821 réponses à ce sujet

[correctamundo]

She is only with 1 templar at night in a very dangerous city district in a abandoned building , so chances of Hawke being Caught are pretty much close to zero.

 

Unless she's got a dead man's switch.

[Al Foley]

Unless she's got a dead man's switch.

In what sense?

[correctamundo]

The classic one with a letter to be opened in case of death. Or some such. Then again she may not. However, Hawke cannot be sure.

[Al Foley]

The classic one with a letter to be opened in case of death. Or some such. Then again she may not. However, Hawke cannot be sure.

oh something else I had not considered.  

 

You know whoever said Forums are an entire waste of time does not spend any time around these threads.     Such good discussion about good literary content and bad, its giving me ideas. 

[Mr Fixit]

In what sense?

 

She obviously may have played Shadowrun. Duh!

[TheKomandorShepard]

Unless she's got a dead man's switch.

Would be irrelevant because there would be no evidence of pointing to Hawke killing her after all she was at night in very dangerous city district , then there would come up question of what she was doing there at night in first place and how she would pin blame on Hawke, and well there is matter she expected Hawke to be dead as it was her plan.

[correctamundo]

Would be irrelevant because there would be no evidence of pointing to Hawke killing her after all she was at night in very dangerous city district , then there would come up question of what she was doing there at night in first place and how she would pin blame on Hawke, and well there is matter she expected Hawke to be dead as it was her plan.

 

Ah, yes. In your mind you've just created the foolproof plan that never can go wrong. And then "reality" hits and the house of cards crumbles.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Ah, yes. In your mind you've just created the foolproof plan that never can go wrong. And then "reality" hits and the house of cards crumbles.

Me or Petrice? If me it isn't even plan just common sense as she wouldn't be able successfully pin blame for her death on Hawke without pretty much exposing what she did and then tiny chances that Hawke would have been prosecuted for stopping person that wanted start war that kirkwall didn't want, and then as i said she didn't seem to expect Hawke return.

[Linkenski]

I thought the game was masturbatory in a bad way. I liked its concept and most systems but the Power system ended up being nothing but a high-score just like War EMS in ME3 and overall the story was totally underwhelming and forgettable.

 

Again, it was masturbatory, constantly making all the characters circlejerk about the Inquisitor.

 

"Oh, player, you're so amazing, our apologies ~ Bioware"

 

It felt dishonest and farcical to me.

[vbibbi]

Yeah, but I'm always reminded of the key problem with the Inquisition doing such things ... they are fundamentally a volunteer organization (with a few exceptions for conscription) that are funded primarily by donations from the corresponding governments of Fereldon and Orlais, along with contributions from Nobility.  They are only giving that to you due to the good faith you've earned through your supportive actions, if you start down the "fear" route there could be some pretty big narrative problems.  Like its hard to scare the very people who are your life lines for funding.  They would simply cut you off and then you would have one of two options. Intimidate them into giving you money, or taking it by force ... and then how would your army of volunteers react to that?  

 

The strange thing is one of the main reasons that the Inquisitor does come off as so restrictive is because the Inquisition itself was so restricted.  Its hard to run an organization when your broke and its hard to generate your own currency without land.  As a result it is an organization almost exclusively run by donations and private funding and therefore only really had any power at all while it was seen as useful to it's backers.  Two years after the Breach and with the relevance of the Inquisition waning heavily, Orlais, the Chantry, and Fereldon have you by the financial short hairs ... leaving the Quizzy with very few options. 

As the game exists now it would be difficult for a ruthless!Inquisitor to run the show, but if Bio had actually implemented this path they could have easily found a way to make it work. I mean...they developed the entire game, if they wanted to make a ruthless path, they could have done so.

 

It would involve embracing the role of a religious figure many people had already attributed to us after stabilizing the Breach. Build on that faith, fear of the world ending, uncertainty, etc. The cult in the Hinterlands already hints at the possibilities but it goes nowhere.

 

Some ideas I can think of: a questline with Josephine and/or Vivienne to convert nobles to our new Heraldic Andrastean faith. Converting them is possible while the Orlesian Civil War is tearing the country apart and nobles are becoming disillusioned with both Celene and Gaspard. In Fereldan, many nobles are resentful of the monarch(s) granting refuge to mages in Redcliffe and subsequently a Tevinter magister. We could add in their fear if the Venatori fire ship burns down Denerim as a reason why they look to someone else for leadership.

