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here, but the overblown language is probably getting in the way. What specifically are you asking to be able to do that you couldn't do?

[vbibbi]

The Chantry, Maker, and Andraste isn't the only paradigm of spiritual belief, though. Having gone through what it wanted about your role as Andraste's Chosen, it switches to examining the Elven beliefs. And what I said above about perception becoming power is holy crap relevant when it comes to the Enuvaris. So basically I see the switch to the Elven Gods as a natural progression in the game's examination of Thedosian religious beliefs and institutions. After all, I think it's strongly hinted that all the different myths are connected by ancient events that have been interpreted through history...largely wrongly.

This is also going to vary by playthrough, because for my canon Elf Inquisitor the transition is even more to the point. This is kind of why my canon is an Elf, really.

I thought the jumping from the Chantry to ancient elven/Dalish religion was jarring, personally, and not a unified theme. And if the overall theme is religious faith and not a specific religion, I would have liked more focus on dwarves and Qunari as well, then, or other human non-Andrastean faiths. I think I have difficulty in seeing these disparate themes as unified knowing that the Temple of Mythal was intended for DA2's expansion, and that DAI originally only had a human PC. Based on this information, the themes seem a coincidence rather than intention.

 

If you can describe a particular conversation where your character is forced to say they are Andrastian or believe in the Maker, I'm all ears. I can already think of one where you tell Cassandra you straight up don't believe: if you say during the first advisor meeting that you don't believe you're the Herald of Andraste, she asks you later to clarify if that means you don't believe in the Maker. There is obviously an option to affirm you don't, though I ended up choosing to say I believed in the Elven Gods instead.

What you're describing doesn't sound like it actually has anything to do with being Andrastian or not, though (which is completely different than being pro-Chantry or anti-Chantry). Nevertheless, you can still be anti-Chantry. You just can't decide to unilaterally scalpel off a significant portion of your support base because you hold a grudge against them. If you wish, you can just get a Game Over screen and pretend that they gave you that option, since it amounts to the same thing.

We don't have to be Andrastean, but we do have to obey Chantry doctrine. We can say we don't like the Chantry...and then we still act within the Inquisition, an organization begun by the late Divine. There are no choices, it's flavor text that has no consequences. We should have had the option to work against the Inquisition's original goals while still defeating Cory. Basically this:

 

 

Instead, we have yet another lost opportunity for Role-Playing. How viable is having half of the moral paradigm locked away from the player by design? That's a clear step backwards from Origins and DA2 where the PC had ample opportunity to step towards the dark side if the player decided that they wanted that for their Hawke/Warden. The temptation to abuse power should be ever present for an Inquisitor thrust into command of an organization that rivals a nation in strength and is worshiped as a divine figure by a large portion of people. The fact that Inquisition shies away from this possibility harms its potential depth.

[AlanC9]

or I could just not play again or buy any DLC, which is the option I have taken.  Every character says things like 'thank the maker' for instance, regardless of what you said about faith.

Every character? That's simply wrong. Most of the characters are Andrastian, sure, but that's just a fact of the setting. Some are not.

Anyway, saying "thank the Maker" doesn't mean much. I may say "Oh, my God" in a disgusted tone when, say, reading an idiotic post, but that doesn't mean I'm any kind of believer.

[AlanC9]

I
We don't have to be Andrastean, but we do have to obey Chantry doctrine. We can say we don't like the Chantry...and then we still act within the Inquisition, an organization begun by the late Divine. There are no choices, it's flavor text that has no consequences. We should have had the option to work against the Inquisition's original goals while still defeating Cory. Basically this:

How could that work? I'm in favor of giving players ways to fail, but I can't see a way to implement this policy and succeed.

Edit: But, yeah, there is a problem between the defeat of Corypheus and Trespasser. Some Inquisitors would want to blow up the Inquisition then. Note that this is the exact same RP problem as DA:A introduces, now that it's canonical that surviving Wardens stayed with the Order.

[Addictress]

There's no reason to help Petrice if you don't care about Kertojan but the game forces you to because, as I said earlier, of that issue with making you take certain quests even after you get the 50 sovereigns and maps for the Deep Roads Expedition.

Is everyone insane? It's perfectly reasonable for Hawke to want to help. Not only is the introduction of a mutilated saarebas being escorted out of a city occupied by qunari an intriguing quest, yes it is a plot point.

Because this is not an mmo and *GASPS* IT IS A STORY WITH. FACKING PLOT

OH NOES!

A GAME WITH A PLOT? DESTROY IT
WE WANT MINDLESS CRAP PLEASE

[Iakus]

I thought the jumping from the Chantry to ancient elven/Dalish religion was jarring, personally, and not a unified theme. And if the overall theme is religious faith and not a specific religion, I would have liked more focus on dwarves and Qunari as well, then, or other human non-Andrastean faiths. I think I have difficulty in seeing these disparate themes as unified knowing that the Temple of Mythal was intended for DA2's expansion, and that DAI originally only had a human PC. Based on this information, the themes seem a coincidence rather than intention.

 

I'd say the theme is broader than that.  It's about faith in general.  Faith in the Maker, in chance, in the Creators.  Even faith in Corypheus.  How much do you believe?  Is there anyone watching out for you?  Are you on your own?  Is that person really a god?  Or something else?  How do you even define a "god"?

