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.
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.
I prefer making metagame arguments, nothing personal just how I like to operate.
And Inquisition is pretty clear about being pro-status quo, restoring order, and keeping the same powers that be that have always existed. Tearing down the current establishment is just something you cannot do. You certainly cannot be an agent of real change, everything you do is about fixing what was broke. It's pure personal preference who you want ruling Orlais, because the point is keeping all the possible rulers alive not letting them die and taking over yourself. The Circle of Magi and The Fraternity of Enchanters both exist, regardless of whatever you did with the Divine or mages and Templars. Bioware does all this because it's easier to make sequels that way.
The only thing I enjoyed in this game was my beautiful Elves. Sera could be funny sometimes, and the romance between Lavellan and Solas was almost worth the cost of the game (ALMOST). Other than that, I would put this at the bottom of the 3 games. Combat is horribly boring if not generic. No skill required in any sense of the word. Harder difficulty simple means enemies have ridiculous amounts of health but of course your skills don't scale nearly as well, so every fight becomes a hour long slogfest. Speaking of skills the lack of actual abilities per class is frightening. Now when I say skills I mean the lack of diversity. The only variety that mages had seemed to come from which specialization you eventually took.
Aside from combat being disappointing, everything else was good if not acceptable. Music was good, story when it actually took place was good. The game itself felt short, once you remove all the necessary grinding / quest fetching the story felt really short. The game also seemed to lack features within it that would otherwise improve the experience. Don't get me wrong Dragon Age has never been about mini games, but back in Origins there were things to distract you that you didn't mind doing every once and while, like visiting the Pearl, it's funny on several occasions, and in DA2 they kept some of that spunk like when visiting the hanged man and listening to various conversations, or interacting with other characters like the barkeep, it was a fun distraction from the current game. Also quest obtaining and this is a weird one, was off. You'd be walking in the middle a battlefields and people would ask you to go find their friend, or to fetch some blankets from the enemy stronghold, or my favorite, go bring me some entrails from 5 specific monsters in this region, so i can make bait for another monster. ugh.
Most of the game was a chore to play instead of a fun adventure. Remember fun BioWare you used to have it in your games and people recognized it. I can't tell if they are taking themselves to seriously or not enough.
I prefer making metagame arguments, nothing personal just how I like to operate.
And Inquisition is pretty clear about being pro-status quo, restoring order, and keeping the same powers that be that have always existed. Tearing down the current establishment is just something you cannot do. You certainly cannot be an agent of real change, everything you do is about fixing what was broke. It's pure personal preference who you want ruling Orlais, because the point is keeping all the possible rulers alive not letting them die and taking over yourself. The Circle of Magi and The Fraternity of Enchanters both exist, regardless of whatever you did with the Divine or mages and Templars. Bioware does all this because it's easier to make sequels that way.
Is this any different from either of the past two games?
I don't see how this could be stable unless the Inquisitor never actually defeats Corypheus.
Actually the more I think about it if they really want to play a power-hungry Inquisitor they could just skip the middle-man entirely and gave us a DLC that let us play Cory. The Inquisitor succeeds but doesn't survive their stabilizing the Breach in the first mission and you get to play Cory from that point on as he gets to build and lead his army of psychotic religious Zealots, destabilizes Orlais and Fereldon, destroys the Chantry and finally takes over the world as a self-proclaimed Religious Figure/God.
I mean that literally seems like what people wanted from a "Tyrant" path Inquisitor in the first place, so screw it and play Cory instead ... it would if nothing else certainly help skip all those pesky narrative issues that come with playing an "Evil" Quizzy and oh look you get to keep your power in the end. 
You know the Inquisitor could make a few really dickish calls.
Is this any different from either of the past two games?
No, which is why I'm curious about your defense of Inquisition's choices.
I don't see how this could be stable unless the Inquisitor never actually defeats Corypheus.
No , Inquistior postion stopped to be stable after Corypheus death as it whole purpose of Inquistion. Taking divine seat before taking down Corypheus would provide Inquistor with stable position in the future and by that secure his power in Thedas.
No, which is why I'm curious about your defense of Inquisition's choices.
IDK a manner of degrees. We ave not been able to instigate a level of pure change for the sake of pure change. But when compared to the previous two games we got to make a large number of impactful choices both large scale and small scale. Sure the South is not undergoing a fundamental transformation, but...well it may be the echo of it. A whisper which proceeds the hurricane.