 

If the fort system was revamped, we could make it so that when we capture a fort, we actually take over the trading route rather than just get information, etc.

 

There could be a questline involving the Chantry at Val Royeux, slandering their reputation or spreading dissent as to how weak and powerless they are with all of their senior leaders dead.

 

We could actually interact with the Freemen instead of just kill them. Promise them their own lands in the Dales if they fought for us, join them to our army.

 

I think there is already a lot of source material to work with which could allow for a tyrant!Inquisitor. Heck, the concept art indicates that Bio considered it at some point

Spoiler

I thought the game was masturbatory in a bad way.

No such thing!

[CardButton]

As the game exists now it would be difficult for a ruthless!Inquisitor to run the show, but if Bio had actually implemented this path they could have easily found a way to make it work. I mean...they developed the entire game, if they wanted to make a ruthless path, they could have done so.

 

It would involve embracing the role of a religious figure many people had already attributed to us after stabilizing the Breach. Build on that faith, fear of the world ending, uncertainty, etc. The cult in the Hinterlands already hints at the possibilities but it goes nowhere.

 

Some ideas I can think of: a questline with Josephine and/or Vivienne to convert nobles to our new Heraldic Andrastean faith. Converting them is possible while the Orlesian Civil War is tearing the country apart and nobles are becoming disillusioned with both Celene and Gaspard. In Fereldan, many nobles are resentful of the monarch(s) granting refuge to mages in Redcliffe and subsequently a Tevinter magister. We could add in their fear if the Venatori fire ship burns down Denerim as a reason why they look to someone else for leadership.

 

If the fort system was revamped, we could make it so that when we capture a fort, we actually take over the trading route rather than just get information, etc.

 

There could be a questline involving the Chantry at Val Royeux, slandering their reputation or spreading dissent as to how weak and powerless they are with all of their senior leaders dead.

Hmm ... but again and again I'm reminded of the practical issues surrounding such a play-style.  

 

How would the Inquisition get funding?  Presumably through your disillusioned zealots or through conquest.  

 

Who would be your army?  Surely large portions of the Inquisition cast (and the forces themselves) would have nothing to do with you if you proved yourself a Tyrannical Despot, which of course could only start happening after the fall of Haven (you'd have to play nice before you were put in charge).  Cullen, Mother Giselle, Sera, Verric and perhaps even Dorian and Blackwall would hate your for being a Tyrant.  Lelliana and Cassy would hate you for disavowing and attempting destruction of the Chantry.  Solas will hate you for playing at god.  Josey would hate you for being a warmonger.  If the hordes of people leaving around you were too severe and threatened failure Bull would advise the Qunari to deal with things themselves ... so that just leaves you with Cole?    Many of them may even try to remove your from power or assassinate you themselves.

 

If you still had sufficient forces (that you could not initially fund nor feed before you began your crusade/conquest) how would you then deal with the combined forces of Orlais (admittedly weakened by Civil War) and Fereldon?  Would they put aside their present issues to clash against a religious radical and his horde of raving zealot psychotics + mercenaries such as the Freemen of the Dales first?  If you were deeply entrenched in your conflict against the Chantry, Orlais and Fereldon (literal war or not) would you still have the resources and man power needed to also deal with Corypheus?  That is an absurd amount of fronts you'd be fighting on (literally and figuratively).

 

It seems like in order facilitate this type of play it would require "Darkspawn Chronicles" levels of retconning to achieve ... 

[Al Foley]

Hmm ... but again and again I'm reminded of the practical issues surrounding such a play-style.  

 

How would the Inquisition get funding?  Presumably through your disillusioned zealots or through conquest.  

 

Who would be your army?  Surely large portions of the Inquisition cast (and the forces themselves) would have nothing to do with you if you proved yourself a Tyrannical Despot, which of course could only start happening after the fall of Haven (you'd have to play nice before you were put in charge).  Cullen, Mother Giselle, Sera, Verric and perhaps even Dorian and Blackwall would hate your for being a Tyrant.  Lelliana and Cassy would hate you for disavowing and attempting destruction of the Chantry.  Solas will hate you for playing at god.  Josey would hate you for being a warmonger.  If the hordes of people leaving around you were too severe and threatened failure Bull would advise the Qunari to deal with things themselves ... so that just leaves you with Cole?    Many of them may even try to remove your from power or assassinate you themselves.