 

And even if there is, is it a good thing?  The Maker appears to be absent (or if he is out there, he's very very subtle).  But Corypheus is there to fill the position.  I don't think you want to have to pray to him though

 

Then there's Solas, who wants to fix everything, at a very high price...

[Dabrikishaw]

Is everyone insane? It's perfectly reasonable for Hawke to want to help. Not only is the introduction of a mutilated saarebas being escorted out of a city occupied by qunari an intriguing quest, yes it is a plot point.

Because this is not an mmo and *GASPS* IT IS A STORY WITH. FACKING PLOT

OH NOES!

A GAME WITH A PLOT? DESTROY IT
WE WANT MINDLESS CRAP PLEASE

What did I do to deserve a cheap strawman attack? Please use an actual argument next time.

[AlanC9]

I'd say the theme is broader than that.  It's about faith in general.  Faith in the Maker, in chance, in the Creators.  Even faith in Corypheus.  How much do you believe?  Is there anyone watching out for you?  Are you on your own?  Is that person really a god?  Or something else?  How do you even define a "god"?
 
And even if there is, is it a good thing?  The Maker appears to be absent (or if he is out there, he's very very subtle).  But Corypheus is there to fill the position.  I don't think you want to have to pray to him though
 
Then there's Solas, who wants to fix everything, at a very high price...

Maybe we should describe the theme as the absurdity of belief?

[robertthebard]

Very simple term game over in video games almost always refers to losing game so you rather have no idea what you are talking about. No you don't apply my logic you apply own "insane troll logic" and try to push it under my name as i said That if origins did X and it is fine (because x was perfectly justified) doesn't mean that if Da 2 did X it is fine (where X makes no sense) .Even other people called you out on doing that so you are one who messed up not me.  

 

 

 

Once again not giving choices that would move you away from main goal of the game (stoping blight) isn't equal to forcing you to be an idiot or allow nonsense in order to move plot forward.

 

No it is not , unless they wanted Hawke to fail regardless and what still doesn't change fact game forces you to do something obviously stupid in order to enforce failure what is poor writing.

Hawke was going to fail, no matter what, because the mage/Templar war was already going on in the novels, at least to my understanding of the timeline.  This is another thing that gets lost in the shuffle:  The story isn't about the HoF, or Hawke, or even the Inquisitor.  The star of the game is Thedas.  We've been told this tidbit over and over, over the course of the last few years, and yet it's always lost in the shuffle.

[robertthebard]

Very simple term game over in video games almost always refers to losing game so you rather have no idea what you are talking about. No you don't apply my logic you apply own "insane troll logic" and try to push it under my name as i said That if origins did X and it is fine (because x was perfectly justified) doesn't mean that if Da 2 did X it is fine (where X makes no sense) .Even other people called you out on doing that so you are one who messed up not me.  

 

 

 

Once again not giving choices that would move you away from main goal of the game (stoping blight) isn't equal to forcing you to be an idiot or allow nonsense in order to move plot forward.

 

No it is not , unless they wanted Hawke to fail regardless and what still doesn't change fact game forces you to do something obviously stupid in order to enforce failure what is poor writing.

Actually, all Game Over means is, quite literally, that the game is over.  We get a game over screen in the form of credits, win, lose or draw.  However, if you choose to bail instead of trying to resolve the situation in Kirkwall, then you do lose.  Just the same as you would if you chose not to play the story in Origins.

[Addictress]

What did I do to deserve a cheap strawman attack? Please use an actual argument next time.

No, your argument is literally this:

 

"I'm complaining because the game forces you to do this quest. I want to just back out of this major quest which progresses the plot and have the option of not doing it at all."

 

I'm saying,

 

"In order for a game to have a successful plot, you must do X number of things that you can't turn down. Turning down the quest would be exiting the game, essentially."

 

The nature of this game is that it is a limited role-play game. Some people don't like that. That's fine. It is not an MMO. But you know what it gains by doing that?

 

God knows how much of my life in actual days Skyrim has consumed. I love Skyrim to death. But it's different, because it doesn't have the huge amount of fanfiction and artwork related to it that the Dragon Age community does.

 

So here's the trade-off.  In Dragon Age games, you enter into a negotiable dance with a Bioware writer who has pre-written certain plots and characters for you. Yes, you sacrifice pure RPG-ness, but you do gain something, which some fans appreciate, which is immersion and voyeurism. And it's not a total mindless ride. You do explore, you do make some choices. But it's not like GTA V or Skyrim where you can murder innocents freely or turn down ALL the quests, even major quests. You are forced to do some quests because you are dancing with a Bioware writer who you have to respect to lead you through the plot.

 

For me, this arrangement is good and I like this arrangement. Some people don't like it. Whatever. But you have to understand what it is - you have to understand the arrangement. Once you do, you would see DA2 is perfectly good storytelling.

[Dabrikishaw]

That doesn't justify mocking me at all, and I don't plan to sit here and be insulted for having a contrary opinion on Dragon Age ]['s quest design.

 

Find someone else to belittle, I'm done with you.

[Iakus]

Maybe we should describe the theme as the absurdity of belief?

More like the complexity of belief.  Like how different people can see the same thing and yet come away with very different interpretations of what it means.

 

We should not be strangers to that concept