Actually the more I think about it if they really want to play a power-hungry Inquisitor they could just skip the middle-man entirely and gave us a DLC that let us play Cory. The Inquisitor succeeds but doesn't survive their stabilizing the Breach in the first mission and you get to play Cory as he gets to build and lead his army of psychotic religious Zealots, destabilizes Orlais and Fereldon, destroys the Chantry and finally takes over the world as a self-proclaimed Religious Figure/God.
I mean that literally seems like what people wanted from a "Tyrant" path Inquisitor in the first place, so screw it play Cory instead ... it would if nothing else certainly help skip the tons of narrative issues with playing an "Evil" Quizzy.
Actually what you suggest has been done before. In Wizardry I the goal was for the party to defeat the evil arch-wizard Werdna. In Wizardry IV the gamer got to play Werdna the evil arch-wizard.
it's a great game overall, many improvements, graphics, environments, landscapes, animations, story, characters, music, but what i didn't like at all was finding all those hundreds of rystals in the oasis to open doors, that's too boring and the inquisitor has better things to do, that kind of side activities are ok for normal soldiers or agents
Actually what you suggest has been done before. In Wizardry I the goal was for the party to defeat the evil arch-wizard Werdna. In Wizardry IV the gamer got to play Werdna the evil arch-wizard.
OMG the best part is your could write in some Love Interests for Old Cory: Calpurnia, Samson, Lucius and Fiona and have him try pick up lines in that deep Shakespearean villain voice of his! Like "Hark! Samson, thou knowesth what they say about big hands, doesn't thou? "My sweet Calpurnia, doesith thou approve of relations with older men (much older men)?" "Dearest Fiona, would thou like to try some role-play in the bedroom? I shall play the master and you the slave ... oh wait?!" LOL!!!! 
it's a great game overall, many improvements, graphics, environments, landscapes, animations, story, characters, music, but what i didn't like at all was finding all those hundreds of rystals in the oasis to open doors, that's too boring and the inquisitor has better things to do, that kind of side activities are ok for normal soldiers or agents
I do kinda wish that the Inquisition war table would have given us the ability to assign our troops to actually do some of the side quests for us.
OMG the best part is your could write in some Love Interests for Old Cory: Calpurnia, Samson, Lucius and Fiona and have him try pick up lines in that deep Shakespearean villain voice of his! Like "Hark! Samson, thou knowesth what they say about big hands, doesn't thou? "My sweet Calpurnia, doesith thou approve of relations with older men (much older men)?" "Dearest Fiona, would thou like to try to some role-play in the bedroom? I shall play the master and you the slave ... oh wait?!" LOL!!!!
"Lord Livius! Your beard is looking especially pointy today!"
I do kinda wish that the Inquisition war table would have given us the ability to assign our troops to actually do some of the side quests for us.
Or just spend excess Power on them.
It's pure personal preference who you want ruling Orlais, because the point is keeping all the possible rulers alive not letting them die and taking over yourself.
SO you should have been given the choice to murder some innocent Chantry official? How would the Kirkwall nobility and Chantry and Templars have taken that little action?
Absolutely. No one would really know anyway... just let the Lowtown squatters pick the corpses clean.
Keeping all of them alive isn't necessary, and may not even be useful.
I worded that incorrectly, but my point is there's no option for letting all 3 die and rule yourself for a reason.
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.
How many definitions of Game Over do we need? Does it not mean that the game is over? But you're right, this is leading to absolute chaos, somewhere. I'm perfectly clear on what the term means. I'm perfectly clear on what it means to decide you don't want to run part of the game, and that part of the game is tied to the story. They should absolutely add an option to do that, followed immediately by "You Lose" in about a 40 font. Maybe it should be "You lose, loser", so that it drives the point home: Plot sensitive quests are plot sensitive, and if you don't do them, you can't advance the plot, so "You Lose". I think it would be hilarious, especially reading all about it on the forums.
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 ...
As I mentioned, a big part of this plan would be to get nobles to follow our new religious sect, which like scientology, requires significant donations of cash or troops or supplies. Tribute to the living embodiment of Andraste's will who will prevent the Breach from swallowing the world.
We could make the ruler of Orlais be our puppet similar to the Briala-Gaspard option currently available. We would have to do a lot more than eavesdrop and find notes lying around, we would have to find some truly damning evidence to keep a powerful Orlesian noble under our thumb. It could even be Florianne to ascend the throne, if we convince her to abandon Cory and follow us, if we clear the path to the throne for her.
For the Grey Wardens, we already have the option to have them remain in Southern Thedas and help fight Corypheus, so rather than leave them as a war table operation, we conscript them as we did the templars/mages.