 

If you still had sufficient forces (that you could not initially fund nor feed before you began your crusade/conquest) how would you then deal with the combined forces of Orlais (admittedly weakened by Civil War) and Fereldon?  Would they put aside their present issues to clash against a religious radical and his horde of raving zealot psychotics + mercenaries such as the Freemen of the Dales first?  If you were deeply entrenched in your conflict against the Chantry, Orlais and Fereldon (literal war or not) would you still have the resources and man power needed to also deal with Corypheus?  That is an absurd amount of fronts you'd be fighting on (literally and figuratively).

 

It seems like in order facilitate this type of play it would require "Darkspawn Chronicles" levels of retconning to achieve ... 

Her hoarde of raving zealots thank you very much.

[correctamundo]

Hmm ... but again and again I'm reminded of the practical issues surrounding such a play-style.  

 

How would the Inquisition get funding?  Presumably through your disillusioned zealots or through conquest.  

 

Who would be your army?  Surely large portions of the Inquisition cast (and the forces themselves) would have nothing to do with you if you proved yourself a Tyrannical Despot, which of course could only start happening after the fall of Haven (you'd have to play nice before you were put in charge).  Cullen, Mother Giselle, Sera, Verric and perhaps even Dorian and Blackwall would hate your for being a Tyrant.  Lelliana and Cassy would hate you for disavowing and attempting destruction of the Chantry.  Solas will hate you for playing at god.  Josey would hate you for being a warmonger.  If the hordes of people leaving around you were too severe and threatened failure Bull would advise the Qunari to deal with things themselves ... so that just leaves you with Cole?    Many of them may even try to remove your from power or assassinate you themselves.

 

If you still had sufficient forces (that you could not initially fund nor feed before you began your crusade/conquest) how would you then deal with the combined forces of Orlais (admittedly weakened by Civil War) and Fereldon?  Would they put aside their present issues to clash against a religious radical and his horde of raving zealot psychotics + mercenaries such as the Freemen of the Dales first?  If you were deeply entrenched in your conflict against the Chantry, Orlais and Fereldon (literal war or not) would you still have the resources and man power needed to also deal with Corypheus?  That is an absurd amount of fronts you'd be fighting on (literally and figuratively).

 

It seems like in order facilitate this type of play it would require "Darkspawn Chronicles" levels of retconning to achieve ... 

 

I kind of feel that such a situation would only lead to chaos in Orlais and we already know the answer to that one.

[CardButton]

I kind of feel that such a situation would only lead to chaos in Orlais and we already know the answer to that one.

Orlais collapses and Cory takes over the world, good times. :3

[Al Foley]

*drinks the blood from the nearest virgin* 

[dantares83]

omg!

 

just finished the descent and trespasser. took me a long time but i was really busy lately.

 

the descent was ok, nothing special, much like jaws dlc.

 

but the trespasser! it is so good! i love the ending! and also the credits when Cassandra is speaking. i think she is my fav character of all time (before that was Alistair and Morrigan).

[Dabrikishaw]

As the game exists now it would be difficult for a ruthless!Inquisitor to run the show, but if Bio had actually implemented this path they could have easily found a way to make it work. I mean...they developed the entire game, if they wanted to make a ruthless path, they could have done so.

 

It would involve embracing the role of a religious figure many people had already attributed to us after stabilizing the Breach. Build on that faith, fear of the world ending, uncertainty, etc. The cult in the Hinterlands already hints at the possibilities but it goes nowhere.

 

Some ideas I can think of: a questline with Josephine and/or Vivienne to convert nobles to our new Heraldic Andrastean faith. Converting them is possible while the Orlesian Civil War is tearing the country apart and nobles are becoming disillusioned with both Celene and Gaspard. In Fereldan, many nobles are resentful of the monarch(s) granting refuge to mages in Redcliffe and subsequently a Tevinter magister. We could add in their fear if the Venatori fire ship burns down Denerim as a reason why they look to someone else for leadership.

 

If the fort system was revamped, we could make it so that when we capture a fort, we actually take over the trading route rather than just get information, etc.

 

There could be a questline involving the Chantry at Val Royeux, slandering their reputation or spreading dissent as to how weak and powerless they are with all of their senior leaders dead.

 

We could actually interact with the Freemen instead of just kill them. Promise them their own lands in the Dales if they fought for us, join them to our army.

 

I think there is already a lot of source material to work with which could allow for a tyrant!Inquisitor. Heck, the concept art indicates that Bio considered it at some point

Spoiler

No such thing!

I just don't see the point of this. What would "slandering" the Chantry mean when it's still going to be around afterwards? What's the appeal in playing a ruthless Inquisitor when you lose your powerbase in 2 years?

[Al Foley]

I just don't see the point of this. What would "slandering" the Chantry mean when it's still going to be around afterwards? What's the appeal in playing a ruthless Inquisitor when you lose your powerbase in 2 years?

Which you do not know that you are going to lose your powerbase in 2 years. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

Which you do not know that you are going to lose your powerbase in 2 years. 

Considering that Inquistor didn't secure his power it was pretty much obvious at least for me that Inqustior won't maintain position of power he held.If game allowed us play truly self-centred and power-hungry Inquistor it would allow inquistor to force himself on divine seat when he had opportunity.

[robertthebard]

Novels with mage/templar war (Asunder) were written after dragon age 2 and loosely refer to da 2 events and even have own canon implemented.None of what you said excuses stupidity of da 2 plot.

 

 

One would think that you would check if you are correct , but sadly i see it is too much. Here have meaning of term gave over.No, once again you wouldn't unless you think finishing the game is losing it.

 

 

 

I see you have same problem processing what other people are talking about. In first place as i said forcing protagonist to do something that makes sense in order to move game forward isn't equal to forcing protagonist to do idotic things in order to move game forward.

 

No its not reasonable , by that point we may have achieved protagonist goal to get 50 sovereigns so there is no reason for protagonist to do things , plus game taking away only sane option to kill Petrice after what she have done and shown who she was is another thing.

We have your meaning of the term given.  Based on your interpretation of events in DA 2, and Origins, and likely DA I, I'm just going to have to reject it.  I've been PC gaming since Doom and Quake were freeware.  My first copy of the Wolfenstein game was on a 5 and a half in floppy disc.  I understand game over, it means that the game is over, there is no other interpretation.  It doesn't matter if it's over because you win, or because you "lost", it's over.  Choosing to not participate in the provided content, such as my previous examples from Origins, or event in DA 2 does mean that you "lose", and will result in a Game Over screen, because, quite frankly, the game is over.

[Dabrikishaw]

Which you do not know that you are going to lose your powerbase in 2 years. 

At the time of the game's release I didn't, but now I just accept that Inquisition is about restoring the status quo in Southern Thdes, learning important Elf and Dwarf lore, and setting up the Qunari-Tevinter War for the next game. That's all that's really relevant.

 

You're plenty capable of being ruthless in your choices and dialogue already. Given the lack of a real ability to alter the south, I acknowledge the merit in adding more roleplaying options as long as that's clear.

[Al Foley]

At the time of the game's release I didn't, but now I just accept that Inquisition is about restoring the status quo in Southern Thdes, learning important Elf and Dwarf lore, and setting up the Qunari-Tevinter War for the next game. That's all that's really relevant.

 

You're plenty capable of being ruthless in your choices and dialogue already. Given the lack of a real ability to alter the south, I acknowledge the merit in adding more roleplaying options as long as that's clear.

But the point is no one within the narrative does.  No one in that game's world has a crystal ball able to tell the future.  As for not changing the South is concerned the Inquisitor/ Inquisition has by far and away the most input on the South then the previous two games.  Not the least of which is concerned who the ruler of Orlais is which has severe implications. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

We have your meaning of the term given.  Based on your interpretation of events in DA 2, and Origins, and likely DA I, I'm just going to have to reject it.  I've been PC gaming since Doom and Quake were freeware.  My first copy of the Wolfenstein game was on a 5 and a half in floppy disc.  I understand game over, it means that the game is over, there is no other interpretation.  It doesn't matter if it's over because you win, or because you "lost", it's over.  Choosing to not participate in the provided content, such as my previous examples from Origins, or event in DA 2 does mean that you "lose", and will result in a Game Over screen, because, quite frankly, the game is over.

Obviously you still don't understand what term game over means despite i provided link to it its established definition and insist on using your own definition, what is pointless as you should use terms with it commonly established definition not prescribe your own definition as if done by people would create absolute chaos when it comes to communication.   

[Addictress]

*drinks the blood from the nearest virgin*

What

[Al Foley]

What

Oh sorry, was this yours?