I think you're seeing this as a complete 180 to what's already in the game. I don't want the Inquisitor to grow a twirling moustache and cackle as s/he beheads all opposition. This is a more subtle difference, where the PC can claim to be seizing power in order to save the world. It's basically why the Exalted Council is formed in Trespasser, anyway; everyone is afraid that the Inquisition has gained too much power and influence and needs to be controlled/disbanded. Just in my scenario, their fears are more justified than they are as the game exists now.
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?
As others have posted, being able to predict the future is not a reasonable justification for our actions. And who is to say that if the base game was dramatically restructured to allow ruthless options, the Exalted Council might not end differently as well? All of what I'm saying is assuming that the game doesn't remain identical except more renegade responses to the current paragon options.
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.
None of the Inquisitor's dialogue struck me as particularly ruthless. Yes, we can conscript templars/mages, banish Wardens, and allow Celene to be killed. But the three dialogue options never had the emotional resonance of being an a*hole. They were all framing the identical response in slightly different ways.
Personally, I was rather fond of Inquisition, although it's still a really high-fantasy concept that feels rather generic to me. While DA2 had it's flaws (and those flaws were numerous), I found the low-fantasy quality to the story to be infinitely refreshing.
Inquisition was not as high-fantasy as Origins was, which I liked, although it still had that feel to it. The approach to faith that made up the core of the series felt refreshing. I've found most stories about faith these days are walking billboards for atheism, railing about the stupidity of "sky faeries" or what have you.
Visually, Inquisition was impressive, with varied areas and inspiring, if not overly fantastic, music. Character-wise, while I enjoyed most of the characters, I can see BioWARE has not given up it's idea of cliched characters, as we saw with Dorian, the most unoriginal and uninteresting character this side of Liara T'Soni.
All in all, Inquisition was worthy, I'd say.
Tresspasser: loved.
Winter Palace: loved.
Arbor Wilds + Temple of Mythal: loved.
Emprise du Lion: loved, minus the quarry.
Everything else, aka the bulk of the game: hated.
How many definitions of Game Over do we need? Does it not mean that the game is over? But you're right, this is leading to absolute chaos, somewhere. I'm perfectly clear on what the term means. I'm perfectly clear on what it means to decide you don't want to run part of the game, and that part of the game is tied to the story. They should absolutely add an option to do that, followed immediately by "You Lose" in about a 40 font. Maybe it should be "You lose, loser", so that it drives the point home: Plot sensitive quests are plot sensitive, and if you don't do them, you can't advance the plot, so "You Lose". I think it would be hilarious, especially reading all about it on the forums.
You are yourself embarrassing even further pal i gave you link to definition of term game over which you have ignored and clearly game over means failure in video game no as you claim finishing it.Pretty much your definition of term game over is baseless and based on your pure imagination and hilariously you insist that it is reality despite i provided clear evidence you are wrong.
It is clear that you no idea whatsoever what are talking about , first of all claming scenario where game would have allow you escape from kirkwall would lead to you "you lose" in other words game over is nothing more than inane just because your choice lead you to different scenario in other word ending of the game isn't same thing as game over. Except making different choice is advancing plot, by your logic different endings in video games are losing the game because it leads to the different outcome.
Personally, I was rather fond of Inquisition, although it's still a really high-fantasy concept that feels rather generic to me. While DA2 had it's flaws (and those flaws were numerous), I found the low-fantasy quality to the story to be infinitely refreshing.
Inquisition was not as high-fantasy as Origins was, which I liked, although it still had that feel to it. The approach to faith that made up the core of the series felt refreshing. I've found most stories about faith these days are walking billboards for atheism, railing about the stupidity of "sky faeries" or what have you.
Visually, Inquisition was impressive, with varied areas and inspiring, if not overly fantastic, music. Character-wise, while I enjoyed most of the characters, I can see BioWARE has not given up it's idea of cliched characters, as we saw with Dorian, the most unoriginal and uninteresting character this side of Liara T'Soni.
All in all, Inquisition was worthy, I'd say.
What? Dorian along with Cassandra is one of the best characters bioware has ever created the last years. As for Liara she is meant to be a character really tied to overall story of Mass effect games. Dare i say Liara is the canon love interest in the mass effect trilogy.
Dorian was good, but his side quest involving his father seemed unrelated to the world at hand. A bit like a contemporary sexuality PSA.What? Dorian along with Cassandra is one of the best characters bioware has ever created the last years. As for Liara she is meant to be a character really tied to overall story of Mass effect games. Dare i say Liara is the canon love interest in the mass effect trilogy.
Retour en haut
